CreateDebate


Debate Info

294
217
Yes, its not even alive no, adoption is better
Debate Score:511
Arguments:247
Total Votes:623
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, its not even alive (135)
 
 no, adoption is better (115)

Debate Creator

Hisangel(28) pic



Should people have abortions?

Should people have abortions? Is abortions really killing a living human being ar just removing a bunch of cells? Whats your opinion on this?  Be willing to back it up with facts.

Yes, its not even alive

Side Score: 294
VS.

no, adoption is better

Side Score: 217
4 points

If you define embryos as alive simply because they are rapidly dividing undifferentiated human cells,

then you cannot 'kill' cancer cells either.

Side: Yes, its not even alive
Genesis1vs1(31) Disputed
2 points

Cancer cells don't have the potential to be a human being. What else you got?

Side: no, adoption is better
protazoa(427) Disputed
5 points

First of all, you are wrong.

http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:ce5bML0wsYYJ:scholar.google.com/+embryonic+cancer+cells&hl;=en&as;_sdt=10000000000000&as;_ylo=2011

experimentation is being done to manipulate cancer cell plasticity into embryonic cells. Perhaps you should do some research.

Regardless, I am not disputing that embryos have the potential for life

that is entirely different than being alive.

I have the potential to go commit a crime. Yet I am not being arrested because i have not committed a crime.

If we are discussing whether or not stem cells are alive, as opposed to potentially arising to life, then they are essentially identical to cancer cells.

undifferentiated, human genome, producing telomerase... the only difference is the potential for life. Both, however, are equally not alive.

Side: Yes, its not even alive
mindfighter Disputed
4 points

Also, your sperm has the potential to be a human being but you still waste it (if you are not male, then a male close to you does).

Side: Yes, its not even alive
Posionus(76) Disputed
1 point

A cancer cell has a severely mutated genome that, I would consider is not human due to the fact that it is totally dysfunctional. A fetus's cell is, in most cases, is totally functional as a human cell. That would give the clump of functional human cells the right to life, as opposed to dysfunctional human cells.

Side: no, adoption is better
protazoa(427) Disputed
2 points

"A cancer cell has a severely mutated genome"

actually, a cancer genome is essentially identical to a normal one. That is why cancerous cells are so difficult to treat.

if they were, as you suggested 'severely mutated', it would be a simple matter to eliminate them.

However, in reality, it takes very little to turn a regular cell cancerous.

Cancer can be caused by a change in a single locus, such as p53 or BRCA1

a single locus has an upper bound range of 400 base pairs. http://www.nfstc.org/pdi/Subject04/pdi_s04_m03_01_a.htm

there are 3 million base pairs in the human genome

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/info.shtml

assuming that all of the base pairs in the locus are changed (which is far more than are actually changed) and that all loci are at maximum size range (which is by definition not true) there would be a change in 400 out of 3000000000 base pairs

which is a change of 0.00018% of the human genome

a cancerous cell is 99.99999% identical to any other cell in the body

as a comparison, siblings are roughly 75% identical

http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTX042241.html

so cancerous cells are in no way 'severely mutated'.

"A fetus's cell is, in most cases, is totally functional as a human cell"

No, they are not totally functional. That is why, when you remove them from a womb, fetuses cease functioning. Were they totally functional, they would be able to continue growing.

"That would give the clump of functional human cells the right to life, as opposed to dysfunctional human cells"

neither of these clumps are in any way functional. They are both stuck in the cell cycle known as mitosis.

Stem cells undergo prolonged mitosis because they are growing into a multicellular organism

cancerous cells are essentially any other kind of cell that undergoes prolonged mitosis

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6769/10/1

they are not only 'functioning' just as well as each other, but truly in the same way as each other

Side: Yes, its not even alive
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

A cancer cell has a severely mutated genome that, I would consider is not human due to the fact that it is totally dysfunctional. A fetus's cell is, in most cases, is totally functional as a human cell. That would give the clump of functional human cells the right to life, as opposed to dysfunctional human cells.

The criteria for earning status of human and the consequent rights should not be extended to cell cultures, but thinking human beings which are capable of responding to stimuli.

Side: Yes, its not even alive
3 points

If the woman does not want the thing nor does she want to give birth to it, then yes she should be allowed to have an abortion.

Side: Yes, its not even alive
Hisangel(28) Disputed
3 points

"The thing?" hello, it is a living child inside of her and if she did not want "the thing" then she shouldnt have had sex in the first place.

Side: no, adoption is better
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
7 points

No, it's a thing. Before around the third trimester it has no more self-awareness than my fingernails. I don't see these pro-lifers trying to ban nail clippers.

Side: Yes, its not even alive
angelmew(81) Disputed
2 points

As soon as all males agree not to have sex also, I would agree with you. But, oh wait..people get raped by the millions worldwide......

Sex is not avoidable especially in a species that is driven to reproduce. There is a whole industry on it.

Side: We have enough presidents
2 points

you are exactly right and if she has an abortion she is only hurting herself it is a painful experience and she could become sterile now go look at your ultrasound pictures and tell me that is just a cell

Side: no, adoption is better
TheHallow1(78) Disputed
1 point

People are going to have sex no matter what. If she doesn't want the mistake, she doesn't have to live with it. Freedom 'O Choice.

Side: Yes, its not even alive
1 point

Every step of the way it should be treated with love and care. It is precious, and it should be respected because it is what was us.

Side: no, adoption is better
1 point

no because it is immoral its murder its messed up and most of people must face consequences for their actions therefore if you have sex and dont goprotected you must at least have the baby and you can give it up for adoption afterwards

Side: no, adoption is better
3 points

I believe that no one's right should be taken away to have an abortion but I do believe it is wrong. They should be responsible and go through with it. You never know, that baby might be the next president.

Side: no, adoption is better
angelmew(81) Disputed
0 points

Out of 6 bazillion people, only around 42 have had that luxury in the U.S. So if having 6 bazillion more babies is the solution to our lack of presidents, then the responsible thing to do would be to have as many babies as possible without regard to population, because it's the responsible thing to do.

Side: We have enough presidents
sop4life603(48) Disputed
2 points

Did I ever say it was a solution? No. That is a simple minded answer. I just said it could be plausible. Read before you write.

Side: no, adoption is better
Genesis1vs1(31) Disputed
1 point

Sex inside a marital relationships begats children. Those who do it outside marriage still have a responsiblity. How should we decide which children to murder? What age do we become a citizen. Babies are born premature all the time some only half way through the gestational period. What children do you think are good enough to have life?

Side: Yes, its not even alive
1 point

Let the woman do what she wants. It isn't up to a bunch protesters to decide what she can or can't do.

Side: Yes, its not even alive
1 point

I think that abortions should be allowed in certain cases as most of the women having abortions are under the age of 25 and are unmarried and they should be allowed to make the decision themselves as they are the ones going to be taking care of the baby and if they don't think that they are responsible enough to raise a baby, who are we to decide.

Side: only in certain cases
1 point

Family planning is a very personal decision that should be left to women. I laugh at the so-called "small government" conservatives who think the government interfering in family planning decisions is small government. As Dee Snider said when the issue of censorship came up, "If you don't like the music, don't buy the record." the same should go for abortion. If you think abortion is wrong, don't get one.

Side: Yes, its not even alive
1 point

I think that it should be the womans choice to have an abortion the problem is that lots of woman use this as their personal contraception instead of learning how to use condomns or birth control or just plain closing their legs. If you don't want to get pregnant learn how to be safe.

Side: Yes, its not even alive
1 point

Sometimes is better an abortion than a negleted child...

Although, it IS alive. But there's no perception of anything in the fetus/baby.

Side: Yes, its not even alive
1 point

Yes, it's there life and there choice. All arguments against it are based on religious views and no one has a right to force their religion on another.

Side: Yes, its not even alive
0 points

i think that abortion would be right in the case of rape.

Side: only in certain cases
Genesis1vs1(31) Disputed
1 point

You think because a woman is raped she should then murder a child. There is adoption many people would love to raise that baby.

Side: no, adoption is better
loganwhite(51) Disputed
2 points

if its destroyed before it can actually function out of the womb, its not alive, thus, it is not murder

Side: Yes, its not even alive
-1 points

I got something to say

I killed your baby today

And it doesn't matter much to me

As long as it's dead

Side: Yes, its not even alive
7 points

Should? No, they should be sexually responsible enough that its never even a thought.

Should they be able to? Thats another more complicated question.

Side: no, adoption is better
angelmew(81) Disputed
1 point

Sexually responsible is also abortion. There is no fail-safe method to prevent pregnancy unless you are sterilized. The last "sexually responsible" choice would be to have an abortion. Unless you plan on eliminating the ability to reproduce at a 100% rate of effectiveness, abortion, is the last responsible thing you can do. Although adoption has responsible connotations attached, it leads to years of drama, emotions, and psychological issues.

Side: We have enough presidents
casper3912(1581) Disputed
6 points

In General I consider doing something responsibly as including being willing to accept the consequences, even if some of them are unlikely or if another process might undo the undesirable consequences which might result. Usually the undoing process carries with it costs which are themselves undesirable.

For example, it is not responsible for some one to make a contract they can not keep. Even if there are ways to get around the consequences of breaking the contract.

Sex is not necessary, It can lead to things which negatively impacts what you do need, some money, decent reputation among some people, soundness of mind to maintain lifes pleasures, etc all can be negatively effected by either keeping the child, or by aborting the child . It is not responsible to make such a contract with nature, so to speak, if you can not afford it; even if you can invoke some technological magic and escape the natural consequences.

Side: no, adoption is better
pablosmith14(21) Disputed
4 points

Abortion itself can make you sterile so you want a woman to first kill her child then not be able to have more children

Side: no, adoption is better
sop4life603(48) Disputed
2 points

Having an abortion can also lead to years of drama,emotions,and psychological issues.

Side: no, adoption is better
KatieMarie(288) Disputed
2 points

What if your mom had an abortion when she was pregnant with you? I would be happy if she did, then you wouldnt be posting stupid arguments like "There is no fail-safe method to prevent pregnancy unless you are sterilized". Sometimes sterilization doesn't work. And the only fail proof is abstinence.

Side: no, adoption is better
Genesis1vs1(31) Disputed
2 points

Don't have sex if you aren't prepared for a child. If you do then choose adoption.

Side: no, adoption is better
5 points

Why were you born? Everyone has a reason to why you were born, you just have to find it. If your baby could have made a difference to this world, you are taking that away. You are taking away the chance for your baby to have a life. No matter good or bad, he/she should have a life, have a chance. And even if you think you are doing something good for the baby, you're not. You just killed a living breathing thing.

Side: no, adoption is better
3 points

exactly that is one hundred percent correct. tell me you have had 6 children each one is deaf or blind or dumb. now you are pregnant would you have an abortion?

Congrats

you just killed Beethoven

Side: no, adoption is better
angelmew(81) Disputed
1 point

We kill billions of other living things all the time for lesser reasons. One life is worth more than another? Seems like it.

Side: We have enough presidents
sop4life603(48) Disputed
4 points

"One life is worth more than another? Seems like it."

All unborn childrens lives are worth the same. They have not done anything wrong. Because all of there lives are worth the same, we need to save as many of them as we can.

"We kill billions of other living things all the time for lesser reasons."

Ok, so what are you saying? " Its ok if we kill them, we kill other people all the time and its not big deal!"

So if someone comes to your house in the middle of the night and kills your child (assuming you have one), it will be ok because we kill other living things all the time for lesser reasons.

Side: no, adoption is better
Genesis1vs1(31) Disputed
1 point

Human life is worth more then any other life. Do not compare a human to animals.

Side: no, adoption is better
4 points

22 days after a women conceives the baby's heart alredy begins to beat therefore the fetus is alive although you arent able to hear it until later in the pregnancy it is still a baby and yes it is ALIVE .

Side: no, adoption is better
4 points

my mother was raped at gun point and had my sister ... and pepole think she should have been aborted , im glad some people have the intellagence not to MURDER !!!

Side: no, adoption is better
protazoa(427) Disputed
2 points

do you think your sister would have minded if she were not born? No. She would not. She was not a conscious organism.

Am I saying that your sister should have been aborted? Of course not. But had your mother wanted an abortion, the potential human that is being terminated will be apathetic, as they are yet to develop any sort of cognitive capacity.

Side: Yes, its not even alive
Genesis1vs1(31) Disputed
2 points

When does a child become conscious? Which week is it? Why should a woman decide another person's fate. And you are saying her sister should have been aborted, but the mother chose not too. You talk of cancer cells as living tissue then you define life as a cognitive mind. Which is it?

Side: no, adoption is better
4 points

Where would we draw the line on when it is and isn't OK to take an innocent life? I don't think anyone in their right mind would be OK with slaughtering a newborn, yet it seems OK if it's just a few months younger inside a womb. What about women who get elective abortions only a week before they are due? The infant is almost identical to a day old baby we would be horrified of slaughtering, the only difference is it's location. So then that brings us to the fetus. It's very similar to the baby, but far less developed. Have we decided that it's not a human life because it's not developed to the birthing stage? I don't think it makes any moral sense to abort a child.

Side: no, adoption is better
protazoa(427) Disputed
3 points

It is never okay to take away an innocent life.

But fetuses are determined non-living until the third trimester.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/electionissues/i/abortion.htm

Women do not get 'abortions' a week before they are due: that would be a premature birth.

Yes, fetuses turn into babies.

but sperm cells turn are used to form said fetuses.

should it be illegal to enter a hot tub/kick someone in the balls/masturbate, because these actions kill sperm which have the potential to give rise to an embryo which can give rise to life?

Side: Yes, its not even alive
Republican2(349) Disputed
2 points

I think there's a difference between sperms cells and an embryo/zygote/fetus. The reason is because a sperm cell in itself has no further potential than to be a sperm cell. A fertilized egg however, will become a human being.

Side: no, adoption is better
4 points

A fetus is clearly human IMO. It has human genes. Also I think fetuses deserve person-hood. I see no difference in the survivability of a 9 mo fetus versus a 1 second old baby. Also, killing a fetus by, lets say, punching the mother, is considered murder. But yet if it's ripped out by a, "medical professional" it's totally legal and even supported with taxpayer dollars.

Side: no, adoption is better
protazoa(427) Disputed
2 points

likewise, it is illegal to kidnap someone's child from their house, but it is not illegal to put your child up for adoption. The difference between the first and second situation in both adoption and abortion is the motive.

the fetus does not die in the process of being removed. It dies because it is not a self sustaining organism.

and, despite any right to life you claim it has, why is the mother responsible for taking care of this burden?

If the fetus were not a parasite incapable of living without leeching off of the mother, then it would not 'die' when it was removed.

Side: Yes, its not even alive
3 points

People SHOULD NOT have abortions. It doesn't matter if the baby is technically a child yet or not. It's the idea that there is the oppurtunity for life to happen and you are taking that away with abortion. There are always other options.

Side: no, adoption is better
angelmew(81) Disputed
1 point

Does this also take into account the millions of aborted cow, and pig fetus'? The question is should people have abortions...

People can have their own or have some on other species. What makes one more valuable than another? Genetically all are dramatically similar. Except that one is farmed and collected as a resource and a large scale.

The opportunity for life only applies to human fetus' . If you believe that you take away the opportunity of life to happen............

We do this every day to other species of life. So you must agree that you are biased on "some life" should be allowed to live..which is also pro-choice thinking.

We must have our babies but other species can be destroyed at will.

Or....you are a vegan and your argument may be possibly valid.

Unless you are vegan, those of you against abortion are all pro-choicers and kill other species at will, fetus or not.

Side: We have enough presidents
3 points

There shouldn't be something like abortion. It's like murdering someone. If they don't want a baby they should have prevented while the intercourse.

Side: no, adoption is better
protazoa(427) Disputed
2 points

It is possible to become spontaneously pregnant. it occurs in about 2% to 7% of women with Turner's Syndrome.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15749515

No intercourse. What, then, is your insight on these situations?

Side: Yes, its not even alive
3 points

WHEN IT GETS IN YOUR STOMACH IT MAY NOT SEEM ALIVE BUT IT IS COMPLETELY ALIVE SO HAVE IT THEN GIVE AWAY DON'T KILL IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: no, adoption is better
protazoa(427) Disputed
4 points

you realize that if a fetus were in your stomach, you would be digesting it, right?

And, by the same coin, cancer (which, ironically, actually can be in your stomach) does not seem alive but it is completely alive- in the same sense as a fetus. Should one 'have [cancer] and then give [it] away'?

Side: Yes, its not even alive
angelmew(81) Disputed
3 points

It get's in the stomach? eeek! I guess no one needs a uterus if that's the case.

Side: Yes, its not even alive
2 points

We shall take the time to thank you for your use of capital letters. If your philosophy were not so unique and aspirant as to transcend grammar, we might think you a fool.

WHEN IT GETS IN YOUR STOMACH

Forgive our ignorance, we have not the pleasure of understanding you. Of what do you speak? It seems to be some form of chest-bursting alien.

BUT IT IS COMPLETELY ALIVE

That is not our understanding of the contested issue. It is rather debated whether it can be considered a person or not.

Side: Yes, its not even alive
pablosmith14(21) Disputed
3 points

It is a human tell me you were in the womb yet your mother had an abortion you wouldnt be here right now. now doesnt that mean a human is missing in the human population.

Side: no, adoption is better
2 points

First of all, scientifically an embryo is alive and our bill of rights say that we all have THE RIGHT TO LIFE. Therefore that right should speak for the embryo which cannot speak for itself.

Side: no, adoption is better
zombee(1024) Disputed
3 points

Citizens have the right to life.

Fetuses are not citizens.

Side: Yes, its not even alive
pablosmith14(21) Disputed
3 points

so you are saying that when ou where in the womb you weren't human go to ur ultra sound picture and tell me that isnt a baby

Side: no, adoption is better
1 point

exactly. Citizens can either be native-born, born to citizens, or naturalized

native born citizens are born in the county

born to citizens must have at least one citizen as a parent

naturalized must be of 18 years or older, lived in the country for 5 years, and pass a test

Fetuses are, by definition, unborn: and so were not born in any country or to any parents of any nationality.

They are also under 18 years old.

Side: Yes, its not even alive
protazoa(427) Disputed
2 points

you realize that, just because you say something is 'scientific' does not make the argument valid- especially when the term life is so widely debated even in the scientific community.

Consider Iron Sulfide. Under extreme temperature and pressure, such as a volcanic vent, it has the ability to form a membrane around itself, crystallize (if it is at critical mass), and then split. It is hypothesized that Iron sulfide particles are the abiotic precursor to life. Is it immoral to use iron in structures since it has the potential for life?

Also, body tissue is considered to be 'alive'. Should I not have my tonsils removed, since I would be killing the tissue after I remove it? It is, after all, a mass of living cells- just like a fetus. If that makes it alive, well, that is what is being debated at the moment.

Side: Yes, its not even alive
Genesis1vs1(31) Disputed
3 points

You can't seriously compare human life to minerals. Living tissue is just that tissue. Cutting off your finger, that tissue can't grow into a child. The embryo is human life in the making. Nothing compares to it.

Side: no, adoption is better
2 points

As a women, I think we must let women decide on their bodies, it is one of the basic rights a women should have, no doubt.

Side: no, adoption is better
Genesis1vs1(31) Disputed
1 point

What is the child's choice? It's their life can they decide to live if they want too.

Side: Yes, its not even alive
Genesis1vs1(31) Disputed
1 point

What is the child's choice? It's their life can they decide to live if they want too.

Side: Yes, its not even alive
2 points

ADOPTION IS BETTER do you want to see a baby when it is aborted. and if you were aborted you wouldnt be here right now.

How an abortion is done
Side: no, adoption is better
2 points

abortions should not take place - a child can be aborted for up to 24 weeks old - a baby can be born then - so that is killing a living baby and is very wrong.

Side: no, adoption is better
2 points

If one is considered dead when their heart ceases to the beat why are they not consider alive when their heart begins to beat?

Side: no, adoption is better
protazoa(427) Disputed
2 points

A fetus's heart does not beat of its own accord.

The mother acts as life support for the fetus.

That places a fetus in a similar category to a vegetable.

If it is ethical to pull the plug on a brain dead patient

it is ethical to pull the plug on a fetus

especially when YOU are the plug

Side: Yes, its not even alive
JDBrooks87(7) Disputed
2 points

Someone who is brain dead will most likely never regained consciousness. Most unborn children will be born in less interfered with.

Side: no, adoption is better
2 points

If you have do something you need to deal with the consequences. You shouldn’t be allowed to take the easy way out. Thing about is before you go off and do something with someone.

Side: no, adoption is better
zombee(1024) Disputed
2 points

Abortion is a consequence, and it is not 'easy' .

Side: Yes, its not even alive
2 points

Not at any giving time is an abortion acceptable. Before anyone pops off at the mouth about something they know nothing about, maybe you should do your research. Abortion clinics, for one, don't give a rats @ss about you or that baby. They are in it for the money. They won't even let the mother's look at the ultrasound screen to see how big the baby is when doing the initial check to make sure they are pregnant. They know they will change their minds if they see it. There is an abortion clinic, which also does late term abortions, in Kansas. Right across the street is a Prolife group that offers the mothers a 4d ultrasounds. Out of all the mother's that have agreed to talk to them before having the abortion only 1 has actually went through with it. Fetus' do have feelings. Mothers that get saline injections to kill the babies feel their dying baby kicking as the saline eats away at their unborn flesh. A 12 WEEK fetus has been noted on an ultrasound to pull away and try to escape the suctioning machine as it's being ripped from the womb at one mother's abortion. Life beings at conception, we are just in different stages of growth, such as a newborn from an adult. Nonetheless, we still harbor the same DNA and potential no matter what stage. Whether you are raped or irresponsible, we are all here for a reason. Both of my daughters were unplanned. I even had one at 17, but I couldn't imagine her not being here. The psychological effect on a woman who has had an abortion is tremendous. Trust me, b/c I know... nothing good comes out of an abortion. You are ripped of everything that God has given you the right to have. Put yourself aside for 9 months, which is clearly not forever, and give your baby a fighting chance. This should not even be a debate. Adoption is far better then living with the fact you selfishly killed your child.

Side: no, adoption is better
zombee(1024) Disputed
2 points

Not at any giving time is an abortion acceptable. Before anyone pops off at the mouth about something they know nothing about, maybe you should do your research.

People are perfectly capable of doing their research and still disagreeing with you.

Abortion clinics, for one, don't give a rats @ss about you or that baby. They are in it for the money.

As an absolute statement, this is false. There may be clinics that immorally encourage or coerce women into getting abortions but they are just as monstrous and people who would encourage or coerce a woman to continue a pregnancy she truly didn't want. Do you really doubt the ability and in fact the overwhelming tendency of doctors to be truly concerned with the mental and physical health of their patients, and to desire to do what's best for them, whether or not that entails the termination of a pregnancy?

Additionally, it is far more lucrative to charge someone for 9 months of prenatal care and subsequent delivery than is it to charge someone for a single abortion procedure. The idea that this is a get-rich-quick scheme for doctors is completely baseless.

They won't even let the mother's look at the ultrasound screen to see how big the baby is when doing the initial check to make sure they are pregnant.

Even if this is true (could not find a single source on such a thing), ultrasounds are always available at other places. The decision to get an abortion is not an instant one.

They know they will change their minds if they see it. There is an abortion clinic, which also does late term abortions, in Kansas. Right across the street is a Prolife group that offers the mothers a 4d ultrasounds. Out of all the mother's that have agreed to talk to them before having the abortion only 1 has actually went through with it.

So? Did you expect a pro-choice person to have a problem with this? No pro-choice person wants to see more abortions, or see women pushed into getting one they don't really want. If a woman is feeling uncertain, and decides not to a get an abortion after seeing an ultrasound, great. Far better than her not seeing an ultrasound, getting an abortion, and wishing she hadn't.

However, not all pregnant women have or would change their minds upon seeing an ultrasound. A huge percentage of pregnancies are terminated before the fetus even looks remotely humanoid.

Fetus' do have feelings. Mothers that get saline injections to kill the babies feel their dying baby kicking as the saline eats away at their unborn flesh. A 12 WEEK fetus has been noted on an ultrasound to pull away and try to escape the suctioning machine as it's being ripped from the womb at one mother's abortion.

Nice use of blatantly slanted language.

Bacteria reacts to its environment but it does not mean you are causing millions of agonizing deaths every time you spray bleach on something. Even the most conservative estimates place the fetus's ability to feel pain at 20 weeks. Recent studies place the threshold closer to 24 weeks.

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-human-condition/2010/06/25/does-the-fetus-feel-pain-uk-report-says- no.html

Life beings at conception, we are just in different stages of growth, such as a newborn from an adult. Nonetheless, we still harbor the same DNA and potential no matter what stage.

No one thinks a fetus is dead tissue. The contention is over whether or not the interests of the fetus override the interests of the mother. I think the answer is a resounding no.

We all have potential but the law does not and should not operate on potential, it operates on the present. A 17-year-old can't get into a bar by saying they are a 'potential adult'.

Whether you are raped or irresponsible, we are all here for a reason.

This is your opinion and not something on which to base decisions about someone else's life. Plenty of people do not believe anyone's birth is predestined and it's not your place to decide something about their lives based on your beliefs.

Hint: Not everyone who gets an abortion has been irresponsible. There is such a thing as contraceptive failure.

Both of my daughters were unplanned. I even had one at 17, but I couldn't imagine her not being here.

Great for you. You're not everyone. People are different.

The psychological effect on a woman who has had an abortion is tremendous.

And the psychological effect on a woman who has been forced to incubate a fetus she doesn't want is....? What? Trivial? Please.

Trust me, b/c I know...

Because you had an abortion? If so, your experience and your reactions, are not representative of everyone's. Try to differentiate your own feelings and experiences from other people's. You are not them and you have no place forcing your conclusions into their decisions.

If not, then you are not really in a position to speak from experience. Yes, abortion is not easy or fun, and yes, some women may feel guilty. This is regrettable and should be avoided through better sex education and better support for unintentionally pregnant women. But just because some women are harmed or regretful as a result of getting an abortion does not mean they should not be legal, safe, and available.

nothing good comes out of an abortion.

Maybe it wouldn't for you. So don't get one. Plenty of women would disagree and overall are quite happy with their decision to terminate their pregnancies.

You are ripped of everything that God has given you the right to have.

Unless someone doesn't believe in God or puts their reproductive autonomy above what you think he wants.

This should not even be a debate.

This is the only point in which we are in agreement. A citizen's right to bodily autonomy should not even be an issue.

Adoption is far better then living with the fact you selfishly killed your child.

The government has no business trying to make selfishness illegal.

Side: Yes, its not even alive
3 points

"Before anyone pops off at the mouth about something they know nothing about"

I agree so far. So, why did you keep talking?

"Abortion clinics, for one, don't give a rats @ss"

what was that about doing research?

I could not find a single source that even hinted at any minute possibility of this being true.

"They are in it for the money"

according to my source, the abortion clinic profited $831 million for 1.21 million abortions

that is roughly 686 dollars per child

a 100 pack of diapers costs $35

at an average 14 diapers per day

and the baby uses diapers for two years

JUST the diapers for for less than half a year (137 days) costs more than an abortion

leaving diaper profits, alone, at $3650

that is $2970 more than an abortion per baby.

if abortion advocates were only searching for money, baby care is far more lucrative

http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_for_profit/

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=12024959&findingMethod;=rr

http://www.diaperdecisions.com/pages/cost_of_cloth_diapers.php

(because I actually do research)

Side: Yes, its not even alive
2 points

i don't think it's right to kill an unborn child. they did't even get the chance to experience life. they have fingernails within the first month. it's murder. they have a heartbeat within as little as 18 days.

Side: no, adoption is better
protazoa(427) Disputed
2 points

1) they never had a chance to experience life because they are not alive.

2) since when does a build up of keratin qualify anything as 'living'?

3) "its murder" is contrary to my other two statements, and is not in and of itself an argument

4) their heart beats, but they are not functional. They cannot transport oxygenated blood.

Side: Yes, its not even alive
2 points

I think that if you have sex to get pregnant then you should have to deal with the consequences. i don't think it's right to be able to throw a life away before it even has the chance to be someone. I am 100% against abortion and nobody could change my mind. Some people say they are against it unless it was rape, but i say that even if it was rape then you should still have it and give it up for adoption. I for one was actually in a situation like that. I didn't have the choice to get pregnant, but i wouldn't have gotten an abortion. I didn't get an abortion.

Side: Yes, its not even alive
2 points

I don't believe that we should get the choice weather or not to end a life. Who cares if it isn't a full baby yet? It's still one less chance we have at finding the cure for cancer. Or maybe it's the next Martin Luther King? Who knows if you have it aborted right? And if you didn't want to have the child, then maybe you shouldn't of had sex in the first place. If you're a rape victim, i apologize for what i just said. The only time i ever see it fit to get an abortion is if the child is killing the mother.

Side: no, adoption is better

jdfkfmdxmccnmcnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnncbcbcbcbcbcbbcbcbcbskas;dkmf

Side: no, adoption is better
Warlin(1212) Disputed
3 points

Knock it off.

Jesus Christ. 'like a goddamned child.

Side: Yes, its not even alive
2 points

What did I say wrong?! I just stated my opinion! This is blasphemy!!!!!!

Side: no, adoption is better
4 points

I just stated my opinion!

A man might call the sky green,

And that is his view of the hue.

But if one sees what is to be seen

One can but say it is blue.

Side: Yes, its not even alive
protazoa(427) Disputed
3 points

"jdfkfmdxmccnmcnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnncbcbcbcbcbcbbcbcbcbskas;dkmf" is not an opinion.

And a blasphemy is irreverence against a holy figure.

So you are either incredibly unintelligent on two accounts

or you have the largest ego known to mankind

- and are incredibly unintelligent on the first count alone

Side: Yes, its not even alive
1 point

Selective abortions have always been permissible, mothers life being in danger and the baby being stillborn being the two extremes. The issue is more should casual abortion be allowed in place of shouldering the responsibility for your own irresponsible behavior? The answer there is a definitive no.

If you don’t want to have kids then use contraceptives or be responsible. People hide behind excuses like “Oh, what about a rapists child” or “it’s my body.” A rapists child is still a child and you’re the states “human farm” not your own individual. There are always places things can be done at your own expense –this should be one of them if your country doesn’t allow it. Having taxpayers back and fund such matters when there are more sensible things to be spending money on is not helping anyone in the long run.

Side: No the current laws are OK
zombee(1024) Disputed
4 points

It is commonly assumed by pro-life people that the only women who ever opt for an abortion were being promiscuous or irresponsible. This is false, and in fact, the majority of aborted pregnancies occurred with at least one form of birth control in place, and nearly half of all pregnancies in America are unintended.

you’re the states “human farm” not your own individual.

Not only is also not true (as abortion is legal), it is a terrifying prospect and avoiding it is exactly why abortion should continue to be legal for whatever reason.

http://www.alanguttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Side: Yes, its not even alive
Genesis1vs1(31) Disputed
2 points

Nearly half are unexpected? Where is this statistic? The human farm then what is the baby who is going to worry about them. You have sex for procreation that is its intended purpose. A child is not a byproduct it is the goal of the act.

Side: no, adoption is better
Posionus(76) Disputed
2 points

So? It doesn't legitimize killing someone. The debate should really be about whether a fetus has a right to life. I think it does.

Side: no, adoption is better
protazoa(427) Disputed
2 points

"baby being stillborn being the two extremes"

you realize that, in a stillbirth, the baby is both

1) already dead

and 2) carried out to term

making that argument inapplicable on two platforms.

also

" Having taxpayers back and fund such matters when there are more sensible things to be spending money on is not helping anyone in the long run"

This thread is not about public funding of abortions. It is about abortions. I actually agree that abortions should be privately funded- but that they should be allowed.

after all, "its [her] body"

which, upon thorough examination of your argument, I could not find a definitive argument against it.

Side: Yes, its not even alive
Genesis1vs1(31) Disputed
2 points

It's her body, but it's also the child's potential to develop into a fully functing human being.

Side: no, adoption is better
1 point

but thats still murder + ITS YOUR OWN BABY YOU ARE KILLING YOUR OWN BABBY

Side: no, adoption is better
1 point

An embryo has a heart beat after eighteen days after conception. EIGHTEEN DAYS!! You don't even know you're pregnant at that time. If you abort, you stop a heartbeat. That is killing, murdering.

Side: no, adoption is better
1 point

Absolutely NOT! Only in the cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is at stake.

Side: no, adoption is better
1 point

Adoption.

Rape cases are no exception, you have the kid, it goes to adoption, victim is compensated by the state and the rapist is condemned to a hard labor camp.

Side: no, adoption is better
1 point

There is substantial evidence that explicitly supports the claim that the unborn are indeed life forms, and they should be treated as such. For instance, consider the limited differences between humans and the unborn. The primary one is lack of development. As humans are considered to have moral equality despite their age (and hence development), there is no reason why fetuses should be treated any differently.

Side: no, adoption is better
1 point

if you aint ready to be a mom adoption should be your only choice but to start it of if you aint ready to be a mom in the first place why you having sex ?

Side: no, adoption is better