Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?
Should Abortion be legal?
Opinions may be based o religious, moral, ethical, or scientific beliefs/facts.
--Apollo
Pro-Life
Side Score: 35
|
 |
Pro-Choice
Side Score: 37
|
|
|
|
|
3
points
Abortion is wrong by any measure. From the moment of conception, the baby/fetus/organism, whatever you want to call it, is human (homo sapien) life (biologically), obviously. To kill human life is murder. By any definition, killing human life is murder. In society, murder is rarely acceptable (war, capital punishment). Abortion (murder) should only be acceptable: 1)In cases of Rape 2) Cases where birth of the child would likely result in the death of the mother 3) If the baby would be born with defects or a terminal condition ABORTION IS NOT A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL. It is murder. And the manner which they are performed is atrocious. The systematic dismemberment is appalling. Side: PRO-LIFE
1
point
I don't completely disagree with you but I did want you to know that your beloved Obama has different views. "Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child" Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007 Sen. Obama received the following scores on NARAL Pro-Choice America’s Congressional Record on Choice. 2007: 100 percent 2006: 100 percent 2005: 100 percent Source: NARAL voting record, www.ProChoiceAmerica.org Jan 1, 2008 Are you going to ban me from this debate too? Side: PRO-CHOICE
1
point
Sorry to break it to you mate, but you're pro-choice, not pro-life. Pro-lifers say that, by any measure, abortion is wrong and there are no exceptions. If you say that abortion should be acceptable under some conditions (as you have listed), then you are obviously pro-choice. Let me tell you why (very briefly). 1. Even if it is true that a woman was pregnant as a result of rape (which, by the way, is a hideous act), the woman might CHOOSE to abort the baby or to give birth to the baby. 2. Even if it is true that the birth of the child would likely result in the death of the mother, the woman might CHOOSE to abort the baby or sacrifice herself and give birth to the baby. 3. Even if it is true that the baby would be born with defects or a terminal condition, the mother might CHOOSE to abort or give birth to the baby and then care for the child regardless of whatever condition the child has (that is called 'unconditional love'). Thus, your statements that "abortion is wrong by any measure" and "abortion (murder) should only be acceptable..." are completely contradictory statements. You have also mentioned, "And the manner which they are performed is atrocious. The systematic dismemberment is appalling." Is this statement supposed to support or disprove your claim? Side: PRO-CHOICE
Just a side note While I agree with your overall statement about Apollo’s contradictory statement, I think you are playing on the ‘pro-life/pro-choice’ spectrum a little too strongly considering the ambiguity of those phrases. Whether a person is for or against abortion doesn’t change the fact that a choice is being made, so saying someone is “pro-choice” is pretty vague. Similarly, I think it would be a safe assumption to say that preservation of life is a morally good and right thing for most people, leaving the “pro-life” title pretty vague as well. Personally, both titles appear to have been developed out of rhetoric more than anything. In opposition the phrases in themselves don’t necessarily contradict each other, instead they imply that the opposite faction is against the thing that the other is supporting. Does the person, who is pro-life, oppose the idea of choice or liberty? Does the person, who is pro-choice, oppose the idea of life? With regards to the topic of abortion, they may, but if that is the case than why not state the two sided debate in more definitive titles so as to not lead to argument by persuasion through clever wording? I think the whole issue ought to be reformatted without the use of rhetoric and simply make the spectrum ‘for abortion’ and ‘against abortion,’ or ‘pro/anti-abortion.’ But I don’t foresee something like this happening in the near future; rhetoric is something politics is notorious for. idk, this is just a rambling of mine, no need to respond. Side: PRO-CHOICE
1
point
1. As far as in cases of rape, does two wrongs make a right? Instead of killing the baby, why don't you kill the rapist? 2. Science is uncertain. How do you know for a fact that the child would result in the death of the mother? My greatest (and probably all pro-lifers greatest evidence) against this would be Tim Tebow. The doctor said that, if she didn't abort, she would probably die. Well guess what, she didn't and the baby was fine. So much for "would likely result in the death of the mother". 3. Well then , is murdering an already born retard OK? No it's not! And neither is murdering an unborn retard OK. I know a family (because they aren't famous, I won't mention their name like I did Tim Tebow) whose doctor said they should abort because the child would be mentally retarded. The mother wouldn't. The doctor then showed them charts of how the chromosome was messed up and the mother should abort. No the mother wouldn't. The doctor then showed them charts of how the brain was developing improperly, and how the mother should abort. The mother didn't. Turns out, this kid was so smart, he graduated high school at age 12, and was accepted into college at age 13. The problem is, your science is unreliable. You can't know for a fact that the pregnancy will threaten the mother's life. You can't know for a fact that the kid will be born with defects. It's just assumptions; assumptions that could lead to a grave mistake. If there is one thing you can rely on science for, it's that science is unreliable. Side: Pro-Life
People who do not want to get pregnant in the first place shouldn't be opening their legs to begin with! It is not the innocent babies' fault. They should not have to suffer because of the stupid decisions that the woman made. There is also adoption if it was to be a case of rape or something but abortion shouldn't be an option! Side: PRO-LIFE
2
points
First of all, again it is a women's rights to "open her legs". If she wants to, she can. I completely understand that abortion should not be used as birth control, but in most cases it isn't. What I mean is, in most cases it is rape. Most of the time her legs are being ripped open. And are you fcking stupid? Adoption?! Can you imagine if you were raped, against your will, and you had to bear that baby all the way until birth? Why should a woman have to live with that memory? Her body, her choice. Go wipe your fcking conservative a and come back with real facts my guy. Side: Pro-Choice
If people aren't ready to be parents right then and there, they should be abstinent? Assuming a person wants two kids, this allows for about two years of sexual activity in their whole reproductive life. This seems reasonable to you? Adoption is not a way out of pregnancy, it's a way out of parenting so it is an irrelevant suggestion. Side: PRO-CHOICE
If all measures and forms of birth control taken fail and a child is conceived, then an abortion should not be a viable apt ion to the mother. The risks were well known. Simply because those risks came to fruition does not mean it is the prerogative of the mother to then kill her child. Side: PRO-LIFE
2
points
I am pro life and pro choice. I don't think people should think of abortion as a viable option especially as readily as they do these day. However my belief that the government (specifically at the federal level) should stay out of it trumps my morel opposition to abortion. If we made it a cultural taboo to get an abortion they would happen less. Side: Both
However my belief that the government (specifically at the federal level) should stay out of it trumps my morel opposition to abortion With all due respect, that is absurd. Should rape be legalized because "[your] belief that the government (specifically at the federal level) should stay out of it trumps [your] morel opposition" to it? Abortion is murder. Murder should not be legal (except under extreme circumstances). Murder isn't legal. Why is abortion? Side: PRO-LIFE
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Unfortunately, the law has very little influence on whether a mother decides to go through with an abortion. Research has found that legal or not, the rate of abortion stays roughly the same. Are you joking? Have you seen statistics of legal abortion vs. illgal abortion? When abortion was legalized after Roe v Wade, the abortion statistic shot straight up like a rocket. Don't post B.S. like that. The rate does not stay the same legal or not! Side: Pro-Life
1
point
1
point
2
points
I agree considering most libertarians are constitutionalists, but this is one of the things that kind of contradicts another of the libertarianism fundamentals: Protecting Liberty. At any rate, I think in the case where one’s liberty interferes with another’s liberty, it would be right to err on the side of life. The debate at that point would then be more about whether a foetus is to be considered a viable recipient of liberty (ie personhood), and whether that liberty trumps the liberty of the pregnant individual in the rare amount of cases where the mother will die in child bearing. This is what I struggle with personally; I’d appreciate your thoughts on this. Side: PRO-LIFE
2
points
I think having an abortion in any circumstances is wrong. I know people try to justify them, but the fact is there is no justification for them. I've seen the hard truth video. They cut the baby up like it is a piece of meat. In partial birth abortions, they insert at tube into the baby's head and suck out the brain. It's just horrible how you can kill someone like that. If I were to cut up someone in the cruelest way possible, I would get the chair. So shouldn't abortionist be punished for their heinous crime as well? Now I know some people try to justify abortion with arguments like rape, or "if it threatens the mother's life", or "if the baby will be born retarded"; but that doesn't work either. here is why: 1. As far as in cases of rape, does two wrongs make a right? Instead of killing the baby, why don't you kill the rapist? 2. Science is uncertain. How do you know for a fact that the child would result in the death of the mother? My greatest (and probably all pro-lifers greatest evidence) against this would be Tim Tebow. The doctor said that, if she didn't abort, she would probably die. She didn't abort. Well guess what, she didn't die and the baby was fine. So much for "would likely result in the death of the mother".
3. Well then, is murdering an already born retard OK? No it's not! And neither is murdering an unborn retard OK. I know a family (because they aren't famous, I won't mention their name like I did Tim Tebow) whose doctor said they should abort because the child would be mentally retarded. The mother wouldn't. The doctor then showed them charts of how the chromosome was messed up and the mother should abort. No the mother wouldn't. The doctor then showed them charts of how the brain was developing improperly, and how the mother should abort. The mother didn't. Turns out, this kid was so smart, he graduated high school at age 12, and was accepted into college at age 13. The problem is, your science is unreliable. You can't know for a fact that the pregnancy will threaten the mother's life. You can't know for a fact that the kid will be born with defects. It's just assumptions; assumptions that could lead to a grave mistake. If there is one thing you can rely on science for, it's that science is unreliable. Side: Pro-Life
|
1
point
There's a lot more to this than abortions. The side you take will depend heavily on religion and culture, on personal morals. So what are we going to have, a debate on whose morals are more right? What I have the most problem is that, both changes to legalize or ban abortions would do little in developing countries. It means nothing to be pro-life or pro-choice in these places, where a safe aborting system cannot be implemented without proper healthcare resources. Half of abortions worldwide are unsafe as a result. The easiest way around this would be sex education, and promotion of contraceptives. Some unused sperm does not outweigh a generation or mutilated women and dead fetuses. Side: PRO-CHOICE
1
point
I normally hate these controversial topics that are impossible to ever reach a consensus on, but...I'll bite. I don't agree with people trying to manipulate the system, like just using abortions as a regular form of birth control. However, I do think that it is not right to tell anyone what to do with their life with regards to a situation that major and personal; while I don't personally see myself getting an abortion, it's not anyone else's business. Rape isn't the baby's fault? Rape is also very physically disempowering, and forcing a woman to carry out a pregnancy will just make that problem worse. Giving it up for adoption? Not always a simple process, and children can end up feeling abandoned (sometimes, anyway). And what about medical complications? I can't see any justification for forcing someone to carry out a pregnancy that could harm their body. Also, money and resources aren't only needed to raise a baby; they're needed to handle a pregnancy, too. What is a woman going to do if she's unable to handle that? Finally, just because a fetus is capable of feeling physical pain (which is questionable), doesn't mean it gets emotionally affected by what's going on or is capable of having real thoughts. Side: Pro-Choice
1
point
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. Side: Pro-Choice
I wouldn't personally get an abortion, but the people that know that they just can't have a kid right now should have the choice of getting an abortion. There's also another choice to consider first which would be adoption. Give your kid to someone who wants it and can handle having it. Side: PRO-CHOICE
I am actually more pro-life, but considering the debate question, I agree with the current legislation on abortions considering the amount (however small) of extreme cases where most people would consider abortion justifiable (ie rape, death of the mother via child bearing). My main position is “PRO – Preventative Birth Control,” as it seems more of a neglected issue to me then waiting until conception before deciding whether or not to have a baby. The rare instances where that choice to take preventative birth control is taken away from an individual, such as a woman who is abstaining altogether but gets raped and conceives or a couple who is not ready for parenthood and used preventative birth control according to the directions but fell into that .01 percent of failed contraceptive, In these rare cases I would see an abortion as justifiable. If a couple ignores the numerous types of birth control and engages in the act of procreation, while being well aware of the possibility of conception, then the outcome of their actions ought to be enforced on them as an act of humility on the new life they conceived. Life is (as far as we currently know) an extremely rare occurrence in the universe. To deprive a new life form of this rare chance is wrong in my honest opinion, especially when that life is of a possible sentient and intelligent species. When the option to prevent conception is waved away with a free hand out of irresponsibility, and the decision to have a baby or not is postponed until actual conception, I see it as a matter of holding the action takers accountable for those actions. Side: PRO-preventative birth control
|
