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.
I believe abortion is acceptable, however, I believe that the continuous creation of these themed debates is just wrong. These debates are a disease. There are far, far, far, far, far too many abortion debates. No disrespect though mate ;)
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.
Unfortunately, millions upon millions of abortions are not a result of rape. It is reported that only as few as 2% of abortions are a result of rape. I understand the stance on this but statistics show other evidence.
It's unfortunate millions of women aren't raped? ... interesting.
At any rate, I don't care if it's .000001%. It's none of your business how someone else got pregnant and they don't need you all up in their vagina telling them what to do because you don't want to have an abortion.
Until people start ripping fetuses out of your belly against your will, you don't have a right to force them to carry around what at that stage amounts to a tumor, against their will.
1. We are all just a cluster of cells. There are some people who are never self-aware due to mental diseases. There are some people who don't feel pain because of neurological disorders. This hardly disqualifies them from humanity.
2. I agree that in life-or-death situations, the doctors have to make a call to save the mother or the baby. This is atypical, however, and only happens in about 2-3% of all cases.
3. The issue is not whether or not people are forced to have abortions. The issue is whether or not abortion is murder. If abortion is murder, then we have a problem. We should not think the legalization of murder is ok just because no one is forcing us to murder others.
4. This applies to murder, rape, theft, and every other crime. Of course it won't stop some people from doing it, but it will allow for law enforcement to punish for committing crimes. It will also help to educate youth on what is morally acceptable and what is morally horrid.
5. This issue is moot if a fetus is an individual human life. We shouldn't legalize murder to make it less hazardous to the murderer. Besides this rape is never the fault of the baby, so how does anyone have a right to kill it?
1. We're a self-aware, feeling cluster of cells. But a fetus does not equate mental retardation. It would more accurately compare to moss, or perhaps a very stupid lady bug.
2. I'm glad we agree here at least. But from where will the doctors come to perform this life saving surgery should it be all but illegal? It seems they would be hard to find after this puritanical cleansing.
3. It is about force, actually, being as it has been established well that abortion is not murder. It is the force of a belief system, and a faulty one at that.
4. Ah, so it is not about saving lives, it is about righteous revenge. I always suspected as much.
5. Seems we've been over this point a couple times now. Abortion is not murder.
1. The comparison is a bad one. Neither moss nor lady bugs have human DNA. A human fetus has a distinct human DNA code from its mother. The complexity of an organism during development does not affect what it is; a child is less complex than an adult, but both are human.
2. From the same place they performed life-or-death abortions before: the hospital or doctor's office. Abortion has always been legal in life-or-death cases.
3. Look over at my post on the other side of the debate and refute those points, please. It's not well-established that it's not murder. Truth is not relative to our current laws.
4. Laws are put in place with punishments attached to keep people from doing those acts. Laws will never stop those who flaunt them, only punish those who are caught. That should not stop laws from being in place.
1. My fingernails and hair have human DNA as well.
2. Inconsequential.
3. It is well-established that it is not murder by the scientific community. It is only misguided feelings which insist it is murder. It is not though.
4. No, the purpose of laws is not to punish. That is a misconception. The purpose of law is to guarantee freedoms, rehabilitate, and remove dangerous individuals from society.
5. You are stating the same boring points cited over, and over, and over by others on all of these debates. You've not said anything new.
1. Your fingernails and hair do not make up the whole of you as a human. Without your hair or fingernails you would survive. On the contrary, abortion kills the entire individual organism.
2. That whole issue is inconsequential.
3. Science is silent on the issue of morality. However science does agree that the fetus has an individual genetic code and fits into the biological definition of life. It is an individual human by all biological standards. It is in no way a part of the mother, it just depends on the mother for survival (and so are children outside the womb). Because of this it is deserving of all human rights everyone else has. Unless you can show it is not an individual human or it is not alive, anything else is superfluous.
4. You're just stating the positive side of the coin whereas I said the negative.
5. You're refusing to answer the basic data over and over. Please share how a human fetus is not alive or how it is not an individual with a unique genetic code.
1. Just as my fingernails and hair do not make up the whole of a human, so too a fetus does not make up the whole of a human. They do have equal feelings, emotions and understanding on the matter though.
3. It is in every way part of the mother. It is a cluster of cells with no feelings, emotion of ability to be self-aware growing within her. And wether it is alive is not the point at all. It is not even close to the point. The point is whether it is self-aware and capable of feeling, which it definitely, without any doubt, is not.
4. No, you're imagining a human where there is none. I'm giving you fact you're giving me your personal misguided feelings.
5. My claim is not based on genetic code or whether it's living. It's based on being self-aware. Gentetic code and living have nothing to do with the matter as I clearly showed in the examples of hair, nails, insects and moss.
I'll make you a deal, when you have the omniscient ability to know exactly what every female and fetus on earth is thinking and feeling and you can prove to me you have this ability, then if fetuses stop dying of natural causes all on their own magically, I'll agree with your self-righteous nosy bullshit.
1. At this point in the baby's life, it does. The fetus is an individual human. A fetus is just a term for a body in the womb of a mother.
2. It is a collection of human cells with a different genetic code than the mother. It is alive and an individual. Again there are people born who are never self-aware, some who never feel, so on your view are they not people? The fetus may be dependent on the mother for survival, but so is a newborn, so is an infant, and so is a child. These are all different stages of development of an individual human being. It's not like the fetus is an organ of the mother - it is an individual human life.
3. By all biological definitions it's an individual humans. I could say you're giving me your own personal misguided feelings; it gets us nowhere. Let's stick with medical facts.
4. Again hair and nails are not individual humans - they're part of you. In the case of abortion it is killing the entire organism, akin to poisoning you to death. Not your nails or hair, but your entire self. If self-awareness is the test of personhood, again that advocates the killing of the retarded, comatose, and senile elderly. Moss and insects are a red herring.
You're getting too emotional with the argument. I don't have to be omniscient to know that it is wrong to murder innocent human beings because they inconvenience you. The fetus is a separate human life and deserves protection if any human deserves protection.
Also you don't make a distinction between killing something and that thing dying of natural causes? Really?
It is none of your business what another does with their body.
You want to justify forcing your morality on others, and are reaching for quazi-logic to do it. There is no logic in it though. Only religious superstition. One of the reasons your religion is so evil and dangerous when weilded by most of you, you cannot even see your own totalitarian views on morality should you be given enough power in any situation to control others, and you will literally make-up bullshit like your argument to justify it. "It's alive" - yeah I know, but not sentient. "Human DNA" - yeah, I know but not sentient. "Your changing the argument" - still not sentient "Stick to the facts" - nope, still not sentient.
It's silly.
If god doesn't like it let him come tell people otherwise. Until then tell your fellow christians to stop with the abortion doctor death threats and scaring girls on their way to clinics.
Also you don't make a distinction between killing something and that thing dying of natural causes? Really?
lmao. You're not? If god is all powerful he's killing more fetuses than every abortion doctor combined.
I never disputed this. I asked if, on your view, the retarded, senile, and comatose are all in the same boat as fetuses as none of them are self-aware and some are not feeling.
It is the woman's body.
It's a separate human life form inside the woman's body, but it in no way is a part of her body. In the same way a splinter is in my body but not a part of my body. The fetus is not an organ of the mother.
It is none of your business what another does with their body.
It is in the case of depriving someone else of their rights, like murder.
Only religious superstition.
I haven't once made a religious statement here. I've only given statements from biology.
One of the reasons your religion is so evil and dangerous when weilded by most of you, you cannot even see your own totalitarian views on morality should you be given enough power in any situation to control others, and you will literally make-up bullshit like your argument to justify it.
Cool red herring and ad hominem.
If god doesn't like it let him come tell people otherwise. Until then tell your fellow christians to stop with the abortion doctor death threats and scaring girls on their way to clinics.
Only if you actually answer the one question I've asked and stick with biology instead of emotion.
If god is all powerful he's killing more fetuses than every abortion doctor combined.
I never disputed this. I asked if, on your view, the retarded, senile, and comatose are all in the same boat as fetuses as none of them are self-aware and some are not feeling.
Not even close. The retarded are sentient. Comatose may wake up, senile are sentient. You refuse to accept a fetus is equal to what I've compared it to accurately. Instead making incorrect comparisons to support a misguided view.
It's a separate human life form inside the woman's body, but it in no way is a part of her body. In the same way a splinter is in my body but not a part of my body. The fetus is not an organ of the mother.
In that sense. And in that sense aborting it is morally equivalent to removing a splinter as well.
It is in the case of depriving someone else of their rights, like murder.
No it isn't, because it is not sentient.
I haven't once made a religious statement here. I've only given statements from biology.
No, you've given statements from the religious (specifically christian) mis-representations of biology and propaganda campaign. These ideas are only found on religious sites.
Cool red herring and ad hominem.
It's neither. It's an observation of a trend, one which this debate highlights perfectly.
Only if you actually answer the one question I've asked and stick with biology instead of emotion.
I've answered all of your questions then some. When I make a valid point you reply (as I notice christians do often in debates about abortion ) by claiming I've not answered some question. You're not the first to do this.
You really enjoy ruddy fish.
So can I get an answer to my question up top now?
I've answered all of your questions then some. When I make a valid point you reply (as I notice christians do often in debates about abortion ) by claiming I've not answered some question. You're not the first to do this.
1. We are all just a cluster of cells. There are some people who are never self-aware due to mental diseases. There are some people who don't feel pain because of neurological disorders. This hardly disqualifies them from humanity.
Of course it doesn't disqualify them from being considered human. But it does mean that they are not persons, i.e. they do not possess the essential characteristics of personhood, which are rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness.
2. I agree that in life-or-death situations, the doctors have to make a call to save the mother or the baby. This is atypical, however, and only happens in about 2-3% of all cases.
But you haven't stated whether abortion, in such unfortunate circumstances, are right or wrong.
3. The issue is not whether or not people are forced to have abortions. The issue is whether or not abortion is murder. If abortion is murder, then we have a problem. We should not think the legalization of murder is ok just because no one is forcing us to murder others.
On the contrary, this is an issue of whether you would consider abortion as murder or not. Furthermore, you yourself seem to think that this issue is paramount to the debate since you went on to talk about the legalisation of murder and used that as an analogy.
4. This applies to murder, rape, theft, and every other crime. Of course it won't stop some people from doing it, but it will allow for law enforcement to punish for committing crimes. It will also help to educate youth on what is morally acceptable and what is morally horrid.
My question to you is: is abortion morally acceptable?
5. This issue is moot if a fetus is an individual human life. We shouldn't legalize murder to make it less hazardous to the murderer. Besides this rape is never the fault of the baby, so how does anyone have a right to kill it?
You seem to forget that rape is also never the fault of the victim. With this being true, how can you deny the victim/mother-to-be the right to make choices concerning her own body if it is not her fault in the first place?
1. So on your view, then, it would be ok to kill these humans because they are not people? What about babies outside of the womb who are newborn? They lack rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness.
2. I think it's morally neutral in these cases. If between a rock and a hard place, where the doctor has to make a life-or-death call, it would be morally permissible (not good or evil) to do so.
3. I think you misread it because your response agrees with me. The issue is whether or not abortion is murder. Legality and morality are separate, of course, but legality should flow out of morality.
4. No, except in life-or-death cases as stated above.
5. But neither is it the fault of the child. It's unfortunate, but the mother being wronged in no way makes it morally acceptable for her to thereby wrong the baby.
So on your view, then, it would be ok to kill these humans because they are not people?
The short answer is "yes", but the long answer would have to be "no".
What about babies outside of the womb who are newborn? They lack rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness.
No, they don't. According to the OED, autonomy is defined as "a. The condition of being controlled only by its own laws, and not subject to any higher one. b. Organic independence." A baby that is born do have autonomy.
Self-consciousness is defined, according to the OED, as "Consciousness of one's own identity, one's acts, thoughts, etc." As long as one has knowledge of what one is doing, he/she is said to possess self-consciousness. A baby that is born can said to have self-consciousness.
2. I think it's morally neutral in these cases. If between a rock and a hard place, where the doctor has to make a life-or-death call, it would be morally permissible (not good or evil) to do so.
It between "a rock and a hard place" is not the same as moral neutrality. Furthermore, morally permissible is not morally neutral. You are contradicting yourself here.
3. I think you misread it because your response agrees with me. The issue is whether or not abortion is murder. Legality and morality are separate, of course, but legality should flow out of morality.
Yes, it seems like I have misread your statement. I apologise for that. And I agree with what you have said about legality and morality.
4. No, except in life-or-death cases as stated above.
However, you haven't provided any good arguments to exclude all the other cases from being morally permissible.
5. But neither is it the fault of the child. It's unfortunate, but the mother being wronged in no way makes it morally acceptable for her to thereby wrong the baby.
First, the fetus is neither a "child" nor a "baby". Thus, your entire argument is moot. Second, while I agree that the injustice accrued to someone is not justification for that person to wrong any one else, you are assuming that the fetus has the same rights as the mother. As I have said, since the fetus is not a person, it would be fallacious to accrue the same rights to a fetus as you would any other person.
Give me a few more years and I suspect I'll be 99% pro-life as my opinion continues to evolve the older I get. At this point I believe it should be rare... only in the first trimester and only once... not to be used as a form of birth control. As for rape and incest, I don't know if I will ever believe that abortion shouldn't be allowed in those cases.
The balanced opinion is generally the most correct in discussions that are not black and white, such as this one.
Such is why I believe that it's okay to abort up until a certain point in the pregnancy. After a certain point, it becomes the murder of a human being.
I see every reason why a pro-lifer is a pro-lifer. However, I do believe it should be the woman's choice since the fetus is not born yet. It is much safer than giving birth, especially when done earlier. It helps slow down overpopulation. If abortion was illegal, illegal abortions would be extremely dangerous. It can prevent poverty when it's by an adolescent or single woman.
everybody should have the rights to decide on whether they want to keep a child or not. we all know we should use condoms but we also know condoms break, everytime some one is pregnant we cant always blame them. People may get an abortion because there not finaically set, there trying to achieve there goals, or maybe there just not ready. a child does not to deserve to die but it is also do not deserve to be brought in the world and tooking care the right way.
Ugh, whenever I go into an abortion debate it gives me the distinct feeling of going to war.
Anyway, I am pro choice, because I think if you force the woman to have a child you should cut the pretense and just shove a baby-sized object up there without her consent. Roughly the same trauma and pain would be delivered except without the finiancial damage to go along with it.
I rank most orphanages as somewhere within the 9th ring of hell, at least the ones I have visisted, so adoption would just be meaner to the "life".
Besides, let's throw a little bit of perspective. An egg in a woman's body is always there, always waiting, and is flushed out once a month and replaced with another one. That egg is potential for life. Conception conshmeption, all the eggs are potential humans. Same for sperm (Which means I must have a higher death count than Adolf Hitler).
Now, as for fetus-is-life arguement, let's look again. See a picture of a fetus, then see a picture of a baby, or normal human. The fetus has almost no mental nor emotional functions. It's brain is not even fully developed. Even dogs can claim that their brains are fully developed. It's body is not fully developed for life outside the womb either. Until it's able to claim a basically developed human body with a basically developed human mind, it's not human (third trimester being included).
Unless you are ready to take in that unwanted child, feed it, raise it, and let it be its own person, or providing the necessary money and support to do so, do not say you are "protecting" life. Saving someone from being murdered is protecting life. Giving money to the homeless so they can buy something to eat is protecting life. Signing a petition saying women should be forced to live with their mistakes (not even theirs if it's rape) is not protecting life.
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.
It's funny how people have abortions just because they can't be responsible enough to use protection. If the person was raped or could die from the pregnancy, I can understand. But honestly, people should never get an abortion if they are just too irresponsible. Makes me sick
I don't find it humorous. And you don't have any idea what factors go into someone else's decision to have or not have an abortion. Your imagination is not a relative argument.
Whatever excuses you all can think of to justify it. The fact that you need to justify it makes it wrong. People make choices and have to live with them. I'm sorry you all can't see that. I'm also sorry that personal responsibility has become such an alien concept. It's sad really.
exactly what davidh said. also you make think for the most part abortion is sick. i sure do. the moral decision is to have the baby. but do you really think getting rid of the option is a good idea? wether its immoral or not it should be an option.
There's one major and blatant flaw/contradiction in your statement:
You clearly believe an abortion is the killing of a baby, so how could you commit murder in one way (allowing abortions when the woman is raped or could die), and be against murder in another (using abortions as birth control).
Bottom line is; its the peoples choice not the governments.
What is actually funny is how republicans want the government to make personal choices for them, and then preach the wrongs of a big government.....can anyone say hypocrite?
As a woman who does not hold a religious stance on this but rather a personal experience stance, I think my argument holds a lot of water.
I had an abortion. I regret it deeply. I am older now and realize how selfish of a decision it was. I think because we can't see or hold or converse with the life, it is easy to dismiss but, I ALSO, almost did it again, 3 years later. I had two children already and had been basically tricked into a pregnancy I did not want. My boys were older, I had my life together and did not want another child. The issue was pushed by my partner and I was given an ultimatum. I got pregnant and he left 8 weeks into it. I was backed against a wall, scared, confused. How would I care for 3 children alone? I made an appointment and drove to Las Vegas ( hours and hours from where I lived. ) Once there I broke down in the parking lot and drove all the way home. I went through with the pregnancy and gave birth to a gorgeous little girl, met a guy that has been her dad for the last 5 years and I am reminded everytime I look at her, that the only thing that separated her from death was my unwillingness to walk up a flight of stairs. She almost wasn't here... so close. She also reminds me of the who isn't here because of a selfish decision I made. I like how so many people forget about adoption as an option...just like I did. Denying life a chance...
I remember this one girl walking down the street in 1999, and everytime I think of me not getting her pregnant I miss the 12 year old that could have been.
Ergo since I feel this way men should just impregnate every woman they have a moment's urge to impregnate, otherwise we'll all be sad and junk.
Basically, it's a bad argument as heartfelt for you as it may be.
But I honestly believe that it is more selfish to trick yourself into thinking that you can care for a child, when you can't, and end up not giving the child the best life possible. THAT seems more selfish to me than letting go.
Also, adoption is not a choice some people can make, for personal reasons they don't want to do it, but yes, it is an other option, just not one for everyone.
Life is defined scientifically as any organism containing most or all of the following qualities:
1. Homeostasis - regulation of internal environment
2. Organization - composed of one or more structured cells
3. Metabolism - able to transform food into energy and use it
4. Growth - increasing in size or complexity
5. Adaptation - ability to change over time in response to environment
6. Response to stimuli - reacting to outside objects (recoiling when poked, etc)
7. Reproduction - ability to produce more organisms
From the moment of conception, the new cell has all of these attributes. It fits into the definition of life.
The new cell also has a unique genetic code not found in the mother.
Therefore, given the definition of life and the fact that the new life has a differing genetic code from its mother we can conclude that it is a separate human being in early stages of development. As a separate human being it has the same worth and rights as any other human being.
If this is true no other arguments matter. Size, stage of growth (children are less developed than adults, are they less than human?), and location do not matter at all. If it is an individual human being, it has all the rights and protections of all other human beings. Killing this life is tantamount to murder.
1. I disagree with your definition of life. One must consider both scientific and philosophical perspectives for a comprehensive definition to be made.
2. A fetus does not have all of those features from the moment of conception.
3. I disagree with the assumption that a fetus is a human being. Again, one must consider both science and philosophy.
4. Killing a fetus is not tantamount to murder, in the same way that contraception is not tantamount to murder. The prevention of possible life is not tantamount to murder.
3. It's not an assumption, it's a deduction based off of the biological definition of life and its unique genetic code. I'll wait on your philosophical definition of life before commenting further.
4. Prevention of possible life is not murder, I agree. This goes back to defining what life is. Again I'll wait.
1. There are many people who are retarded or comatose who can't fulfill these functions. Are they not persons on your view?
2. It most certainly can. The cell splits exponentially, becomes a cluster of copied cells, and then those cells begin to diversify into more specialized cells.
1. But they have the chance of doing so. One who is retarded can achieve those things I listed. And one who is comatose isn't so from birth (at least I don't think so, my knowledge of comas isn't great). So both people match the scientific and philosophical meaning.
2. But that's not human reproduction, is it? If it is, I'm doing it wrong...
Just to clarify, you are opposed to abortion, yes?
1. This is not always the case. There are some forms of retardation in which they never achieve these. I personally know of one little girl who has massive brain damage and will never be able to fit your description. People in comatose (if we follow your definition of personhood) lose their personhood upon going comatose - they cannot gain knowledge, exercise wisdom, love others, find purpose, or integrate into society. Now the incredible irony of all of this is that the fetus can do all of these things given the chance. If on your view these people are persons because they have the potential of doing these things, how is the fetus not a person having the equal potential of doing these things?
2. "Reproduction" in the sense of simple life just means the ability to replicate oneself in some manner. It's not sexual reproduction, no, but that's not what the definition refers to. Otherwise single-celled organisms which reproduce asexually wouldn't be considered alive.
Clarification: I am against abortion in all but life-or-death cases. At that point I think the doctor needs to make the call and save either the mother or the baby. The moral landscape is such at that point that it's permissible to take action one way or the other because the doctor is sworn to do everything he can to keep his patient alive.
People in comatose (if we follow your definition of personhood) lose their personhood upon going comatose - they cannot gain knowledge, exercise wisdom, love others, find purpose, or integrate into society.
But prior to this, they can. Besides, we know that they are human beings anyway. They are independent of a natural host, and would be able to do the things I specified if they weren't afflicted by a condition. My concern is that I doubt a fetus could do those things regardless of condition.
is that the fetus can do all of these things given the chance.
Not until the third trimester, in which abortion is illegal anyway. A fetus cannot do any of the things I specified maximally, if at all, prior to the third trimester. It is, by definition, a parasite until about 20 weeks or so.
how is the fetus not a person having the equal potential of doing these things?
Because I obviously disagree that a fetus can do those things.
It's not sexual reproduction, no, but that's not what the definition refers to.
I know that. But when we are talking about defining human life, the sexual one is the only definition that matters.
Otherwise single-celled organisms which reproduce asexually wouldn't be considered alive.
I'm not disputing that they are alive. I'm disputing on the grounds that asexual reproduction is not human, which is all that needs to be considered. Thus, a fetus does not have all the biological features you or I have from the moment of conception. It also lacks many other things, but those aren't necessary for me to disagree with your premises.
I am against abortion in all but life-or-death cases.
A few hypothetical scenarios then..
1. A mother has been raped. Yay or nay to abortion, and why?
2. The mother will suffer serious health problems if she carries to full term. Yay or nay?
3. The baby will suffer serious health problems when birthed. Yay or nay?
4. A train is heading down a track. If not diverted, it will kill a fetus (hypothetically speaking). You can divert the train, but if you do, it will kill a woman. You know nothing about either subject. What do you do?
1. Newborns are not independent of their natural host. Left alone they will die of thirst. Just as people who are comatose can again become independent with time, a fetus can become independent if it is given the time to mature into a child and then an adult.
2. Again there are people with brain damage who will never be able to do these things, given any amount of time. However most fetuses will be able to if given time (they grow into children and then adults). You're looking at a fetus as a separate entity from a human, but it is just the beginning growth stage of a human.
3. A fetus can do these things once it grows to be a child. Just as a child can do more things once it becomes an adult.
4. If this were the case, you'd be dead in a few hours. Your body is constantly reproducing cells to replace dying ones. Sexual reproduction is a very tiny, tiny percentage of the reproduction the human body is engaged in.
5. I have a friend who is asexual due to a birth defect where her womb never developed. I don't think this in any way excludes her from being a human. A child cannot sexually reproduce because their organs have not come to maturity yet. A fetus cannot sexually reproduce because it has not begun developing sexual organs yet (but it has the DNA plans to and is working on it). Newborns certainly don't have all the biological features of an adult - how does this affect their humanity?
6.1 - Nay. It is not the baby's fault that the mother was raped, so she has no right to harm it.
6.2 - Nay. This is unfortunate, but if it is not life-or-death, how is there any justification in killing the baby?
6.3 - Nay. Again this is unfortunate, but how can we presume to know if the baby wants to live or not? If this were acceptable, the retarded, disfigured, and elderly people could be killed along the same line of reasoning.
Just a little request: please use the bold feature for disputes, rather than listing points. To do so, type 2 asterisks, then your text, then close it with 2 asterisks, like using speech marks. It makes it easier to see exactly what you're disputing. Thanks.
Newborns are not independent of their natural host
I think it's quite obvious that once the umbilical cord is cut, it is independent of its host.
Left alone they will die of thirst.
Well, so will anything. I don't see what relevance this poses.
a fetus can become independent if it is given the time to mature into a child and then an adult.
Yes, but it isn't a fetus then. I'm not a 13 year old fetus. A fetus cannot survive independently until the third trimester, when abortion is illegal.
However most fetuses will be able to if given time (they grow into children and then adults)
See above.
You're looking at a fetus as a separate entity from a human, but it is just the beginning growth stage of a human.
But at this point, it's extremely difficult to say that it is truly human.
A fetus can do these things once it grows to be a child. Just as a child can do more things once it becomes an adult.
See my first point.
f this were the case, you'd be dead in a few hours. Your body is constantly reproducing cells to replace dying ones. Sexual reproduction is a very tiny, tiny percentage of the reproduction the human body is engaged in.
I do understand this. What I mean is, the way a human passes it's genes down is through sexual reproduction. A fetus cannot do this, thus scientifically, it is not fully human.
I have a friend who is asexual due to a birth defect where her womb never developed.
Firstly, I would like to say how little knowledge I have on this subject. So if I say anything stupid or offensive, it's nothing malicious, just ignorant.
OK, I'll accept that she is asexual. But she can't reproduce asexually, right? Meaning she has no reproductive capability. If she was able to reproduce, it would be sexually, not asexually? If so, my point still stands.
A fetus cannot sexually reproduce because it has not begun developing sexual organs yet (but it has the DNA plans to and is working on it)
I like that analogy. So I'll give my own spin.
A builder asks you if you want a new kitchen fitted for free. Obviously, you agree. You're very considerate and respectful to the builder, as he's doing it for free. You give him tea, coffee, breaks, all the perks he wants.A day later, you ask him how he's doing with the kitchen. He hands you the blueprints, and says, "I'm working on it."
I for one, would be seething if I had given that man perks for doing absolutely nothing builderly-like whatsoever. And I would also be incensed if I had to give full human rights to something that isn't human yet, just "working on it."
Newborns certainly don't have all the biological features of an adult - how does this affect their humanity?
A newborn is independent of its host. A fetus is not able to be until the third trimester.
Nay. It is not the baby's fault that the mother was raped, so she has no right to harm it.
But it's not the mother's fault she was raped. The rapist had no right to harm her. The difference between an adult woman and a fetus, is that the woman is, without a doubt, entitled to human rights. The right to choose what she does with her body. The fact that the fetus' rights are in doubt, lets the woman take precedent.
Nay. This is unfortunate, but if it is not life-or-death, how is there any justification in killing the baby?
The right to choose.
Nay. Again this is unfortunate, but how can we presume to know if the baby wants to live or not? If this were acceptable, the retarded, disfigured, and elderly people could be killed along the same line of reasoning.
I'll accept that one.
Nothing, read my response to this:
I must say, that was a very refreshing and innovative take on the question.
Sorry I'm not used to the formatting here. Thanks for the tip.
I think it's quite obvious that once the umbilical cord is cut, it is independent of its host.
Not at all. The baby still cannot feed itself. Left alone it will die, unlike even an older child who could forage for food. Newborns and young children have no such ability.
Well, so will anything. I don't see what relevance this poses.
Not true. Older children and adults can survive on their own. They can gather their own food and water and find or make shelter.
Yes, but it isn't a fetus then. I'm not a 13 year old fetus.
You are, in the same way I'm a 22 year old child. These are just names we give to certain stages of our growth. The point is that while we have different titles for different stages of life, all of those titles are still titles of humans. The difference between a child and an adult is stage of development, as is the difference between a fetus and adult.
But at this point, it's extremely difficult to say that it is truly human.
It fits the biological definition of life and has an individual human genetic code. It is biologically classified as an individual human being.
A fetus cannot do this, thus scientifically, it is not fully human.
Neither can a child nor someone who is asexual by defect. Are they not fully human on your view?
But she can't reproduce asexually, right?
Her cells reproduce like everyone else's. She cannot, however make another human life through sexual reproduction. Think of it this way: She's a human female who has a hormone abnormality such that she has no womb or vagina. She is incapable of ever having a child because she lacks these necessary reproductive parts.
I for one, would be seething if I had given that man perks for doing absolutely nothing builderly-like whatsoever. And I would also be incensed if I had to give full human rights to something that isn't human yet, just "working on it."
Your analogy doesn't represent what's going on. Let's move from redesigning a kitchen to building a house. The same scenario happens, and you come in asking what he's done with the kitchen. He says he's done nothing with the kitchen yet, however he's laid the foundation and started constructing the walls. It would be silly to expect a fetus to make reproductive organs before other things like a heart, skin, etc.
A newborn is independent of its host. A fetus is not able to be until the third trimester.
See first point.
But it's not the mother's fault she was raped. The rapist had no right to harm her.
You're right. However that in no way gives her the right to harm the baby. That's like stealing someone's wallet because someone else stole yours - it makes no sense.
The right to choose what she does with her body.
But she's not killing her own organ. She's not getting an ear pierced or anything. She's choosing what to do with the baby's body, not hers. She's killing the individual life inside her, not one of her own organs or tissues.
The right to choose.
To choose what, though? To end the life of another who has not wronged anyone? Isn't that the very definition of murder? I agree the mother should be able to do whatever she wants with her own body, but the baby is not a part of her - it's just geographically located in her for the time being.
I must say, that was a very refreshing and innovative take on the question.
I don't think we're really getting anywhere with the actual definitions and what we class as human, etc. So instead, let me ask you this: do you value the rights of the unborn equally or higher than the rights of the born?
The balanced opinion is generally the most correct in discussions that are not black and white, such as this one.
Such is why I believe that it's okay to abort up until a certain point in the pregnancy. After a certain point, it becomes the murder of a human being.
Personally, I am in the middle. In cases where either a) upon being born, the fetus will have died or killed the mother or b) when the person became pregnant as a result of rape or sexual assault, abortion is OK. However, people who get pregnant as a result of pure stupidity (not using protection, for example) should not be permitted to abort.
Abortion violates the NAP in that it causes 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.
Being alive is the most valuable and precious thing on earth, and I don't see why people take death lightly. Anyone could walk out of their house one day and get killed by a bus, or any vehicle. Life is too short. If a person decides to have sex unprotected, they should be able to make this choice with the consequences in mind. Everybody who has sex is old enough to know the consequences and with sex education being compulsory on the national curriculum there really is no excuse. The NHS will give out free contraception so there is no way that you can say it isn't available in this country. If you value life, then you would never have an abortion, abortions in my opinion are given out too freely and are an easy way out for someone who was so stupid enough not to take contraception. During childbirth, so many drugs and forms of giving births are available so there is no excuse why (except medical conditions) that a woman wouldn't be able to give birth.
if mother does not care about her future child and wants to make an abortion, she should think about herself because, there are 2 types of abortion: safe and unsafe
annually, 500 million women of childbearing age who die from causes related to pregnancy, 15% of deaths due to complications of unsafe abortion
