Should abortion be legal?
There have been many aborted babies, is this right? Can we do this? Is there shame in abortion?
Yes
Side Score: 34
|
 |
No
Side Score: 24
|
|
|
|
|
Once again... 1. In all instances abortion is legal except extreme circumstance we know scientifically beyond doubt (despite christian blitz misinformation campaign on the subject) that the cluster of cells is not self-aware and is not capable of feeling pain. 2. Nowhere in the U.S. is abortion legal after the 3rd trimester unless that cluster of cells is known to have birth defects which will kill it or the mother upon birth (again despite christian harassment and even murder of abortion doctors and their bullshit pictures of babies being sucked into a vacuum they make up and spread online like a disease). 3. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion. If one side is not forcing one to abort, what gives another a right to force another not to abort? If you don't want an abortion don't have one, and if you think it's a sin let god handle it, he's like all powerful or something right? He doesn't need your help asshole. 4. Making abortion illegal never in the history of the world has been shown to stop abortions from happening. 5. Making abortions illegal has been shown to force rape victims and young girls, many of whom are practically babies themselves, to seek dangerous means for having an abortion, resulting in more deaths. Basically in their self-righteous single-minded inability to feel the least bit of empathy for actual living women, amidst their floating misconceptions of what a fetus is, pro-lifers would actually kill more "people" than save. Side: Yes
2
points
I'm pro life, but this is a free country. Abortion is the woman's right, as much has I disagree with it. The only time I agree with it, is if the woman's life is in severe danger from the pregnancy. I digress. A heavy handed government controlling these sorts of rights doesn't sit well with me. Side: Yes
1
point
False. While society's definition of Pro-life is actually a purely anti-abortion stance. I follow a more traditional understanding of the definition of Pro-life, which is I am for whatever is more conducive to saving human life.Also, did you even read my comment? I said I personally believe that it should only happen if it is to save the mother's life. However, people should be free to get abortions if they want too. That's the beauty of choice. Without the option to do wrong, "right" is meaningless. Side: Yes
1
point
Regardless of a biased opinion of whether abortion is 'shameful' or not, abortion should absolutely be legal. A woman has rights to her own body, as do men to their own. It is arguable that it is 'killing' or 'murdering' a creature, but you cannot end something that hasn't ever been started. Women's rights to their very own bodies should not be violated because of less open minds. It should never be a question that women are unaffected by the choices they make every day. I conclude with, it is only the choice of the maker of the decision, and that decision is none other than the person that is in direct control of it, especially if it directly effects the health of a one persons body. Side: Yes
1
point
I agree with you until you said: "It is arguable that it is 'killing' or 'murdering' a creature, but you cannot end something that hasn't ever been started." The fetus being killed most certainly has been started. It is a human being. It may not have any great capacity for intelligent thoughts or feelings, but neither do newborns. Is it OK to kill them too? I will agree with you other point that women (and men) should be able to do whatever it is they want to their own bodies. But in the case of abortion, this right does not apply because it does not only pertain to the woman's body, but the body of another human being still attached to her. No one should have the right to kill innocent people. Side: No
1
point
It may not have any great capacity for intelligent thoughts or feelings, but neither do newborns. Bullshit. Try pricking a newborn with a needle and see if it has feelings, won't you? But in the case of abortion, this right does not apply because it does not only pertain to the woman's body, but the body of another human being still attached to her. No, you're wrong here. The fetus is considered a parasite. According to the OED, the scientific definition of a parasite is "An animal or plant which lives in or upon another organism (technically called its host) and draws its nutriment directly from it. Also extended to animals or plants that live as tenants of others, but not at their expense (strictly called commensal or symbiotic); also to those which depend on others in various ways for sustenance, as the cuckoo, the skua-gull, etc." (Emphasis my own) All a woman does to continue with the pregnancy is to allow the fetus to live within her and draw nutrients from her. Conversely, when a woman chooses to abort the fetus, she is simply disallowing the fetus to continue living within her. No one should have the right to kill innocent people. The fetus, within the first trimester, is not a person. Side: Yes
Many of you view abortion of taking a minature breathing baby out of the mom and breaking its neck or something, it is not like that. Many times an abortion occurs the fetus is just a clump of developing cells and, in fact, it is not a living thing at all. Some say (when this defense is brought up), "It is killing a future baby". Well, actually, whenever a woman has her period she is killing a future baby. Sorry if this defense crushes all the beliefs you were taught.. Side: Yes
Yes, There is no shame, women fail to carry a fetus to term more often than not without artificially inducing rejection, medical abortion only artificially induces this natural process, the artificiality of inducing this seems like it has no more moral significance than it occuring naturally. This is because the fetus doesnt develp consciousness until the onset of the third trimester - prior to this point (more than ~99% of all abortions occure in the 1st trimester) there is no moral status to the actions taken with regards to the preservation of the fetus. This is true for surgical abortions too since they also occure during the first trimester. The morality of abortion has to do with the freedom to have them, not the act of doing them, since the act of doing them is for all reasonable accounts an a-moral action. It should be everyone's right to have an abortion because people should have the right to self determination when no other moral agent will be harmed by such actions. Side: Yes
If a 12 year old girl is raped and gets pregnant, do you really want that girl who isn't even a teenager yet to give birth? It is completely the girls choice. You can't tell a girl whether she should have a child or not. You might say that there is always another adult who could adopt the child, but what about the act of giving birth? The biological mother could die during the process. If abortion isn't legal, then we need free birth control. But it would be best with both because then the biological mother gets a choice. Side: Yes
1
point
From my atheist perspective, I can't even catch a glimpse of the logic behind any rejection of abortion. It's simply being humane to rape-victims and families that can't afford bringing up several children, and it may help us to keep the population growth under some control. Prevention and abortion are, ironically worded, a godsend! Side: Yes
Take biology class early abortions you are removing a small fetus that lacks a brain but has a underdeveloped nervous systems which is why they move when abortion apparatus is inserted. Much like how an insect will move after death. Saying that, late term abortions are appalling a fully developed baby is being murdered, developed brain, developed nervous system and developed lil hands. Side: Yes
1
point
I am not particularly supportive of abortion, but I cannot justify criminalizing it. Different definitions of life exist, and I cannot decide which is the most pertinent. Plus there are MANY reasons why a woman may choose to get one, an almost limitless array of scenarios. Uniform criminalization, even if allowances are made for rape or incest, is too rigid for the fluid reality. Side: Yes
It is very difficult question to answer to. Well, the argument of the "agaist" list is the inhumanity. I mean, the unborn children are not guilty. They have no choices, but they have rights to live. It's only the people's that made that child fault. Why has the abortion become so common and easy to do? They don't think that it's real crime, real murder. It's just like the games for them, the mistakes of youth. But sometimes extreme circumstances happen. For example rape. Or the danger of "future" mother's life. Well I'm saying that abortion should be legal but only for certain, really serious conditions. Otherwise the legal abortion can be the reason of indiscriminate sex and youth's irresponsibility. Side: Yes
Abortion should be legal.As someone has already said,women have the right to their own body and if a baby needs to be terminated then so be it. Especially if any women have gone through rape or any hard situation and it causes pregnancy then its the mothers choice.Especially if the baby wasn't wanted or was a mistake. Side: Yes
1
point
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: Yes
It definitely should be legal and be allowed for all women. Everyone has the right on live. However, there is a question: Who is this «everyone», whether it is an adult, teenager, newborbaby or fetus in the womb? or When, at what moment the human embryo becomes a person with the right to life? It may be argued that the nervous system is the main function for life. However, up to embryonic day 14, embry has no central nervous system and, therefore, cannot be considered as a human being who has senses. Thus, it seems that an embryo is not human and abortion should not be considred as murder. Side: Yes
1
point
I am so on the basis of Natural Rights. At some point, the living thing inside a woman's womb becomes a human being. I do not believe this to be at conception, and I cannot define exactly when that point is. But it is fairly clear to me that it is not one instant before birth. My daughter was born six weeks premature. If she had not been premature, would it have been legitimate to abort her two weeks later? Would it be legitimate for a woman to delay labor via drugs and have her baby aborted past the time it was actually due? And finally, most late-term abortions amount to clear infanticide, as the baby is actually living outside of the womb before it is killed. Must I accept this in order to be "pro-choice" in your eyes? Must I oppose a first-trimester abortion of a rape or incest victim in order to be "pro-life"? You make the argument that "pro-life" people should be for legal abortion, since legal abortion leads to fewer abortions and deaths of mothers having abortions. I question these data. Most of the countries where abortion is illegal are poorer and have other problems -- it is thus hard to isolate the effect of abortion laws on abortion rates. But, for the sake of argument, let's say you are right: Would this then also justify any other crime? What if the legalization of murdering one person a year was demonstrated to reduce the total number of violent crimes -- could it be justified? You are using utilitarian ethics, whereas many non-religious and some religious abortion opponents use Natural Rights ethics. Utilitarianism allows for any abrogation of rights if it can be seen as being "in the common good," whereas Natural Rights allow for no such abrogations. There is nothing hypocritical about being a Natural Rights-based opponent of abortion. Side: No
|
3
points
people (the mother) should have the right to self determination when no other moral agent will be harmed by such actions. fetuses do not gain moral agency until the onset of the third trimester (the point when basic brain activity and consciousness is possible). The reason why this point is the moment of moral agency is because moral agency can only be justifiably attributed to value attributing agents. Because, prior to this, the fetus is not an agent, morality doesnt apply, the fetus has no sovereignty since sovereignty is determined by the awareness of self. The issue of abortion is not properly about the fetus (unless you are arguing about the 3rd trimester, which no one is), it is properly about the rights of the mother since she is the only person who has any justified claim to sovereignty of her body. Side: Yes
I'm not for making abortion illegal, but I am for legislation to discourage medical professionals from performing unnecessary medical procedures on pregnant women that result in the death of the developing fetus. So I will argue for Silaswash...since I guess he bailed. people (the mother) should have the right to self determination when no other moral agent will be harmed by such actions. It could be argued that it harms the public in general, by 1. Wasting valuable medical resources on unnecessary procedures 2. Encouraging indiscriminate sex 3. Promoting a culture of irresponsibility It could mentally harm a father who had no choice but to bear the thought of his offspring being killed in it's most vulnerable state before it even had a chance. fetuses do not gain moral agency until the onset of the third trimester (the point when basic brain activity and consciousness is possible). Moral agency! people don't get moral agency until they are old enough to experience regret. People who don't yet have moral agency still deserve legal protection. The reason why this point is the moment of moral agency is because moral agency can only be justifiably attributed to value attributing agents. So how would you say a developing baby at the onset of the third trimester all of the sudden starts attributing value? Desperate attempts to justify the unnecessary killing of a fetus are invariably the result of such poor stretches of logic. Because, prior to this, the fetus is not an agent, morality doesnt apply, the fetus has no sovereignty since sovereignty is determined by the awareness of self. Morality applies any time an ugly and regrettable thing like an unnecessary abortion is performed. The issue of abortion is not properly about the fetus (unless you are arguing about the 3rd trimester, which no one is), it is properly about the rights of the mother since she is the only person who has any justified claim to sovereignty of her body. So when do the father's rights to protect his developing child kick in? Side: Yes
1
point
Honestly, your statement is both unintelligible and unintelligent. there are ways the baby can have different parents that can raise it. What are you saying here? Are you actually suggesting that the baby has a choice in the matter? It shouldn't be legal An unjustified assertion. Side: Yes
Honestly, your statement is both unintelligible and unintelligent. No his statement wasn't. You just disagree with it. If you think that being insulting is a fitting way to encourage in depth reasoning you are to say the least mistaken. What are you saying here? Are you actually suggesting that the baby has a choice in the matter? How in the world would you come up with that based on what he typed? Silas mistakenly thought it would be obvious (and it was to me but apparently not to you) that he was talking about adoption being a superior choice to abortion. Do a poll at the site and I bet most people would agree that YOU missed the OBVIOUS here in your rush to ridicule. An unjustified assertion. He did too justify it. He presented an alternative that doesn't involve an unnecessary surgery and in which the life of the developing child is cherished instead of treated like trash. Side: Yes
hell no !! if abortion become legal, then the teenagers will carelessly do free sex. they will think even if they get pregnant, they can do abortion easily. then where is their moral ? it just give them immoral thought. abortion also impend their precious life since they still have future. abortion just a irresponsible act to clear the 'child' problem. Side: No
The killing of a fetus violates the NAP in that it causes willful harm to another living thing, and so I cannot support it. As well, I cannot comprehend how anybody can think that their own choice trumps the right to the life of another; I am alive, if another life is alive because of me, but can be terminated by me at a moment's notice, in what universe is it acceptable for me to put my own personal desires ahead of that of the other life? It is a different story if you choose to kill yourself, but to choose to kill somebody else... That's simply ludicrous to me. Side: No
1
point
in what universe is it acceptable for me to put my own personal desires ahead of that of the other life? In the universe that states that human life begins at birth, not conception, as science as stated time and time again. Do you call an acorn a tree? Why not? Do you call an egg a chicken? Why not? A sac of cells, however inconveniently conveying what you like to think are human characteristics (arms, legs, face, eye sockets, etc.), is not, in any way a human or anything close to it. A fetus is called just that for a reason; it is not a human. Your stupidity is probably, and most unfortunately, fueled by some sort of religious idea. If not, then it's fueled by a simple misunderstanding of when life begins. I always took you for someone of a higher intelligence. Side: Yes
as science as stated time and time again. Science doesn't "state" things. People who fancy themselves scientists observe things "scientifically" (hardyharhar) and make "conclusions" based on their own biases and pre-imagined fancies. Do you call an acorn a tree? Why not? I find this argument - which, happily, I have not run into very often - to be remarkably idiotic. Is the acorn the tree? Not yet, but once it has germinated, sure. Call it a sapling if you want. So far as I'm concerned, the embryo is akin to the germinated seed. Do you call an egg a chicken? Why not? Because it might actually be a raven? A fetus is called just that for a reason Well, my Latin dictionary says that fetus means "young" or "offspring", so I think that this is more convincing an argument for my case than it is for yours. Your stupidity Everything is subjective. Even "science". fueled by some sort of religious idea Were I not a libertarian, I'd probably say - based on my religious ideas - that abortion should be accepted. 'tis my libertarian ideology which tells me abortion is wrong. If not, then it's fueled by a simple misunderstanding of when life begins. Not a misunderstanding, a disagreement. I always took you for someone of a higher intelligence. An attempt to appeal to my sense of superiority will not work with me. Think I'm stupider than a dodo for all I care. Side: No
|
