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.
While rape is a common argument against pro-life supporters, this is the reason for a grand total of one percent of abortions (and that's the highest out of the surveys). I am not 100% pro life but only due to the small amount of rape being the actual cause of abortion. All other cases involve an instance where the mother values her life over the potential life.
As we have spoken before it is obvious that I'm a Christian. While this does not dictate my decision on abortion, it does influence it. The only justifiable reason I can think of for an abortion is rape, which makes up at most 1% of the reasons for abortions. Outside of rape the mother values her life over a potential life. Since I am pro-life for all cases outside of rape I am 99% pro-life. 99% vs. 1%----99% wins
Your religion should have no influence on your political opinions. Why is it wrong to prevent something from existing? Everytime we use a condom we are preventing a beings existence. A fetus isn't a feeling and thinking conscious thing thus you are not killing any living being just preventing the existence of a living being.
At what point does the fetus gain consciousness though? The entire condom thing I understand, but at what point are preventing a life and at what point are you ending a life?
I don't think they allow abortions at the point of conciousness, regardless would you, or would you not be for the choice of abortion before consciousness developed? Are you pro choice until consciousness does develope?
I am against ending a life. At conception life is created which is different from preventing a life with a condom. A condom keeps the sperm and egg apart, abortion occurs after conception obviously.
You can redefine what living means all you want, trees are living things and we will murder thousands of them just to have something to write on, a conscious life hasn't developed yet.
Good, now this is the point where we have to leave analogy behind and explain pure reasoning, I am questioning in my head the relevance of the development of a non-conscious fetus to a conscious being, at the same time I haven't described why consciousness is the determining factor here. You are preventing the conscious life of the fetus though, not ending it? A non-conscious fetus doesn't have the ability to feel physical or emotional pain, nor can it be aware of its existence or state is is in. It's potential existence as a conscious or the potential existence of its feelings and thoughts do not exist yet to care otherwise. Just like how I couldn't care about my lack of existence if I were never to exist.
Wrong. Religion has moral values and it's absolutely righteous to include that if one is a believer. I will not be afraid to share my moral values that are objective and absolute.
Whatever the rapists cause, if a woman gets pregnant, it's not the child's fault. It falls upon the rapist and the mother obviously has to take care of the baby. It isn't her fault but what's done is done. Rapists will be held accountable. Female rape victims will have the chance to give up the baby for adoption if she cannot handle the responsibility since it's not her fault. Still though, you gotta think, it isn't the child's fault and when the child grows up, he or she can stand up to the supposed "father" and denounce him for doing what he did.
This is a very emotive topic for me. I have had some quite serious issues due to my mother aborting what would have been my sibling when I was a child. She aborted after previously telling me I was going to have a brother or sister. She told me that it was nothing more than a 'piece of meat' and getting rid of it wasn't a big deal. I was 7 years old and blamed myself for years for not telling her to keep it. For depriving myself of a little brother. I used to dream of him all the time.
So for me my feeling is I don't want feotuses to be aborted. However I realise I'm not capable of formulating my own rational opinion on this so I'll limit myself to supporting and disputing the logic of others.
Even though that was a subjective argument, it still added a great deal of insight, and while i am sure it is a painful memory, i appreciate your sharing of it.
Wrong sitara. You don't care about the lives of babies, therefore you don't actually care about human life overall. You are wrong and you remain wrong. Cry me a river and get over it, murderer. Are you trying to be a hero here? You think you are achieving something out of showing care when you know deep down you want babies to die? What have babies ever done to you? I have seen a few of your arguments and none of it, NONE OF IT is the JUSTICE A BABY DESERVES. You think you can just degrade a baby and then not see yourself as a scumbag? How dare you! YOU WERE ONCE A BABY TOO IN YOUR MOTHER'S WOMB.
WHERE IS YOUR CONSCIENCE?! WHERE IS YOUR COMMON SENSE? WHERE IS YOUR COMPASSION AND LOVE FOR NEWBORNS? WAS IT LOST BECAUSE YOU JUST SIMPLY HATE HUMAN LIFE? BECAUSE IF YOU DO, THAN YOU HATE YOURSELF AS WELL. SO DO NOT TELL US THAT YOU CARE WHEN YOU ARE PRO ABORTION UNDER THE DIGUISE OF "PRO CHOICE". YOU SHOULD FEEL ASHAMED OF YOURSELF!!!
"Man or woman, a sick mind can do anything." - Batman to Poison Ivy who claims all men are evil and need to be wiped out or enslaved.
She also claimed Batman was sexist. Yet her hypocrisy was exposed the moment she mentioned she hates all men.
"Just because I am pro choice doesn't mean I don't care" - Sitara the snowflake who thinks he or she is innocent but really is not
Oh really? I saw a nun claim the same thing yet she isn't allowed to have babies nor allowed to get married and she is wrong for being a catholic. You know what Catholics did back then? They TORE BABIES FROM THEIR SUPPOSED MOTHERS AND MURDERED BABIES CLAIMING IT TO BE IN THE NAME OF GOD WHEN GOD NEVER COMMANDED SUCH THINGS. NO ISSAC DID NOT GET KILLED BY ABRAHAM, GOD WAS TESTING ABRAHAM'S LOYALTY OF HOW FAR HE WAS WILLING TO GO FOR GOD AND GOD DIDNT LET ISSAC DIE BY ABRAHAM'S HAND! . Obviously only men and women who have never experienced abortion will support it. Those who have been through real abortion or have heard of it or have seen photos of a dead developing child WILL NEVER SUPPORT ABORTION. NEVER! PRO ABORTIONISTS ARE CRIMINALS AND THEY ARE FROM NOW ON, FIGURATIVELY BAT BRANDED AS SEVERE CONVICTS.
No human has the right to using another person's body against their will. The same can be said about a fetus after 12 weeks of pregnancy. If it is in the woman, and she does not want it to grow in her, she has a RIGHT to have it taken out. It is her body.
Not murder, just removal. If God wants the child to survive, he'll find a way regardless of the fetus's removal.
In the US a child isn't considered a child before the 12th week, that changes depending on where you are. In Ceaușescu's Romania, as soon as the sperm and egg met, the organism was considered a child. In lieu of this, I fail to see you point...
I am trying to explain to you, that every egg inside a woman is a potential life.
When having sex and using a condom, you kill potential lives, and when NOT having sex at all, you are not putting millions of potential lives into this earth.
If we stick to biology and trace the full life cycle of a human from beginning to end, we see that it begins when an egg is fertilized by a sperm, and it ends when metabolism and respiration ceases. Independent gametes are not humans, but zygotes are. To try and justify saying a zygote is not one of the phases of human life one must leave biology and rational thought.
I've been doing some research on the internet, and I know the internet is filled with outdated and false information, but I can't find anything that says the zygote can be called a human being.
Can you please give me some reliable proof of your statements.
And one other thing - zygote is the first phase of .. human, then what about AFTER that phase, is it still human?
Of what I've read on the internet, they tell me the zygote is only a small period time of the pregnancy - What I'm asking you is AFTER the zygote face is over, what phase comes next, and does that phase have any human characteristics at all? Does it show evidence of it being a human being?
I didn't answer your question because it didn't make any sense. If the zygote is the first stage in human development, then all stages after would also be a part of the human development cycle.
Out of several several scientists and doctors, you are the only one I have heard of saying that - so sorry, I don't believe you, but let's just agree on not agreeing.
The body naturally aborts the fetus if needed. if the body does it automatically if needed, then it should be completely legal prior to 24 weeks, when the fetus then live a descent live outside the womb.
Do you disagree that the Medical dictionary supports our claims that an abortion kills a child?
What about a legal definition which defines them as children too?
"the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
I just posted the legal definition of a child in the womb for you.
Our laws, for now make an exception to allow for abortions and that is what we are now trying to change.
The legal determination that it is a child in the womb has already been established by the fact that we have laws which make it a crime of MURDER to unjustly kill one.
Murder- by legal definition - is the unlawful killing of one person by another.
What? Do you know where I live, and are you sure we share the same set of laws?
But whatever - why are you trying to change that? If you don't want an abortion, then don't have one.
You don't know what you are doing by making abortions illegal, it is a terrible campaign you are trying to make.
Women who live under such laws, where abortion is not legal, try to hurt themselves in terrible ways, in order to get rid of their baby. Wouldn't it be better if she just had a professional procedure, to secure her OWN life?
I will never support your a pro-life campaign, because you are using your own personal opinions to take away the freedom not to become a parent. And that is stupid.
And seriously, you think everyone just walks into the hospital and have abortions all the time??? NO!! abortions is a serious thing, and when you are making a serious decision like that, you should be taken seriously, and there is 100% a good reason why you don't want to be a parent, because no girl is waiting for that exciting moment when her 'first abortion' is happening.
It is perfectly natural - several several species EAT or kill their eggs. I'm not saying we should do this, only that getting rid of babies shouldn't be unnatural.
And it's not like we need all those babies we abort - it's not like the human race is going instinct.
I too believe a person's rights should begin when their life does, however I do not think their life begins when the sperm meets the egg. I believe a person's rights begin when they enter the world outside the womb.
Because unlike you I take the person with consciousness in first priority.
I don't like that any abortions can ever be justified.
However, I can not deny that some of them can be (at least constitutionally) justified. The easiest example of that being to 'save the life of the mother.'
Can you please show me the legislation that states that the unlawful killing of a child in the womb is murder? Your legal system orginates from the law of England and Wales. In our system murder is 'the unlawful killing of any person' and the case law clearly establishes this to mean after birth (or actually during the process of birth in some cases). Destroying a child in the womb is a seperate offence and the sentencing is less - there is no mandatory life sentence as their is for murder for instance.
1. Your dictionary doesn't exclude a human fetus from being recognized as a child and
2. Our laws already make that recognition.
"the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
[Supporting Evidence: U.S. Code - Unborn Victims of Violence Act] (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/ 18/1841)
Why are you fighting for unconscious potential rights, when there are currently living conscious people missing them?
The 12 week old fetuses you fight for don't care about their rights - that's why their called fetuses, they can't think - unlike children, real children.
Gay rights, animal cruelty, cyber bullying or regular bullying, war, the environment, starving children without homes and lots of other stuff you could be fighting for.
These are people with consciousness, who are suffering, and animals are suffering too - why are you trying to save unconscious lives, when you could give someone a home, fill someone's stomach or something like that?
1. They are not potential rights. They are actual rights and I fight for them as I would for my own child. Mainly out of empathy and sympathy.
A newborn can't comprehend nor really care about their own rights either. But they have and equal right to the protections of our laws, same as anyone else does.
I see abortions as a greater crime against humanity than all of those other things you listed - combined.
I believe they have equal rights. I also know we don't have a problem with the children in Africa being denied their humanity and personhood. Our environment means nothing to me if it comes at the expense of our humanity and Gays are not being denied any rights in any way the amounts to a denial of personhood and a basic human right to not be murdered... so yeah. We already have laws against the sexual abuse of children... and your denial of children's rights and personhood disgusts me too.
I don't deny children their rights. I deny fetuses having human rights, not children.
The little girls in Africa are being circumcised by force - they are in extreme pain, and will be it for the rest of their lives. They will never have pleasurable sex, they will have sex while being in extreme pain and when they give birth they will be in greater pain other women who didn't get circumcised never will experience.
If that is how you grant them humanity and personhood, then I don't hope you'll save any fetuses in your lifetime.
Does the environment mean nothing to you? Are you aware of that in order to make these fetuses live is by air, water and food? Do you think those are magical? Those are our three lifesources given as a gift from our planet.
What is the point of saving lives when everybody's gonna choke and starve to death?
Gays might not be denied their right to live and basic rights. But denial of personhood is something they have to deal with everyday. They are not being accepted by most people, they do not have the same rights as everybody else - the way I see it, either you have all rights or no rights. There shouldn't be a halfway.
We do have laws against sexual abuse of children - does this mean it doesn't happen? Thousands of people work their asses of to find pedophiles and also there has to be a lot of work done with the recovery of the child.
To me, it sounds that all you care about is all lives are being born - although what happens afterwards they're out of there is less important. Things like food, water, air, personal rights, or being protected from predators.
They can die of whatever natural reason you can come up with, as long as their not being murdered - way to go man, way to go.
I don't think the fetuses mind being painlessly unknowingly removed, while we save the rest of the conscious world, consciously suffering from pain, starvation and abuse.
Oh jesus thank GODNESS - we are so blessed that they finally understand that unconscious fetuses are more important saving than dealing with the rest of the conscious world's problems.
16000 children die from starvation each DAY - that is more than four times the amount of abortions made.
3,3 in the us million children are abused each year - that is about the same amount of fetuses aborted. - Basically you save fetuses to be sexually abused, but that's not my point.
My point is, that there are so so so many millions.. billions of children starving, they are cold, they don't have a home, they don't have parents, they are not healthy, they have numerous of diseases, they are being sexually abused and some have to sell their body in order do get enough money.
I think everyone who has the time to fight for ANYTHING should fight for these children, or at least something with a conscious.
Because no matter if those things you talk about are children or not, there are billions of people suffering, each one in a different way, and you know what the worst part is? They have developed a brain, eyes and a conscious to actually witness the things they are going through.
I don't believe you are making the world better with what you do.
I believe children aids, anti-animal cruelty campaign, LGBT and CCE and other campaign who fight for a better place to live, for them who currently are facing the horrors of the world.
But what do you do? You force young women to willingly fall down the stairs, because you are trying to make it illegal to professionally get an abortion.
If you ignore conscious little children, suffering from starvation, pain and abuse because your too busy saving the unknowing, unconscious fetuses .. isn't that a hypocrite too?
You're trying to change the law with the words, that everyone deserves the right to live - well haven't I got the right not to become a parent?
And btw - what is so damn great about this world, that you want to make all fetuses witness it?
"If you ignore conscious little children, suffering from starvation, pain and abuse because your too busy saving the unknowing, unconscious fetuses .. isn't that a hypocrite too?"
Absolutely.
"You're trying to change the law with the words, that everyone deserves the right to live - well haven't I got the right not to become a parent?"
If you're pregnant, you already ARE a parent whether you wanted to be one or not.
"And btw - what is so damn great about this world, that you want to make all fetuses witness it?"
And no - I am not a parent before I agree on becoming a parent.
I am a parent when I am ready to give the child all the love it needs - I WISH more people would have thought like I did, because millions of children are brought into this world by parents who are not ready for them, and therefore cannot give them the love and care they need.
I'd rather be aborted as a fetus, than become a child to a mother who doesn't want me.
I'm not a hypocrite that uses the unfortunate circumstances of children in one part of the world as a tool to steer people away from defending the rights in another part closer home.
Yes, you are a parent if you are pregnant whether you agree on it or not.
If you would rather have been aborted? That's on you.
But it's not a justification for any mother to kill her children.
Well .. the so called 'unfortunate circumstance' isn't unfortunate. It is very fortunate and every woman living under a free-abortion law should be thankful.
You might be biologically a parent when you become pregnant - but being a parent is not just a noun, it's an adjective and a verb too.
The noun 'parent' is easy - have sex. Let's make every drunk teenager a parent.
The adjective and the verb are not very easy to handle, and accomplishing the title 'parent' as an adjective and verb is only being done by agreeing to be one, and actually be one.
Therefore I am only a parent if I want to become one - and if I don't want to become one I shouldn't be one, because I wouldn't be able to give my child a life worth living.
Would you claim that a 7 year old child could be called an adult?
No, because it isn't an adult, and claiming it being an adult is silly.
Calling fetuses children is the same as calling children adults.
I don't think fetuses are less of a human being than I am, although I believe at that age, the mother should be able to chose herself what she wants.
This life isn't very long, and the one's who are currently living should be able to do what they want with it.
A fetus is never going to miss it's life - the mother, who was conscious when she got pregnant, probably had dreams for her life, and if she had a dream where a child would stand it the way, she should have the choice to remove it.
The fetus is never going to know what life is, therefore it cannot wish it had one.
"Would you claim that a 7 year old child could be called an adult?
No, because it isn't an adult, and claiming it being an adult is silly.
Calling fetuses children is the same as calling children adults."
The word child has much more broad definitions than you are apparently willing to accept. I am a fifty year old man. My father can still call me his 'child.' Likewise for my own adult 'child.' A child in the fetal stage of their life can be and often is called a 'fetus.' But, just as the medical definitions say... they are still nothing less than a child
I don't care to debate the rest of your opinions because they are just that - opinions.
Your father can't call you his child - well, physically he can but grammatically speaking he can't.
You aren't a child, you're a grown adult, and you are his son.
If you are not willing to debate my opinions then I see no point in debating with you. You ignore the most of the stuff I say, which clearly means you don't have an answer, which makes me the winner of this debate.
Your facts aren't proven - or I haven't really gotten any reliable proof from you yet.
You have a lot of life ahead of you and I'm impressed that you are keeping your child and involving yourself with these issues at such a young age. I know I wouldn't likely be doing the same if I were 17 again. I would probably be doing the same things I did before. :)
Thank you for that - I am not moving out, I think I need some help with this stuff. Although I am very good with children - my sisters have a lot of children and I babysit them all the time - small babies and teenagers too, so I know what I can expect.
In all sincerity, I wish I could help all young women who want to keep their children. I'm not wealthy enough to do that and while I have tried, I'm not a good enough organizer to do it that way either. I have to ask - is the child's father going to be part of its life?
Why do you only want to help those who keep them? Those who don't keep them need serious help too, it is not a very easy decision to make, and they need people to talk to and help them through some hard time.
But it is good though that you help those who do keep them, they sure do need the help.
The child's father is going to help me financially, as he has a very good job. I live up north, where a lot of sailing jobs are available, and they pay very well - the downside is that he is gonna be gone for half the year. But we'll make it ;)
"Why do you only want to help those who keep them? Those who don't keep them need serious help too, it is not a very easy decision to make, and they need people to talk to and help them through some hard time."
I live by the saying "if you believe that an abortion is a murder? Act like it's a murder"
I'm not saying that I couldn't help post abortive women in some ways. I can and I have some friends who are now pro-life who are post abortive themselves. I would do anything for them if they need me. But that is mainly because they are working with me to try to keep others from aborting.
I'm glad the father is going to help you and I hope it all works out for the best for all of you.
It makes me sad that you can't see that I'm only trying to protect their children from harm (and from their rights being violated) and that I would rather they never have gotten pregnant in the first place.
Do you seriously want abortion to be considered murder?
yes.
Are you seriously gonna make it a crime, that women take penalty for?
Like I said before, we already have laws that make it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb illegally. We already have people in prison for doing so... so it's not a matter of what I want so much as it is an inconsistency in our laws that say if a criminal kills the child it is a crime of murder.... but if the mom pays some hack doctor to kill it? It's somehow no crime at all
1. Your dictionary doesn't exclude a human fetus from being recognized as a child and
2. Our laws already make that recognition.
"the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
[Supporting Evidence: U.S. Code - Unborn Victims of Violence Act] (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/ 18/1841)
1. Your dictionary doesn't exclude a human fetus from being recognized as a child and
2. Our laws already make that recognition.
"the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
1. Your dictionary doesn't exclude a human fetus from being recognized as a child and
2. Our laws already make that recognition.
"the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
[Supporting Evidence: U.S. Code - Unborn Victims of Violence Act] (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/ 18/1841)
1. Your dictionary doesn't exclude a human fetus from being recognized as a child and
2. Our laws already make that recognition.
"the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
[Supporting Evidence: U.S. Code - Unborn Victims of Violence Act] (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/ 18/1841)
I recomend that everyone use multiple sources to support their views.
When I quote a definition, it may in fact be the one that I prefer most to make a point... but it's not that other definitions wouldn't support it as well.
For me, the definitions which matter most in a legal debate are the legal definitions.
When we have legal definitions which declare that a human in the fetal stage of their life is a child... do you really expect for me to share in your denials of the fact that they are?
I recomend that everyone use multiple sources to support their views.
--simply picking definiton that fits you
When we have legal definitions which declare that a human in the fetal stage of their life is a child... do you really expect for me to share in your denials of the fact that they are?
can be said about egg or sperm <<--- pre-fetal stage of life ? no? Masturbation = Murder?
what about wasted food? Is it a murder? Because it's a pre-egg stage of pre-fetal egg that is fetal stage of human which theoretically could once be a baby?
1. Your dictionary doesn't exclude a human fetus from being recognized as a child and
2. Our laws already make that recognition.
"the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
[Supporting Evidence: U.S. Code - Unborn Victims of Violence Act] (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/ 18/1841)
"the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
1. Your dictionary doesn't exclude a human fetus from being recognized as a child and
2. Our laws already make that recognition.
"the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
Fetuses are developing children, fool. I see you've failed biology clearly. Takes 9 months for a baby to develop. A fetus is living and abortion is unjustified.
Ironically, a fetus is a developing human being, you idiot. Your argument is invalidated. You were once a fetus. Could you say the same thing about yourself? Nope.
Abortion is murder and real women who know children are precious will choose not to abort babies. Your hypocrisy is YOU ASSUME EVERY WOMAN IS AS UGLY AS YOU ARE TO ABORT BABIES.
YOU. ARE . WRONG.
END OF STORY.
Knocks out Kitara with 7 punches to the face and a round kick to the chest after she attempts to assault me for disagreeing then sends her to Women's Correctional Centre for life
I have many views on abortion. I'm guessing that you are asking if I think it should be banned. My answer to that is yes - with possible exceptions for rape and for situations where doctors deem one as necessary to save the mother's life and both lives can not be saved.
Are you pro-life, if so, are there any exceptions or are you 100% pro-life?
1. No. I do not consider myself to be pro-life in any respect other than the fact that I oppose abortions on demand. (That's one definition for pro-life that does apply to me). I prefer to be seen as anti-abortion because abortions are what I oppose. Even in cases where I can agree that an abortion might be justified... I would rather see every other alternative exhausted before one is allowed.
Pro-lifers tend to oppose War, capital punishment, exceptions for rape and sometimes, they even oppose exceptions for the life of the mother. (How pro-life is that?) I (as an anti-abortionist) can see justifications for taking a life in war, the death penalty and self defense.
That's the biggest difference as I see it. (add to that the religious basis that most pro-lifers argue from)
Are you pro-choice, if so, are there any exceptions or are you 100% pro-choice?
I am just as pro-choice as I am anti-abortion.
Child molesters make choices and while we all expect laws which make that choice punishable? No-one fights to take a child molesters right to make choices away from them.
Nope. I am not obligated to suffer for a fetus. The woman's rights matter more than the fetus's rights unless (dun, dun, dun), the fetus can survive outside of the mother. I am prochoice until viability which happens no earlier than 20 weeks after conception, usually later though.
Abortion is murder. Justify it and you're going to jail. The hypocrisy of pro choicers are they want to control how women decide about their babies. I will continue to silence feminazis who are sexists and hypocrites 100%.
"I am not wrong. The woman's rights come first. No uterus, no choice." - Sitara the hypocritical misandrist feminazi snowflake
You are wrong. There have been REAL WOMEN who have went through abortions and IT'S NOT A HAPPY ENDING NOR IS IT PLEASANT. IT IS TAKING A LIFE OF A NEWBORN BABY!! IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO HAVE KIDS AND YOU ARE A WOMAN THAN DON'T HAVE SEX WITH A MAN AT RANDOM! OTHERWISE YOU WILL HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES! ONLY MAN HATING FEMINISTS; MALE OR FEMALE WISE WILL BE STUPID ENOUGH TO SUPPORT ABORTION AFTER HAVING SEX! OH and ANOTHER FUN FACT: RELATIONSHIPS CONSIST OF TWO PEOPLE FYI? YEAH, ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. IT'S CALLED A TEAM EFFORT. ONE SPERM, ONE EGG. BOTH THE MAN AND THE WOMAN NEED TO MAKE THAT CHOICE TOGETHER AND OFTEN, ABORTION IS NOT THE SOLUTION!
YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID. CRY ME A RIVER AND GET OVER IT SNOWFLAKE! UTERUS OR NOT, IT TAKES TWO TO MAKE A BABY. ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. THEREFORE THE CHOICE OF ABORTION IS NOT SO EASY, IT IS ULTIMATELY UP TO THE COUPLE. THAT IS WHY KIDS NEED TO LEARN THAT TEEN SEX AND DRUGS IS WRONG.
So yeah, screaming karens like yourself do not get to make choices for other women. You are hypocrites, snowflakes and ignorant to a nutshell. Attempt to debate me and I will destroy you with all truths. Starting with gender to marriage to God's wrath upon your pitiful ass.
Knocks out kitara and puts her in Women's Correctional Centre
Your sentence is up to life because you condemn the lives of innocent babies. Your hypocrisy is exposed. Had enough? No?
Pro-Choice = 50/50 chance of abortion or not. But the hypocrisy is, you idiots have define pro choice as pro abortion. Therefore, the choice has ALREADY BEEN MADE. Nice try but you are going on. Ron DeSantis is justified 100% and you are not.
Baby lives matter. You were all once a fetus in your mother's womb. If you degrade and want a life of a newborn; boy or girl, to be killed, you are a murderer and you deserve to be in jail for your crime of supporting infanticide. Don't like what I've said? I will continue to bash you in for promotion of murder of infants. You will face justice and then you will be punched by common sense. A fetus develops over 9 months. Yes it's living. Once the sperm from the male fertilizes the egg in the female's ovaries, a baby will develop. Killing the fetus is immoral. Just because you think you fight for equal rights, pro abortionists, you are hypocrites who want murderers and serial killers to what? Live? Wow. The same people who support abortion DO NOT support PRO FAMILY VALUES and MORALITY!
I am more worried about health disparity and inequities. For example Black infant mortality is much higher due to institutional racism.
Apparently, white conservatives can use the powerful BLM slogan while not caring about Black infants. In other words pro-life until birth. The hypocriticalness of pro-life caring about fetuses but not infants.
You are a hypocritical snowflake, "sciencerules", your life doesn't matter above the lives of newborn babies who are developing human beings in their mother's womb individually. Your arguments are invalidated.
Pro choice claim it's "my body my choice", however, they do not understand what choice means right? Choice means you have options. Not one but two. That's why pro lifers make sense and pro choice doesn't. Pro choicers all scream, "MY BODY MY CHOICE" AND THEN CLAIM THEY ARE FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS. Yet have you ever thought about asking a real woman what she wants to do if she is pregnant? Yeah. If you aren't a woman who is pregnant or if you are a man who isn't in a relationship with a man, especially in a marriage, THAN DON'T GET INVOLVED. You pro abortionists claim you are for women's rights, yet you don't let pro lifers speak up eh? That's your hypocrisy and I will continue to argue common sense because pro lifers are common sense. Abortion is murder. Fetuses are living. They develop over 9 months. Baby lives matter. Ask real mothers who have seemingly gone through abortions. Pro abortionists may claim they care but they never will because they think baby lives do not matter. All you pro abortionists do is you want to have sex and than you don't take responsibility for the baby. Give it a rest, take responsibility AND THEN YOU WON'T HAVE A PROBLEM. But do you listen? Nope. That's why, pro abortionists are not common sense. They are child murderers with no morality. Anyone as much as lifts a finger, you will be shot down by the truth and only the truth.
Anti abortionists are absolutely correct for defending the lives of babies and condemning those who condemn the lives of innocent babies. Pro choicers claim that fetuses are never living. Right okay. But um here's the thing. YOU PRO CHOICERS WERE ONCE FETUSES TOO. Why didn't anyone abort you? BECUASE YOU WERE INNOCENT BABIES IN YOUR MOTHER'S WOMBS INDIVIDUALLY.
A relationship takes two; one man and one woman. The decision of abortion isn't as easy as you think it is. It takes money, resources and your own conscience. This is the life of an infant. THINK BEFORE YOU ACT. Otherwise there will be a chain reaction. Actions do not come without consequences.
Abortion is the deliberate termination of a pregnancy.
Arguments against abortion
People who believe abortion is morally wrong use arguments like the following.
Killing people is wrong
killing innocent human beings is wrong
human life begins at conception
therefore the foetus is an innocent human being
therefore killing the foetus is wrong
therefore abortion is always wrong
A foetus is a person
A foetus has a unique genetic code
A foetus is a unique individual
Killing potential people is wrong
it is wrong to destroy potential human life
from conception onwards the foetus is a potential human being
therefore it is wrong to destroy the foetus
therefore abortion is always wrong
Killing beings with 'a future like ours' is wrong
it is wrong to kill beings that would have a future like ours if they lived
in most cases the foetus, if not aborted, would have a future like ours
it is wrong to kill such a foetus
therefore abortion is usually wrong
Causing pain is wrong
it is wrong to cause pain and suffering
a foetus is sufficiently developed to feel pain by 18 weeks
therefore it is wrong to carry out an abortion after 18 weeks of pregnancy
Increasing tolerance of killing is wrong
allowing abortion is legalising killing
legalising killing reduces people's respect for life
reducing society's respect for life is a bad thing - it may lead to euthanasia, genocide and increased murder rates
therefore abortion is always wrong
Arguments in favour of abortion (in selected cases)
Most of these arguments are to be read in the context of the first two arguments above. People who don't believe abortion is always morally wrong use arguments like this:
The foetus is not necessarily a 'person' with the right to live
a collection of human cells does not have the right to live just because it is of the human species
otherwise amputating a limb would be murder
a collection of human cells only has the right to live by virtue of certain facts
these are either:
it has reached a particular stage of development that makes it a moral 'person'
it possesses certain properties that make it a moral 'person'
It is not always wrong to end the life of an innocent person
there are many cases where we have to choose which of two innocent people will live and which will die:
conjoined twins, where the operation to separate them may cause one twin to die
mountaineering, when one person can only save their own life by cutting the rope supporting a fallen colleague
the case of a woman who had to abandon one of her children to save the other
'Potential human beings' don't have rights
only 'actual' human beings have rights
The pregnant woman has moral rights too
under some circumstances these may override the foetus's right to live
these moral rights include:
the right to ownership of her own body
the right to decide her own future
the right to take decisions without moral or legal intervention by others
the pregnant woman has the right to life - where not aborting the foetus would put the mother's life or health in danger, she has the moral right to abort the foetus
Only people with common sense will understand it. If you don't, you are not a moral valuing human being and thus, you are susceptible to murder of innocent children.
Pro abortionists: KILL THE FETUS IT'S NOT LIVING WA WA WA.
Me: SHUT UP. YOU WERE ONCE A FETUS TOO. IF YOU WANT ANOTHER FETUS TO DIE IN ANOTHER MOTHER'S WOMB, WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT YOU? CAN YOU ANSWER THAT? DEVELOPING FETUSES DON'T HAVE CHOICES BTW. THEY EXIST AND THEY WILL BECOME A HUMAN; MALE OR FEAMLE WISE. CONDEMN A LIFE OF A BABY AND YOU ARE CONDEMNING YOURSELF TOO. FOR THE BLOOD OF THE INNOCENT INFANT WILL BE ON YOUR HANDS NOT MINE AND GOD WILL NOT PUNISH THE BABY, HE WILL ASK YOU WHY. IF YOU SAY "IT'S MY BODY AND MY CHOICE", THAT WILL NOT SUFFICE YOU AS A GOOD PERSON AT ALL. LIARS WILL PERISH AS FORETOLD FROM PROVERBS 19:9!
Pro choicers do not value human life. Just because you are pro choice, doesn't mean you are making the right decision, because pro lifers know right from wrong.
God gave us the gift and tools of procreation. Jesus spoke about how children are precious and are to be cherished. Killing fetuses aka murderous abortion is unjustified. Secularists are using the science, religious people are using moral values. Both are not without one another. In other words, it is not mutually exclusive. God and science go together because He created all things including science.
As I said before, relationships are made up of two people; one man and one woman. Men should not remain silent and women should not silence men on this matter. Feminazis and man haters will be silenced by the truth and only the truth. You are warned.
There are reasons behind why women would choose no on having an abortion. You want women to choose? Then LET THEM SPEAK! MOST WOMEN WITH COMMON SENSE AND EXPERIENCE WILL SAY NO AND YOU WILL SEE WHY. AS FOR WOMEN WHO DON'T HAVE EXPERIENCE YET OR NEVER WANT TO? REMAIN SILENT AND SHOW SOME HUMILITY.
If you think this is a game, "pro choicers", you've mastered nothing. I am well aware that pro choice is only a coverup for pro abortionist menaces aka baby serial killers. Abortion remains a crime and is unacceptable. Whether it's religious or not, people have common ground on this. Human life is precious.
You may argue that pro lifers don't have proof that abortion is terrible. But that's the very reason why we don't show pictures of dead babies because those photos are terrifying and horrible. I will testify, I have seen pictures of real dead babies due to an abortion. I will say, it is what it is. It is not a pleasant sight. It is not right. It is not justified. It is pure evil. You pro choicers aka po abortionists may think it's fake. But is it? No.
Let me ask you, is Roe v Wade justified? No. It claims that we cannot ban abortion? Than what's the point of choosing right? Exactly. Roe v Wade is wrong, that's why it was overturned.
Life begins at conception, making abortion murder.
Conception is the moment a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell, which begins the process of cell division that creates a human. [256]
Tara Sander Lee, Senior Fellow and Director of Life Sciences at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, stated, “life begins from the moment of conception when the sperm fertilizes the egg, because there is the creation of a new, totally distinct, integrated organism or a human being, which is going to be biologically distinct from all other life forms on this planet.” The first cell is biologically distinct because it has its own DNA that is different from either biological parent and all other humans. [257]
Ending a life is murder legally and ethically, even a life that is only a few growing cells at the time of death.
Pope Francis explained, “Abortion is murder. Those who carry out abortions kill…. At the third week after conception, often even before the mother is aware (of being pregnant), all the organs are already (starting to develop). It is a human life. Period. And this human life has to be respected. It is very clear…. Scientifically, it is a human life.” [258]
That people may face difficulties without abortion as an option does not excuse or justify murder. A reader of The Atlantic, who gave only the initial K., clarified the moral dilemma: “I wish that I could be pro-choice because the awful circumstances so many women face—that I can’t even imagine facing—seem so much more real to me than the rights of a fetus who doesn’t even always look human. But abortion is the intentional killing of a human being and we look back with horror at anyone in history who decided a group of people did not actually count as people. We cannot solve the problem of injustice against women with more injustice. We need solutions that support women without killing fetuses.” [295]
Con 2
Legal abortion promotes a culture in which life is disposable.
Echoing a 2014 remark by Pope Francis that connected abortion to “throwaway culture,” Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark, New Jersey, stated, “abortion represents a failure to recognize the sanctity of human life and promotes a culture in which human life in its most vulnerable moment is perceived as disposable. Such a proposal targets poor women as needing an expedient solution to a complex problem.” [260]
Tobin previously declared legal abortion a “brutalization of the American heart” on par with the “dehumanization of the undocumented” immigrants. [261]
Alveda King, former Georgia state representative and niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., also connected abortion to other societal ills: “Abortion and racism are both symptoms of a fundamental human error. The error is thinking that when someone stands in the way of our wants, we can justify getting that person out of our lives. Abortion and racism stem from the same poisonous root, selfishness. We create the deceptions that the other person is less important, less worthy, less human. We are all fully human. When we face this truth, there is no justification for treating those who look different than us as lesser beings. If we simply treat other people the way we’d like to be treated, racism, abortion, and other forms of inhumanity will be things of the past.” [262]
As King notes, some fetuses are treated as less than human. This ideology combined with legal abortion could create a slippery slope to designer babies, gender selection, termination of disabled but healthy fetuses, and other trait-selection-based abortions. The slippery slope can then extend to the mentally disabled and elderly in general.
[262]
“[A]bortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation,” according to US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. “Technological advances have only heightened the eugenic potential for abortion, as abortion can now be used to eliminate children with unwanted characteristics, such as a particular sex or disability.” [263]
Con 3
Increased access to birth control, health insurance, and sexual education would make abortion unnecessary.
Abortion rates in the United States have fallen at what the CDC called a “slow yet steady pace” since a peak in 1981. That year there were 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44. The rate fell to 11.4 abortions per 1,000 women in 2019. [264] [265]
Experts largely contribute the decline in abortions in the United States and elsewhere to the improved safety and availability of LARC (long-acting reversible contraception) including IUDs and contraceptive implants that can last up to 10 years. [264] [266] [267]
Access to health insurance to pay for contraceptives also contributed to a drop in abortions. With the passage of Obamacare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), more people were insured with access to free or low-cost contraceptives and reproductive care. [264]
Linda Rosenstock, Public Health Professor of Health Policy and Management at UCLA, summarized the simplicity of the connection: “In the United States each year, about half of pregnancies are unintended and about 40% of those lead to abortion. Access to birth control leads to fewer abortions.” [264]
Further, teens are having sex later in life than their parents. 38.4% of American high schoolers reported they have had sex (down from 54% in 1991) and only 27.4% reported they were currently sexually active (37.5% in 1991). [268]
Because teen birth control use has not increased significantly, experts attribute the decline in part to better sex education. A 2021 study found that students who received comprehensive sexual education initiated sex later than students who did not participate in sex ed. The later teens have sex, the less chance there is for them to become pregnant unintentionally, which leads to fewer abortions. [264] [268] [269]
Historically, abortion was a popular means of birth control and family planning due to a lack of reliable contraception, education, and other resources, and the fact that childbirth was incredibly dangerous. Better options are now available, including more effective birth control, better healthcare and health insurance, and sex education to ensure an unwanted pregnancy does not happen in the first place. [264] [270]
Pro lifers are pro science. But pro abortion are anti science. "Sciencerules" is the pinnacle of that example above all the other pro abortionists. He is defeated in an absolute manner. Baby lives matter.
Hypocrisy within the pro choice movement exists like how water exists on earth and like how the devil loves to use pawns in his political game which he always fails because God always wins. "Sciencerules" is only one of many under his evil influence. Pro abortionists are weak and exposed. They have zero morality and only the claim that it's the "mother's choice" and yet they deny people to be pro lifers hm? That is the definition of hypocritical. Claiming one thing but doing the exact opposite. "Sciencerules" also claims to be anti hateful but is hateful towards Christians, pro lifers and truth speakers. He is a snowflake and a truthphobic ignorant.
Pro choicers claim there is a choice right? But how when they decide babies should be aborted? Does that give babies A CHOICE? No, it robs them of life! That is the truth behind abortion supporters. Murderers will not see the Kingdom of God. The left, as disarranged as it is may claim whatever they like about pro lifers. It doesn't change the fact that the sanctity of life is precious. Mothers cherish their babies. Pro abortionists forget that they were once born from his or her mother's womb once. What an abuse of choice eh? Going against your own kind? Calling fetuses parasites?
I am pulling back the lens. This might seem off topic at first. Conservatives don't care about fetuses. They just want a way to enforce the white supremacist patriarchal status quo.
Conservatives don't care about Japanese Americans.
"incarcerate about 120,000 Japanese Americans, many American-born, in internment camps. Forced to leave behind their homes, businesses, and property, many Japanese Americans lost everything."
Erin Blakemore
Nor the Chinese Americans with the Chinese Exclusion Act. Remember yellowface? Trump doesn't care about Asian Americans.
All of your arguments are invalidated 100%. What you say makes zero sense. Cry me a river and get over it. All truths I speak of are absolute. My testimony of Jesus Christ stands.
"Sciencerules" has zero reliable sources, reasons being, he is very biased from biden's administration of corruption, hypocrisy and racism. His arguments are invalidated once again.
Clearly, you are blinded by your own pride, hubris and hypocrisy so you turn a blind eye whenever I do post reliable sources. That is why your arguments are invalidated and ignored.
You deliver false news. While Trump cares about all Americans. It's biden and his bidencrats who doesn't care. They like to lie alot about Trump and so does the media. Blind sheep like you are naive enough to believe the lies. That's why your arguments are invalidated. "Trump doesn't care" - says the leftists and corrupt snowflakes, "Sciencerules" included
That's only a toxic subjective opinion. Democrats don't care and they are liars, hypocrites and narcissists.
Trump made America great in all aspects and he cared to improve the employment rates to increase. For all Americans of all ethnicities. Your arguments are invalidated. "Sciencerules" is not only hypocritical, he is a sexist, racist and a pedophile.
Ron DeSantis is absolutely justified to overturn the toxic roe v wade "law". Leftists claim it is for the "unconstitutional ban" of abortions across the states. Yet, you can't have one side without the other. Of course there will be a balance of pro abortionists who are fools and the common sense motivated pro lifers. Near the end, it was justified to overturn roe v wade because it doesn't give women the choice to say no to abortion and it's absolutely their right to say no to abortions. Feminazis will be skinned alive by the truth and only the truth. "sciencerules" has already been skinned and will again. His arguments are invalidated to the bone.
Please don't use the word Rush Limbaugh coined in 1992. Just for starters it violates Godwin's law. This is just an easy slur that many others have used. Covid-19 deniers violate Godwin's law. Also, it cheapens the deaths of those who suffered in world war II.
Using wikipedia once again? Another strawman attack dodged. You are weak and invalidated indeed. You do not have the truth in you because you are a weak subjective toxic snowflake. Your arguments are invalidated. Cry me a river. I will use what I want. You are silenced.
4 real women talk about having an abortion. You WILL FIND OUT OF ALL OF THEM, AT LEAST ONE OR A FEW WHO HAVE REGRETTED HAVING AN ABORTION. PRO ABORTIONISTS HAVE THE AUDACITY TO SHOW COMPASSION FOR WHAT YOU'VE GONE THROUGH AND YET THEY STILL WANT KILLING A DEVELOPING HUMAN BEING AKA A FETUS TO BE LEGAL? HYPOCRISY OF THE ABORTIONIST AGENDA EXPOSED. FEMINAZIS ARE BANNED FROM THIS FORUM FOR MISANDRISM AND MISGOGYNISM.
"If you won't even accept left center feminist frequency and probably center bias center for countering digital hate then you are so extreme right there is no convincing you." - "sciencerules" the hypocritical strawman loving snowflake (Opponent on the wrong side)
"Truly truly I say unto you, if ye are not reborn from water and of the spirit, thou shalt not enter thy Kingdom of God." - Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Our Savior who is on the righteous side)
"If you won't accept that real women have gone through abortions and have regretted it, then you are clearly a human being without a conscience and because of this, pro lifers are even more justified to fight for baby lives because yes, they do matter. You clearly are extremely leftist and you are clearly ignorant and retarded. There is no common sense within you and you clearly are sexist towards men. You are a hypocrite and you are clearly hateful. There is no truth within you. You have proven time and time and again that you would rather support pedophiles and immoral toxic ideologies rather than defending the lives of human beings, especially developing newborns. What does this say about yourself? That you are no longer behaving humanely but rather, inhumanely. You will be committed to Arkham Asylum for life because you just proved yourself to be a feminazi. Nazis were leftists FYI snowflake. Cry me a river and get over it." - Dr. Batman (Follower of Jesus who is also on the righteous side.)
Here are four women who have gone through abortions. One or a few will say they've regretted it. None of my arguments have strawman to it. You on the other hand? Yep. You are what you sew. That's how your arguments are invalidated 100% flawlessly.
Attempt to say that "it's a strawman attack" and you will automatically be destroyed by your own words. I dare you because I know some of you are naive enough to step out of line. There will be zero mercy for the wicked of this world. You have been warned.
Many women say they don't regret an abortion is solely because they are affected by today's third wave feminazism. Yes, that's right. They are only saying that because they are brainwashed. All non redeemable feminazis will be wiped from the earth. Women who realize the truth of how much babies are precious will wake up from their mind controlled state and stand against the feminazis regime. To the women out there, I may not understand the pain of pregnancy but as a man, I know I would be responsible and I do not run from my responsibilities. Having an abortion is running from your responsibilities. Once you see that, you will realize how wrong you were for supporting the termination of a newborn child. Children have the right to live. You were once a fetus yourself. What does that say about yourself? Oh please, don't try to use the "But you are trying to make me feel guilty" kind of statement. It doesn't work because are you offended by the truth? If you are offended and if you are a woman, you deserve to be sterilized. If you are a man tho and you want your wife's child or girlfriend's child to die, even though you are the dad here not the mom, you deserve to be imprisoned as well because you equally had a hand in creating the child in the first place. All abortionists deserve to be imprisoned for life. Dehumanizing a fetus to a mere parasite says alot about yourself as a human being because you were once in your mother's womb. Did she not push you out and bring you into this world? If you had been aborted, you wouldn't even get to have your say and that's what's unfortunate about those newborn baby boys and girls. They could have lived better lives than all of you abortionists combined. But it doesn't matter to you about whether a baby lives right? Why? Because you are so selfish when you made the decision to have sex and won't take responsibility! That IS THE TRUTH! To all pro lifers, keep standing up for truth. DO NOT BE AFRAID!
You don't have the right to force anyone to live in this swamp of corruption and degeneracy. This isn't about a child's right to anything; it's about your desire for control. You don't have any right to decide for anybody else whether they want to live in this world. All you are interested in doing is forcing your insane zealotry down the throats of other people.
"Every villain is a hero of his own story." - Bruce Wayne in court from Injustice 2
"Sciencerules" is a MAJOR EXAMPLE OF THIS. Out of the amount of toxic comments, hypocritical strawman assaults, insults, heterophobic, Christophobic and truthphobic immature screaming, I find the accused guilty of committing crime against humanity. He certifies himself as a hero yet he proves otherwise. A true hero never has to call himself nor herself a hero. I will not say I am a hero, I will say I am a concerned citizen for the safety and security of all citizens, all human beings; men and women, boys and girls who have the common sense to know right from wrong. Those who are activists for immoral views and subjective toxic ideologies are liars of society. But they claim they are heroic in their actions. They only prove to be monsters. Bruce was right. Jesus was right too. Only a few walk the narrow path through the narrow gate of truth and life. Caring about the lives of innocent babies isn't wrong but only villains will say otherwise. Sooner or later, people will regret ever supporting abortion once they realize the truths behind it.
If the fetus isn't a feeling and thinking conscious life, then I don't see the problem in aborting it. It can't feel pain emotional or physical, and it has no thoughts about it, this being hasn't came into existence yet, being against abortion before the fetus has obtained consciousness is like being mad because Bob the person with A, B, ..., Y, Z traits hadn't come into existence. Abortion before the fetus has gained consciousness is no more wrong than using a condom, in either case you are preventing the potential existence of a human being, not ending one.
Okay, but that doesn't dispute his point. Or, if it is an attempt to dispute his original point, all you've done is an appeal to emotion. This is not a good basis for an argument.
I agree, in addition to this, I think a woman should have a choice of what grows in her body at all times. For example, if she had a parasite, isn't it reasonable for her to take medication to get rid of it?
I do not think pregnancy is that much different. A fetus shares a lot in common with a parasite.
They share many of the properties of a parasite. They do not benefit the mother, they take up nutrition, they are dependent on the host. This is debatable, however, many argue that fetuses are in fact parasites.
I am asking YOU - if YOU think a child in the womb is a parasite and if you do,... what is it that you support that belief with?
Because the science classes I had - taught me that the child in the womb is a member of the same species as it's parent and that alone is enough to disqualify it as a parasite.
I see, but that is a really weak criteria to base it on. If it does everything a parasite does and is unwanted, it truly is a parasite. If you want it, it is not a parasite. Understand? I'm talking about bad parasites.
Definition of a parasite an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
The child in question cannot survive outside of the womb on its own making it a parasite.
How dare you dehumanize a fetus to a mere parasite. You were once a fetus too. Why didn't your mother ever teach you that you are a human being and that you should respect people all around you? It just seems you would be willing to degrade a newborn baby to a mere parasite? So you weren't then nomeansno? I would say you are the parasite here and you are a murderer of infants. Your arguments are invalidated because it's solely immoral. Fetuses are developing human beings. Parasites are a danger to human beings. Babies are not parasites.
Yeah well a zygote happens to be part of a human being so it's out of the question, degenerate. Your argument is invalidated. Cry me a river and get over it, snowflake.
When people make the argument that Abortion is the murder of a potential life, then they should try to ban masturbation, since it is the knowing "murder" of potential children. And what if the women is raped? or molested? What if men poked a hole in the condom to force a broken condom?
When people like you claim it's a "pro choice" to not let the baby live and then attempt to bash in those who care for human life, you stand out as a hypocritical murderer. Your argument is invalidated 100% immediately. You have zero common sense.
I like the idea that the person who is already alive should have the choice whether or not they want bring another life into this world that hasn't even had a chance to live yet, that could be troublesome to their life.
But now wait a second..., people have the choice to use condoms. If they don't want to bring another life into this world that hasn't even had a chance to live yet, that could be troublesome to their life..., couldn't they just chose to use a condom? Pro-Choice is an oxymoron. They had a choice. They just didn't make the right choice when they decided to have unprotected sex. ;)
A child in the womb is also alive... else how would they grow, mature and further develop past that magical point where (after) even YOU can't deny they are alive anymore?
So the child is already alive when the woman 1st got her driver's license? Was the child alive when she went to prom? When she got her first hair, said her first word, drank alcohol for the first time?
Absolutely not, the fetus is only existing in there after she had sex and let the semen take route. At this point in time the one who was already alive should have say in what happens to the fetus that was not already alive that is leaching off of her.
Says who? if this was the case wouldn't abortion be illegal? It's not because that statement you made is an ideal. To force a woman to go through with a pregnancy, is unjust treatment of already living citizens. Fetuses don't even so much as have a birth certificate, they are not people, so they are not subject to the laws of people.
Says anyone who knows and understands the applicability of the Constitution... and as far as abortion being (for now) legal... it is that very basis (violation of the Constitution) that we are challenging Roe on.
There is no requirment for a birth certificate in our Constitution either.
Well that may be the case, but as far as the rules are going out and calling for rights. The woman does have the right to abortion. And my opinion which is what this question really asks, is that of the woman's right to choose.
Did you forget that this is a debate site and that abortion is a controversial issue and that the fucking debate can't be won with well it's legal so it's a right?"
That was mostly me saying there's no reason to even argue with me specifically. I have my opinion and it will always apparently differ from your opinion. And so long as women want to put up the fight it will remain legal, no one can overturn a woman's ultimate decision to get rid of the child she doesn't want. If the law is turned in favor, abortions won't cease, their will just be penalties for it, then the government will see that it's a war that can't be won. Like they are seeing with marijuana, like they saw with alcohol.
" That was mostly me saying there's no reason to even argue with me specifically. I have my opinion and it will always apparently differ from your opinion...."
So you are on a debate website fighting the opponents of abortion by telling us that debate with you is futile.
So you are on a debate website fighting the opponents of abortion by telling us that debate with you is futile.
I'm on a debate that asked my stance on being pro life or pro choice, and why. I as disputed and I answered. THe disputes were based on rules while the debate was based on opinion.
I'm on a debate that asked my stance on being pro life or pro choice, and why. I as disputed and I answered. THe disputes were based on rules while the debate was based on opinion.
You proud of that? A momentary lapse in my diction and spelling for you to basically call me an idiot. At least I'm not preaching right and wrong on an opinion debate.
women shouldnt deal with a baby they didnt want to have because they underwent a traumatizing event while having to deal with the fact the babys father is a rapist and add financial problems with the chance of dying while giving birth (especially if they were a teenager). i swear if anyone says its because of "what she was wearing" or "she shouldnt accept drinks) tell that to children that were raped and got pregnant. do you realize women get their periods usually on the age of 10-13 some even get them younger.
and even if they were drunk/accepted a drink did you consider they were having a good time at a party with your best friends and a person gives them a drink then the next thing you know you have to take care of a child for the rest of your life if you survive? did you ever consider teenager s dont have the best decision making skills?
Basically all the reasons just stated. Pro-choice. A woman should have the rights to her own body. The thing inside of her is a fetus, and not a baby. She should be able to choose to get rid of it in my opinion.
I disagree and that has been the crux of just about any abortion debate.
We have laws that say both that the unjust killing of a child in the womb is murder. (That is a legal recognition of their personhood whether you like it or not) and we also have laws that make an exception to allow for abortions.
Regardless, your claim that a child in the fetal stage of their life is not recognized as a legal 'person' is false.
I assume those laws you refer to are relevant to cases of double homicides where both the fetus and the mother is killed. This is a different situation because consent was never taken from the mother to engage in such action. You fail to grasp my point. My argument was not that the fetal stage is not entitled to rights but rather that there is certain period during which rights are entitled. Even the U.S Supreme Court has argued, using medical facts that the fetus is not a person unless it reaches a certain point. Science would describe the fetus as a mass of cells undergoing development but which has not attained the stage of personhood.
"A Missouri truck driver is one of the few people charged under Ohio's 4-year-old fetal-homicide law.
Ernest L. Westerberg, 52, was charged with two counts of vehicular homicide Saturday in Friday's Interstate 74 crash in Green Township.
A 52-year-old teacher from Green Township and her 20-year-old daughter's unborn fetus died in the three-vehicle accident. Two women remained hospitalized Sunday.
Before 1996, Mr. Westerberg would have been charged with only one count of vehicular homicide. But that changed when a Middletown man lobbied to modify state law, which originally did not consider a fetus a person until it took its first breath.
And like I said, the legal definition says ANY stage of development.
Again, I fail to see a substantive argument. Only the mother has the right to terminate the life of her fetus. No one else has that right so you actually did me the favor of proving my previous arguments. In all those cases you mention, the life of the fetus was taken A) during the commission of a homicide to the mother and B) without the consent of the mother outside the scope of abortion.
Lastly, what legal definition are you referring to? Because if that was the case then abortion would be a crime and it is not.
The MOTHER survived and the driver was charged with killing the child and another woman. Again, the biological mother survived.
If you want to clutch at straws and try to convince yourself that these laws do not support our claims that an abortion kills a child or violates their rights? Go right ahead. I expected that you would do so.
But, we know that the precedent has been set and we will not waste the chance to point out these contradictions in these laws and legal definitions to the Supreme Court when we get the chance to do so.
Yet again, you fail to realize the core of my arguments. CONSENT WAS NEVER GIVEN BY THE MOTHER TO TAKE THE LIFE OF THE FETUS SO HENCE THE ACT ITSELF IS A CRIME BECAUSE ONLY THE MOTHER HAS THAT RIGHT. Secondly, those articles failed to mention what stages the fetus were at the time of their deaths.
This is straight from the law: "the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'."
Did you note the word ANY there?
The woman's consent is only relevant when she is seeking an abortion. Something which the law (for now) makes an exception for.
And if consent is not given then it becomes murder. Isn't that why this statute was created?
Lastly, I fail to see your argument because if lets assume that the fetus was a child, this clause was passed so that it may be applied to situations in which consent of the mother was not given. That is, if the life of the fetus is taken at any stage by another person without the consent of the mother. It does not address the issue of whether or not the fetus is a person. It only addresses the issue of scenarios where consent of the mother is not given. This clause addresses consent, not the question of personhood.
To begin with, a mother cannot be charged even if she performs an abortion on herself. Various means of abortion includes using abortion pills and morning after pills which would require the mother to ingest the pill so yes through this process she is performing it on herself. No where in the laws define this as a crime.
Would you agree that murder is the intentional and unjustifiable taking of one human life by another?
You seem to forget that all these women were charged because they failed to performed their abortions within the specified period of time before it attains personhood. And so goes for the rest of your list as well.
Straight from the law: "the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'."
I believe it is a person's right to choose what grows in their body, or does not grow in their body. Obligation only comes after it is born, not before.
Pro life supporters certainly seem to care about life a lot more before it gets out of the womb for people who generally argue against universal health care. Also, whether or not to keep a baby is the woman's choice. Not a protesting Texan's choice.
Your hypocrisy is hilarious that you trip over your own words. You are just solely searching for a sorry excuse to kill a baby. Your arguments are invalid.
Until it can survive outside of the womb on it's on it is not a baby it is a fetus. It is also a parasite because it relies on the mother for life. Don't like abortions don't get one, but don't take away a woman's right to choose especially if you don't want your rights taken away.
I am only against abortions past the 2nd trimester. I do not like using "pro-choice", as it implies that those who disagree with me on abortion are not supportive of choice, namely of women's choice. Moreover, it wrongly describes my ethical and political philosophy.
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.
Abortion should be entirely up to what the to-be mother is. I feel that if she doesn't have a say if her child is going to die or not would be unjust. Second, rape is mainly the reason why one would want to kill their child. Abortion takes place when the baby is at a developing stage. It has not taken any life form yet, so it should not hurt anyone emotionally.
Much of pro choicers are based on going against life itself which is a crime and murder. That's why once again "sciencerules" is a hypocritical little snowflake who doesn't have any truth. Your arguments are invalidated. Continuation of your hypocrisy will be exposed.
Con 1
Life begins at conception, making abortion murder.
Conception is the moment a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell, which begins the process of cell division that creates a human. [256]
Tara Sander Lee, Senior Fellow and Director of Life Sciences at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, stated, “life begins from the moment of conception when the sperm fertilizes the egg, because there is the creation of a new, totally distinct, integrated organism or a human being, which is going to be biologically distinct from all other life forms on this planet.” The first cell is biologically distinct because it has its own DNA that is different from either biological parent and all other humans. [257]
Ending a life is murder legally and ethically, even a life that is only a few growing cells at the time of death.
Pope Francis explained, “Abortion is murder. Those who carry out abortions kill…. At the third week after conception, often even before the mother is aware (of being pregnant), all the organs are already (starting to develop). It is a human life. Period. And this human life has to be respected. It is very clear…. Scientifically, it is a human life.” [258]
That people may face difficulties without abortion as an option does not excuse or justify murder. A reader of The Atlantic, who gave only the initial K., clarified the moral dilemma: “I wish that I could be pro-choice because the awful circumstances so many women face—that I can’t even imagine facing—seem so much more real to me than the rights of a fetus who doesn’t even always look human. But abortion is the intentional killing of a human being and we look back with horror at anyone in history who decided a group of people did not actually count as people. We cannot solve the problem of injustice against women with more injustice. We need solutions that support women without killing fetuses.” [295]
Con 2
Legal abortion promotes a culture in which life is disposable.
Echoing a 2014 remark by Pope Francis that connected abortion to “throwaway culture,” Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark, New Jersey, stated, “abortion represents a failure to recognize the sanctity of human life and promotes a culture in which human life in its most vulnerable moment is perceived as disposable. Such a proposal targets poor women as needing an expedient solution to a complex problem.” [260]
Tobin previously declared legal abortion a “brutalization of the American heart” on par with the “dehumanization of the undocumented” immigrants. [261]
Alveda King, former Georgia state representative and niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., also connected abortion to other societal ills: “Abortion and racism are both symptoms of a fundamental human error. The error is thinking that when someone stands in the way of our wants, we can justify getting that person out of our lives. Abortion and racism stem from the same poisonous root, selfishness. We create the deceptions that the other person is less important, less worthy, less human. We are all fully human. When we face this truth, there is no justification for treating those who look different than us as lesser beings. If we simply treat other people the way we’d like to be treated, racism, abortion, and other forms of inhumanity will be things of the past.” [262]
As King notes, some fetuses are treated as less than human. This ideology combined with legal abortion could create a slippery slope to designer babies, gender selection, termination of disabled but healthy fetuses, and other trait-selection-based abortions. The slippery slope can then extend to the mentally disabled and elderly in general.
[262]
“[A]bortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation,” according to US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. “Technological advances have only heightened the eugenic potential for abortion, as abortion can now be used to eliminate children with unwanted characteristics, such as a particular sex or disability.” [263]
Con 3
Increased access to birth control, health insurance, and sexual education would make abortion unnecessary.
Abortion rates in the United States have fallen at what the CDC called a “slow yet steady pace” since a peak in 1981. That year there were 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44. The rate fell to 11.4 abortions per 1,000 women in 2019. [264] [265]
Experts largely contribute the decline in abortions in the United States and elsewhere to the improved safety and availability of LARC (long-acting reversible contraception) including IUDs and contraceptive implants that can last up to 10 years. [264] [266] [267]
Access to health insurance to pay for contraceptives also contributed to a drop in abortions. With the passage of Obamacare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), more people were insured with access to free or low-cost contraceptives and reproductive care. [264]
Linda Rosenstock, Public Health Professor of Health Policy and Management at UCLA, summarized the simplicity of the connection: “In the United States each year, about half of pregnancies are unintended and about 40% of those lead to abortion. Access to birth control leads to fewer abortions.” [264]
Further, teens are having sex later in life than their parents. 38.4% of American high schoolers reported they have had sex (down from 54% in 1991) and only 27.4% reported they were currently sexually active (37.5% in 1991). [268]
Because teen birth control use has not increased significantly, experts attribute the decline in part to better sex education. A 2021 study found that students who received comprehensive sexual education initiated sex later than students who did not participate in sex ed. The later teens have sex, the less chance there is for them to become pregnant unintentionally, which leads to fewer abortions. [264] [268] [269]
Historically, abortion was a popular means of birth control and family planning due to a lack of reliable contraception, education, and other resources, and the fact that childbirth was incredibly dangerous. Better options are now available, including more effective birth control, better healthcare and health insurance, and sex education to ensure an unwanted pregnancy does not happen in the first place. [264] [270]
No truth to my statements? If you won't even accept left center feminist frequency and probably center bias center for countering digital hate then you are so extreme right there is no convincing you.
If you won't even accept left center feminist frequency and probably center bias center for countering digital hate then you are so extreme right there is no convincing you.
Yeah all he likes to do is spew bs. That's why all his arguments are insane, hypocritical and very biased. I will continue to defy feminazis like him and I will destroy him with the truth and only the truth.
"If you won't even accept left center feminist frequency and probably center bias center for countering digital hate then you are so extreme right there is no convincing you." - "sciencerules" the hypocritical strawman loving snowflake (Opponent on the wrong side)
"Truly truly I say unto you, if ye are not reborn from water and of the spirit, thou shalt not enter thy Kingdom of God." - Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Our Savior who is on the righteous side)
"If you won't accept that real women have gone through abortions and have regretted it, then you are clearly a human being without a conscience and because of this, pro lifers are even more justified to fight for baby lives because yes, they do matter. You clearly are extremely leftist and you are clearly ignorant and retarded. There is no common sense within you and you clearly are sexist towards men. You are a hypocrite and you are clearly hateful. There is no truth within you. You have proven time and time and again that you would rather support pedophiles and immoral toxic ideologies rather than defending the lives of human beings, especially developing newborns. What does this say about yourself? That you are no longer behaving humanely but rather, inhumanely. You will be committed to Arkham Asylum for life because you just proved yourself to be a feminazi. Nazis were leftists FYI snowflake. Cry me a river and get over it." - Dr. Batman (Follower of Jesus who is also on the righteous side.)
Here are four women who have gone through abortions. One or a few will say they've regretted it. None of my arguments have strawman to it. You on the other hand? Yep. You are what you sew. That's how your arguments are invalidated 100% flawlessly.
Further abuse from "sciencerules" hateful hypocrisy is that he claims he is against hate, yet he doesn't allow the lives of babies to go on. That is pure hypocrisy. Yes, you have zero truth and you belong in prison for life because you are a pro murderer. Baby lives matter.
Knocks "sciencerules" out with 777 punches & kicks and puts him in Death Row Prison for life.
His so called link is hypocritical and full of leftist ideologies that are not fruitful towards this debate at all. "Claiming to be countering hate and yet you are promoting the death of developing human beings."
Yes, I will continue to destroy you with these truths. Your humiliation is only beginning because I am your worst nightmare.
You were once a fetus too and I will say now, "sciencerules", your life doesn't matter because you've dehumanized every possible newborn to come into this world. They've done nothing to you. But you have made them suffer and you will pay for your sins.
Even when I first joined this website before you joined I could tell this was going to be difficult. Why? Because people wouldn't trust the best sources on the Internet like Snopes.
If someone is that extreme right, it is almost like a point of no return. I don't think I can convince them. Yet, I feel the worst I thing I can do is simply give up. Then, more and more extreme right views could spread unchallenged.
The two links about fake abortion clinics are relevant and useful. They show just how dangerous and far pro-life people will take their stance.
"Anti-abortion extremists are considered a current domestic terrorist threat by the United States Department of Justice."
Pro-life takes away all choice and autonomy from women. Keep them barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen is the misogynists' creed.
Wikipedia is usually a good source now. Wikipedia was unreliable at first, but scientists cleaned it up pretty good. It is center bias just for starters.
Wikipedia is never a reliable source. For snowflakes and ignorants, it would suffice them but they know nothing other than blindly believing it is helpful when it is not. Your argument is invalid because you seem offended by the truth. The March of Truth continues. "sciencerules" has failed to convince the audience otherwise. Wikipedia is 100% unreliable, unuseful and relies on opinion rather than pure facts.
Pro choicers are hypocrites and snowflakes. Just because people defend the lives of babies, pro choicers scream about it. "Sciencerules" has lost this debate from day 1. I speak the absolute objective truths. Zero evidence has been presented by the toxic hypocritical snowflake who supports anti human pedophile rights, racism and sexism while also being anti science but doesn't defend the lives of babies. Under false pretenses, "sciencerules" is certified as a failure in life and will be suspended permanently from society. Sentence is for life and the POTUS will overrule any leftist toxic activists 100%. Case is closed, court adjourned.
Again with the endless ad homiems and strawman attacks. First, your position conflates infants and fetuses. Even the most hardcore pro-choice is against abortion after a certain number of months. Let alone after child birth.
That's why your slogan of babies lives matter would make more sense if it said fetus lives matter, FLM. Your position seems to be that life begins at conception.
Well, often times implantation fails.
"Conception does not always lead to pregnancy. A person is technically not pregnant until implantation has occurred. This is the moment when the fertilized egg implants into the lining of a uterus, which occurs around 5–6 days after fertilization.
Not all fertilized eggs get to this stage. An estimated 50% of all fertilized eggs do not implant and leave the body the same way as unfertilized eggs do — during menstruation."
Are you really going to dig a grave for the 6 day old fertilized egg? Is that really murder in your view the 50% of the time the fertilized egg does not implant?
Again with your hypocritical nonsense. Your arguments are once again invalidated. I can go all day on how wrong you are. I will continue the march of truth against your subjective toxicity. You are declared a sexist manhater. Cry me a river and get over it snowfalke.
Pro choice claim it's "my body my choice", however, they do not understand what choice means right? Choice means you have options. Not one but two. That's why pro lifers make sense and pro choice doesn't. Pro choicers all scream, "MY BODY MY CHOICE" AND THEN CLAIM THEY ARE FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS. Yet have you ever thought about asking a real woman what she wants to do if she is pregnant? Yeah. If you aren't a woman who is pregnant but are a woman regardless in a relationship with a man or if you are a man who isn't in a relationship with a woman, especially in a marriage, THAN DON'T GET INVOLVED. You pro abortionists claim you are for women's rights, yet you don't let pro lifers speak up eh? That's your hypocrisy and I will continue to argue common sense because pro lifers are common sense. Abortion is murder. Fetuses are living. They develop over 9 months. Baby lives matter. Ask real mothers who have seemingly gone through abortions. Pro abortionists may claim they care but they never will because they think baby lives do not matter. All you pro abortionists do is you want to have sex and than you don't take responsibility for the baby. Give it a rest, take responsibility AND THEN YOU WON'T HAVE A PROBLEM. But do you listen? Nope. That's why, pro abortionists are not common sense. They are child murderers with no morality. Anyone as much as lifts a finger, you will be shot down by the truth and only the truth.
I can define strawman argument to you:
Arguments that hold no benefit or has weak supporting evidence.
That defines your subjectiveness to a nutshell 100%
Your hypocrisy is exposed again.
Knocks out "Sciencerules" for his strawman hypocritical comments and puts him in Arkham Asylum for life.
It is hilarious to see you trip over your own words. I use facts. You don't. Pro lifers are pro science for your information. You are beyond strawman. You are a low IQ braindead fool.
Baby lives matter and that is the truth. Your weak strawman tactics have already been debunked 100%. I will continue to do this until you disappear because you will.
Do you hate Jews? Yes? "Sciencerules" is now known as an anti semitic snowflake. What a hypocrite. Even I know, the Jewish are humans and they deserve to live.