Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

11 year old girl denied abortion

riveroaks
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 3:15:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/16/2015 9:31:55 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Thoughts?

It's a great example of what will be happening if a broad anti-abortion amendment is ratified in the USA.

For now Roe V. Wade makes a similar situation occurring in the USA unlikely.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,276
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 6:49:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/16/2015 9:31:55 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Thoughts?

What good would it have done to murder an innocent child? Killing the child doesn't undo what has been done to the victimized girl. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 9:31:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 6:49:02 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/16/2015 9:31:55 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Thoughts?

What good would it have done to murder an innocent child? Killing the child doesn't undo what has been done to the victimized girl. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Do you really believe that it is right to put a 11 year old girl through the pain of childbirth (through conception which wasn't even her choice) based on some outdated ideological basis?
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 12:23:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 9:31:23 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/17/2015 6:49:02 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/16/2015 9:31:55 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Thoughts?

What good would it have done to murder an innocent child? Killing the child doesn't undo what has been done to the victimized girl. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Do you really believe that it is right to put a 11 year old girl through the pain of childbirth (through conception which wasn't even her choice) based on some outdated ideological basis?

This question seems slightly slanted don't you think?
Nolite Timere
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 1:00:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/16/2015 9:31:55 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Thoughts?

I think that the US should take stronger actions to at least protect these minors from their governments forcing them to go through with pregnancies which they dont want to continue. Ideally the US should use its influence to grant greater abortion rights to everyone in these nations but ultimately the US may not have the influence or power to do that.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,276
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 2:38:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 9:31:23 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/17/2015 6:49:02 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/16/2015 9:31:55 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Thoughts?

What good would it have done to murder an innocent child? Killing the child doesn't undo what has been done to the victimized girl. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Do you really believe that it is right to put a 11 year old girl through the pain of childbirth (through conception which wasn't even her choice) based on some outdated ideological basis?

Of course. A moral action is not limited by how difficult it is to be moral under undesirable circumstances. Instead, it shows the moral integrity of a nation as to whether it abides by morality especially in difficult situations.

By the way, I didn't realize that fundamental rights, the foremost of which is the right to life, was an outdated ideological belief. Can you tell me when this belief was repealed?
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 10:38:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 12:23:47 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/17/2015 9:31:23 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/17/2015 6:49:02 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/16/2015 9:31:55 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Thoughts?

What good would it have done to murder an innocent child? Killing the child doesn't undo what has been done to the victimized girl. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Do you really believe that it is right to put a 11 year old girl through the pain of childbirth (through conception which wasn't even her choice) based on some outdated ideological basis?

This question seems slightly slanted don't you think?

Yep.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 10:40:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 2:38:03 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/17/2015 9:31:23 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/17/2015 6:49:02 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/16/2015 9:31:55 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Thoughts?

What good would it have done to murder an innocent child? Killing the child doesn't undo what has been done to the victimized girl. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Do you really believe that it is right to put a 11 year old girl through the pain of childbirth (through conception which wasn't even her choice) based on some outdated ideological basis?

Of course. A moral action is not limited by how difficult it is to be moral under undesirable circumstances. Instead, it shows the moral integrity of a nation as to whether it abides by morality especially in difficult situations.

By the way, I didn't realize that fundamental rights, the foremost of which is the right to life, was an outdated ideological belief. Can you tell me when this belief was repealed?

Since when is a fetus considered life? And shouldn't a woman be able to decide what happens to her own body? Here, have you heard of the violinist thought experiment?
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,276
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 11:04:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 10:40:06 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/18/2015 2:38:03 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/17/2015 9:31:23 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/17/2015 6:49:02 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/16/2015 9:31:55 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Thoughts?

What good would it have done to murder an innocent child? Killing the child doesn't undo what has been done to the victimized girl. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Do you really believe that it is right to put a 11 year old girl through the pain of childbirth (through conception which wasn't even her choice) based on some outdated ideological basis?

Of course. A moral action is not limited by how difficult it is to be moral under undesirable circumstances. Instead, it shows the moral integrity of a nation as to whether it abides by morality especially in difficult situations.

By the way, I didn't realize that fundamental rights, the foremost of which is the right to life, was an outdated ideological belief. Can you tell me when this belief was repealed?

Since when is a fetus considered life?

Since modern embryology has conclusively shown that a unique human organism exists from the moment of fertilization onwards.

And shouldn't a woman be able to decide what happens to her own body?

Abortion is about what you do to the woman's child. Since we make parents (the natural guardians) responsible for a child after birth, I see no logical reason why this same duty of care and nurturing isn't applied prior to birth.

Here, have you heard of the violinist thought experiment?

Yes, and I find it relatively easily refuted.
Romanii
Posts: 4,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 11:41:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 6:49:02 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/16/2015 9:31:55 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Thoughts?

What good would it have done to murder an innocent child?

It's not a "child" yet.

Killing the child doesn't undo what has been done to the victimized girl.

It does, however, spare her the pain of childbirth, the burden of being a parent at such a young age, and having to live with a lifelong physical reminder of what was done to her. And let's not even start getting into how much the child's life would suck...

Two wrongs don't make a right.

It's not necessarily a "wrong" at all.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 12:46:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/16/2015 9:31:55 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Thoughts?

Int his case, i see 2 babies. So sad, but 11 is too young. As if her life won't already be messed up because of this, imagine what the pain of giving birth would do to her childhood. To bad a baby has to die so that won;t happen.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 1:27:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 11:04:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/18/2015 10:40:06 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/18/2015 2:38:03 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/17/2015 9:31:23 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/17/2015 6:49:02 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/16/2015 9:31:55 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Thoughts?

What good would it have done to murder an innocent child? Killing the child doesn't undo what has been done to the victimized girl. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Do you really believe that it is right to put a 11 year old girl through the pain of childbirth (through conception which wasn't even her choice) based on some outdated ideological basis?

Of course. A moral action is not limited by how difficult it is to be moral under undesirable circumstances. Instead, it shows the moral integrity of a nation as to whether it abides by morality especially in difficult situations.

By the way, I didn't realize that fundamental rights, the foremost of which is the right to life, was an outdated ideological belief. Can you tell me when this belief was repealed?

Since when is a fetus considered life?

Since modern embryology has conclusively shown that a unique human organism exists from the moment of fertilization onwards.

And shouldn't a woman be able to decide what happens to her own body?

Abortion is about what you do to the woman's child. Since we make parents (the natural guardians) responsible for a child after birth, I see no logical reason why this same duty of care and nurturing isn't applied prior to birth.

Here, have you heard of the violinist thought experiment?

Yes, and I find it relatively easily refuted.

Than go ahead.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 2:37:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 1:27:15 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/18/2015 11:04:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/18/2015 10:40:06 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/18/2015 2:38:03 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/17/2015 9:31:23 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/17/2015 6:49:02 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/16/2015 9:31:55 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Thoughts?

What good would it have done to murder an innocent child? Killing the child doesn't undo what has been done to the victimized girl. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Do you really believe that it is right to put a 11 year old girl through the pain of childbirth (through conception which wasn't even her choice) based on some outdated ideological basis?

Of course. A moral action is not limited by how difficult it is to be moral under undesirable circumstances. Instead, it shows the moral integrity of a nation as to whether it abides by morality especially in difficult situations.

By the way, I didn't realize that fundamental rights, the foremost of which is the right to life, was an outdated ideological belief. Can you tell me when this belief was repealed?

Since when is a fetus considered life?

Since modern embryology has conclusively shown that a unique human organism exists from the moment of fertilization onwards.

And shouldn't a woman be able to decide what happens to her own body?

Abortion is about what you do to the woman's child. Since we make parents (the natural guardians) responsible for a child after birth, I see no logical reason why this same duty of care and nurturing isn't applied prior to birth.

Here, have you heard of the violinist thought experiment?

Yes, and I find it relatively easily refuted.

Than go ahead.

P1: The violinist is gay
P2: Gay marriage is legal
P3: You shouldn't kill people because they're gay (homophobia is wrong, duh)
C: You shouldn't kill the violinist.

Your silly little analogy has been refuted using water tight logic. As we can see, this a valid syllogism. That means that the conclusion follows from the premises necessarily. It is a combination of BARBARA and CAMESTRES categorical syllogisms in order to arrive at a conclusion.

In symbolic form, the syllogism runs thus:

V --> 8====D>@$$
8====D>@$$ == O.K.
8==/==D>@$$ ~== O.K.
.'. V/v ~== O.K.

Thus, all one has to do is show the truth of the premises and the conclusion must be true.

Obviously the violinist is gay, since talented musicians are always gay and dress very metro. Furthermore, he's hooked up with you, and you're a male (Thompson was trans-sexual, but this is beyond the scope, since it would confuse transvestism with the logical operator of possibility). Therefore, it must be true that the violinist is gay.

Gay marriage just became legal in the United States [1]

Also, homophobia is defined as bigotry or violence towards homosexuals, which is, by the very definition, bad.

Thus, the conclusion is inevitable: It is immoral to kill the violinist. And thus, abortion is wrong too.

==Sources==
[1]http://tinyurl.com...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Geogeer
Posts: 4,276
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 2:42:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 11:41:53 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 8/17/2015 6:49:02 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/16/2015 9:31:55 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Thoughts?

What good would it have done to murder an innocent child?

It's not a "child" yet.

Biologically, it is a child as it has 2 parents. The unborn has been historically understood to be a child, i.e. she is with child. It is also commonly used to refer to a member of the species who has yet to reach an adult stage.

Killing the child doesn't undo what has been done to the victimized girl.

It does, however, spare her the pain of childbirth

So murder is acceptable to avoid a natural pain?

the burden of being a parent at such a young age,

She has her own parents to help or she could put the child up for adoption. And even if she has to raise it. Is hardship an acceptable reason to murder one's own child?

and having to live with a lifelong physical reminder of what was done to her.

Lol. You think an abortion is going to make her forget that she was raped? In fact there has only been one or two studies on women who were raped and then conceived. You know what the results were?

The women wanted love and acceptance from those around them. She wanted to know that they still loved her and didn't view her as a whore or that she deserved this. Abortion is a lazy way out for the people around her not to love her, but for them not to have to deal with the issue. Just try to pretend that this thing that tears her apart doesn't exist. It serves the exact opposite effect.

In the study the women who had the children recovered mentally much better than those who aborted. They proved to themselves that they were of worth. They proved to themselves that they were not evil like the man who raped them. The man took something good and turned it to evil. They took something evil and turned it to good.

And let's not even start getting into how much the child's life would suck...

And who are you to say which people are worth living? Should I be able to kill that child after she is born because I think her life will suck? Should I be able to go an carpet bomb refugee camps, because those people's lives suck? Should I be able to go and kill homeless people because their lives suck? If the meaning of life is reduced to merely a life with minimal hardship, we have lost any sense of the meaning of life.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

It's not necessarily a "wrong" at all.

Murder of an innocent, particularly by the one who is supposed to be her guardian is always wrong. As Mother Theresa said, "If abortion is not wrong, nothing is wrong."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 2:44:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 11:04:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/18/2015 10:40:06 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/18/2015 2:38:03 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/17/2015 9:31:23 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/17/2015 6:49:02 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/16/2015 9:31:55 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Thoughts?

What good would it have done to murder an innocent child? Killing the child doesn't undo what has been done to the victimized girl. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Do you really believe that it is right to put a 11 year old girl through the pain of childbirth (through conception which wasn't even her choice) based on some outdated ideological basis?

Of course. A moral action is not limited by how difficult it is to be moral under undesirable circumstances. Instead, it shows the moral integrity of a nation as to whether it abides by morality especially in difficult situations.

By the way, I didn't realize that fundamental rights, the foremost of which is the right to life, was an outdated ideological belief. Can you tell me when this belief was repealed?

Since when is a fetus considered life?

Since modern embryology has conclusively shown that a unique human organism exists from the moment of fertilization onwards.

And shouldn't a woman be able to decide what happens to her own body?

Abortion is about what you do to the woman's child. Since we make parents (the natural guardians) responsible for a child after birth, I see no logical reason why this same duty of care and nurturing isn't applied prior to birth.

Here, have you heard of the violinist thought experiment?

Yes, and I find it relatively easily refuted.

Don't worry, I just refuted it easily with my previous post. You can bow down in homage later.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Geogeer
Posts: 4,276
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 2:56:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 1:27:15 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/18/2015 11:04:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/18/2015 10:40:06 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/18/2015 2:38:03 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/17/2015 9:31:23 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/17/2015 6:49:02 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/16/2015 9:31:55 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Thoughts?

What good would it have done to murder an innocent child? Killing the child doesn't undo what has been done to the victimized girl. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Do you really believe that it is right to put a 11 year old girl through the pain of childbirth (through conception which wasn't even her choice) based on some outdated ideological basis?

Of course. A moral action is not limited by how difficult it is to be moral under undesirable circumstances. Instead, it shows the moral integrity of a nation as to whether it abides by morality especially in difficult situations.

By the way, I didn't realize that fundamental rights, the foremost of which is the right to life, was an outdated ideological belief. Can you tell me when this belief was repealed?

Since when is a fetus considered life?

Since modern embryology has conclusively shown that a unique human organism exists from the moment of fertilization onwards.

And shouldn't a woman be able to decide what happens to her own body?

Abortion is about what you do to the woman's child. Since we make parents (the natural guardians) responsible for a child after birth, I see no logical reason why this same duty of care and nurturing isn't applied prior to birth.

Here, have you heard of the violinist thought experiment?

Yes, and I find it relatively easily refuted.

Than go ahead.

The simplest refutation to the argument deals with purpose. Your kidneys exist to process your blood. That we can do more through the marvels of modern science is wonderful. However, since this is not the purpose that they exist for you have the right to refuse that they be used for that purpose.

The mother's reproductive organs, however, serve no other purpose than to provide protection and nourishment for her unborn. Thus her actions are against the natural and proper functioning of her body which her child is naturally dependent on.

Let's put it another way. Would a mother be justified in letting her child starve to death if she didn't want her child to nurse off her lactating breasts?

We recognize in other aspects of life that the nature of something gives it meaning. If I were to buy a chair and then sit down on it at home and have it collapse causing me injury, should I be able to sue? Yes, because the chair failed to perform its function.

Now if I were to stand on that chair to change a lightbulb and it broke causing me injury, should I be able to sue? No, because a chair is not for standing on, I was misusing the chair.

If I balance my car on the chair so that I can climb underneath to change the oil and the chair breaks resulting in my death, should my family be able to sue? Not only will they not be able to sue, but I will probably win a Darwin Award.

This example above shows that we intrinsically recognize that thing have proper and improper uses.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,276
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 2:57:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 2:44:13 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/18/2015 11:04:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/18/2015 10:40:06 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/18/2015 2:38:03 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/17/2015 9:31:23 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/17/2015 6:49:02 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/16/2015 9:31:55 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Thoughts?

What good would it have done to murder an innocent child? Killing the child doesn't undo what has been done to the victimized girl. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Do you really believe that it is right to put a 11 year old girl through the pain of childbirth (through conception which wasn't even her choice) based on some outdated ideological basis?

Of course. A moral action is not limited by how difficult it is to be moral under undesirable circumstances. Instead, it shows the moral integrity of a nation as to whether it abides by morality especially in difficult situations.

By the way, I didn't realize that fundamental rights, the foremost of which is the right to life, was an outdated ideological belief. Can you tell me when this belief was repealed?

Since when is a fetus considered life?

Since modern embryology has conclusively shown that a unique human organism exists from the moment of fertilization onwards.

And shouldn't a woman be able to decide what happens to her own body?

Abortion is about what you do to the woman's child. Since we make parents (the natural guardians) responsible for a child after birth, I see no logical reason why this same duty of care and nurturing isn't applied prior to birth.

Here, have you heard of the violinist thought experiment?

Yes, and I find it relatively easily refuted.

Don't worry, I just refuted it easily with my previous post. You can bow down in homage later.

Dagnabbit, you mean I wasted my time? Ah well, at least I get to bask in your glory...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,276
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 3:00:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 2:44:13 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/18/2015 11:04:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/18/2015 10:40:06 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/18/2015 2:38:03 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/17/2015 9:31:23 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/17/2015 6:49:02 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/16/2015 9:31:55 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Thoughts?

What good would it have done to murder an innocent child? Killing the child doesn't undo what has been done to the victimized girl. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Do you really believe that it is right to put a 11 year old girl through the pain of childbirth (through conception which wasn't even her choice) based on some outdated ideological basis?

Of course. A moral action is not limited by how difficult it is to be moral under undesirable circumstances. Instead, it shows the moral integrity of a nation as to whether it abides by morality especially in difficult situations.

By the way, I didn't realize that fundamental rights, the foremost of which is the right to life, was an outdated ideological belief. Can you tell me when this belief was repealed?

Since when is a fetus considered life?

Since modern embryology has conclusively shown that a unique human organism exists from the moment of fertilization onwards.

And shouldn't a woman be able to decide what happens to her own body?

Abortion is about what you do to the woman's child. Since we make parents (the natural guardians) responsible for a child after birth, I see no logical reason why this same duty of care and nurturing isn't applied prior to birth.

Here, have you heard of the violinist thought experiment?

Yes, and I find it relatively easily refuted.

Don't worry, I just refuted it easily with my previous post. You can bow down in homage later.

I just read your reply... I'm taking back my basking in your glory, and moving far far away...
Romanii
Posts: 4,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 3:16:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 2:42:03 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/18/2015 11:41:53 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 8/17/2015 6:49:02 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/16/2015 9:31:55 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Thoughts?

What good would it have done to murder an innocent child?

It's not a "child" yet.

Biologically, it is a child as it has 2 parents. The unborn has been historically understood to be a child, i.e. she is with child. It is also commonly used to refer to a member of the species who has yet to reach an adult stage.

It's not the term "child" I take issue with as much as it is the implication that the fetus is a person with the same moral worth as an adult human being.


Killing the child doesn't undo what has been done to the victimized girl.

It does, however, spare her the pain of childbirth

So murder is acceptable to avoid a natural pain?

the burden of being a parent at such a young age,

She has her own parents to help or she could put the child up for adoption. And even if she has to raise it. Is hardship an acceptable reason to murder one's own child?

and having to live with a lifelong physical reminder of what was done to her.

Lol. You think an abortion is going to make her forget that she was raped? In fact there has only been one or two studies on women who were raped and then conceived. You know what the results were?

The women wanted love and acceptance from those around them. She wanted to know that they still loved her and didn't view her as a whore or that she deserved this. Abortion is a lazy way out for the people around her not to love her, but for them not to have to deal with the issue. Just try to pretend that this thing that tears her apart doesn't exist. It serves the exact opposite effect.

In the study the women who had the children recovered mentally much better than those who aborted. They proved to themselves that they were of worth. They proved to themselves that they were not evil like the man who raped them. The man took something good and turned it to evil. They took something evil and turned it to good.

And let's not even start getting into how much the child's life would suck...

And who are you to say which people are worth living? Should I be able to kill that child after she is born because I think her life will suck? Should I be able to go an carpet bomb refugee camps, because those people's lives suck? Should I be able to go and kill homeless people because their lives suck? If the meaning of life is reduced to merely a life with minimal hardship, we have lost any sense of the meaning of life.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

It's not necessarily a "wrong" at all.

Murder of an innocent, particularly by the one who is supposed to be her guardian is always wrong. As Mother Theresa said, "If abortion is not wrong, nothing is wrong."

All of that is assuming that abortion is, indeed, a crime on par with the murder of an adult human being...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 3:29:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It probably kind of sucks to be her, but it was still the right thing to do.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Geogeer
Posts: 4,276
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 5:46:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 3:16:39 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 8/19/2015 2:42:03 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/18/2015 11:41:53 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 8/17/2015 6:49:02 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/16/2015 9:31:55 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Thoughts?

What good would it have done to murder an innocent child?

It's not a "child" yet.

Biologically, it is a child as it has 2 parents. The unborn has been historically understood to be a child, i.e. she is with child. It is also commonly used to refer to a member of the species who has yet to reach an adult stage.

It's not the term "child" I take issue with as much as it is the implication that the fetus is a person with the same moral worth as an adult human being.

Why not? We have an understanding of inalienable or intrinsic rights. If something is truly a fundamental right, then it must always be yours. Otherwise, you do not have rights, because if a right can be granted then it can be taken away. If it can be taken away, then you are living a lie. It is absurd to say that the same organism can and cannot have a fundamental right to life.


Killing the child doesn't undo what has been done to the victimized girl.

It does, however, spare her the pain of childbirth

So murder is acceptable to avoid a natural pain?

the burden of being a parent at such a young age,

She has her own parents to help or she could put the child up for adoption. And even if she has to raise it. Is hardship an acceptable reason to murder one's own child?

and having to live with a lifelong physical reminder of what was done to her.

Lol. You think an abortion is going to make her forget that she was raped? In fact there has only been one or two studies on women who were raped and then conceived. You know what the results were?

The women wanted love and acceptance from those around them. She wanted to know that they still loved her and didn't view her as a whore or that she deserved this. Abortion is a lazy way out for the people around her not to love her, but for them not to have to deal with the issue. Just try to pretend that this thing that tears her apart doesn't exist. It serves the exact opposite effect.

In the study the women who had the children recovered mentally much better than those who aborted. They proved to themselves that they were of worth. They proved to themselves that they were not evil like the man who raped them. The man took something good and turned it to evil. They took something evil and turned it to good.

And let's not even start getting into how much the child's life would suck...

And who are you to say which people are worth living? Should I be able to kill that child after she is born because I think her life will suck? Should I be able to go an carpet bomb refugee camps, because those people's lives suck? Should I be able to go and kill homeless people because their lives suck? If the meaning of life is reduced to merely a life with minimal hardship, we have lost any sense of the meaning of life.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

It's not necessarily a "wrong" at all.

Murder of an innocent, particularly by the one who is supposed to be her guardian is always wrong. As Mother Theresa said, "If abortion is not wrong, nothing is wrong."

All of that is assuming that abortion is, indeed, a crime on par with the murder of an adult human being...

Is the murder of an adult on par with the murder of a teenager? With the murder of a youth? With the murder of a toddler? With the murder of a newborn? It doesn't make sense when applied to any of these categories. Human life is intrinsically valuable with fundamental rights or it is not. Personhood is just a word game to let us oppress those whom we wish to oppress and a means of the strong dominating the weak for their own ends. We have a despicable history of doing precisely this.
Romanii
Posts: 4,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 6:41:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 5:46:06 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/19/2015 3:16:39 AM, Romanii wrote:

It's not the term "child" I take issue with as much as it is the implication that the fetus is a person with the same moral worth as an adult human being.

Why not? We have an understanding of inalienable or intrinsic rights. If something is truly a fundamental right, then it must always be yours. Otherwise, you do not have rights, because if a right can be granted then it can be taken away. If it can be taken away, then you are living a lie. It is absurd to say that the same organism can and cannot have a fundamental right to life.

All of that is assuming that abortion is, indeed, a crime on par with the murder of an adult human being...

Is the murder of an adult on par with the murder of a teenager? With the murder of a youth? With the murder of a toddler? With the murder of a newborn? It doesn't make sense when applied to any of these categories. Human life is intrinsically valuable with fundamental rights or it is not. Personhood is just a word game to let us oppress those whom we wish to oppress and a means of the strong dominating the weak for their own ends. We have a despicable history of doing precisely this.

Our moral significance stems not from our biological status as "humans", but from our moral status as "persons". What exactly distinguishes us from the rest of the inanimate & amoral universe to warrant us having this special concept of "morality" apply to us? What grants us the special moral classification as a "person"? Different theories of ethics have different answers, but among all of them, the most common ones are:

- Consciousness / Self-Awareness

- Reasoning

- Self-motivated activity

- Ability to feel pain

It is very debatable as to which of these is the correct one, but the important thing to note here is that a fetus has *none* of those characteristics and therefore cannot be considered a "person" with a moral right to life. It doesn't matter if you're personally incredulous of the fact that the same individual can lack moral significance in one stage of their life and possess it in another -- that is just how reality works.

Now, despite all that, I am not actually pro-abortion. There's a case to be made that it is not those characteristics themselves that grant us moral significance, but the *capacity* to possess those characteristics which does. I'm currently not sure if I buy it or not; such a claim lacks fundamental ethical justification, and, speaking through analogy, the raw ingredients to bake a cake (which have the *capacity* to be a cake) are generally not considered to be of equal value to the finished cake itself. It doesn't really matter either way, though. I no longer try to justify my ethical opinions with 'rational' reasoning (because of how often it leads to dead-ends). My opinions are blatantly based in my moral intuitions and religion lol (as are most people's, but they won't admit it).
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 9:10:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's the right decision I suppose; her being denied the abortion is the lesser of the two evils.

For those who say she shouldn't have to go through with the pain of childbirth, modern medicine allows for relatively painless childbirth.

For those who say she shouldn't have to bring up the child, she can put it up for adoption.
Greg4586
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 9:25:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 6:49:02 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/16/2015 9:31:55 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Thoughts?

What good would it have done to murder an innocent child? Killing the child doesn't undo what has been done to the victimized girl. Two wrongs don't make a right.

1. The poor girl could have very easily died during childbirth.
2. No 11 year old is capable of raising a child. Especially with no father.
3. She was raped and all of this forced on her. I can only imagine how horrible the rape itself was. Now she has to live with this and have her very child as a living reminder of the tragedy she suffered.
4. I can promise you, chances are this child is going to be born into a living hell. Also it's pretty clear this child has a much smaller chance of succeeding in life considering all of the obstacles he/she will have to go through.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 6:52:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 2:37:05 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/19/2015 1:27:15 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/18/2015 11:04:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/18/2015 10:40:06 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/18/2015 2:38:03 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/17/2015 9:31:23 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/17/2015 6:49:02 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/16/2015 9:31:55 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Thoughts?

What good would it have done to murder an innocent child? Killing the child doesn't undo what has been done to the victimized girl. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Do you really believe that it is right to put a 11 year old girl through the pain of childbirth (through conception which wasn't even her choice) based on some outdated ideological basis?

Of course. A moral action is not limited by how difficult it is to be moral under undesirable circumstances. Instead, it shows the moral integrity of a nation as to whether it abides by morality especially in difficult situations.

By the way, I didn't realize that fundamental rights, the foremost of which is the right to life, was an outdated ideological belief. Can you tell me when this belief was repealed?

Since when is a fetus considered life?

Since modern embryology has conclusively shown that a unique human organism exists from the moment of fertilization onwards.

And shouldn't a woman be able to decide what happens to her own body?

Abortion is about what you do to the woman's child. Since we make parents (the natural guardians) responsible for a child after birth, I see no logical reason why this same duty of care and nurturing isn't applied prior to birth.

Here, have you heard of the violinist thought experiment?

Yes, and I find it relatively easily refuted.

Than go ahead.

P1: The violinist is gay
P2: Gay marriage is legal
P3: You shouldn't kill people because they're gay (homophobia is wrong, duh)
C: You shouldn't kill the violinist.

Your silly little analogy has been refuted using water tight logic. As we can see, this a valid syllogism. That means that the conclusion follows from the premises necessarily. It is a combination of BARBARA and CAMESTRES categorical syllogisms in order to arrive at a conclusion.

In symbolic form, the syllogism runs thus:

V --> 8====D>@$$
8====D>@$$ == O.K.
8==/==D>@$$ ~== O.K.
.'. V/v ~== O.K.

Thus, all one has to do is show the truth of the premises and the conclusion must be true.

Obviously the violinist is gay, since talented musicians are always gay and dress very metro. Furthermore, he's hooked up with you, and you're a male (Thompson was trans-sexual, but this is beyond the scope, since it would confuse transvestism with the logical operator of possibility). Therefore, it must be true that the violinist is gay.

Gay marriage just became legal in the United States [1]

Also, homophobia is defined as bigotry or violence towards homosexuals, which is, by the very definition, bad.

Thus, the conclusion is inevitable: It is immoral to kill the violinist. And thus, abortion is wrong too.

==Sources==
[1]http://tinyurl.com...

What are you talking about? I'm talking about the violinist thought experiment proposed by Judith Jarvis Thomson. What are you thinking about?
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
laqueenlee
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 7:06:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/16/2015 9:31:55 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Thoughts?

This is personally the first time I've ever heard of this. Are they even serious?!!! Making an ELEVEN year old go through CHILD LABOR??? She could DIE for goodness sake.
laqueenlee
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 7:12:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 11:04:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/18/2015 10:40:06 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/18/2015 2:38:03 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/17/2015 9:31:23 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/17/2015 6:49:02 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/16/2015 9:31:55 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Thoughts?

What good would it have done to murder an innocent child? Killing the child doesn't undo what has been done to the victimized girl. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Do you really believe that it is right to put a 11 year old girl through the pain of childbirth (through conception which wasn't even her choice) based on some outdated ideological basis?

Of course. A moral action is not limited by how difficult it is to be moral under undesirable circumstances. Instead, it shows the moral integrity of a nation as to whether it abides by morality especially in difficult situations.

By the way, I didn't realize that fundamental rights, the foremost of which is the right to life, was an outdated ideological belief. Can you tell me when this belief was repealed?

Since when is a fetus considered life?

Since modern embryology has conclusively shown that a unique human organism exists from the moment of fertilization onwards.

And shouldn't a woman be able to decide what happens to her own body?

Abortion is about what you do to the woman's child. Since we make parents (the natural guardians) responsible for a child after birth, I see no logical reason why this same duty of care and nurturing isn't applied prior to birth.

What if the girl dies form this childbirth?? Will it be her fault or the people who denied her from abortion's (the easy way out) fault?
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 10:01:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 6:52:41 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/19/2015 2:37:05 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/19/2015 1:27:15 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/18/2015 11:04:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/18/2015 10:40:06 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/18/2015 2:38:03 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/17/2015 9:31:23 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 8/17/2015 6:49:02 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/16/2015 9:31:55 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Thoughts?

What good would it have done to murder an innocent child? Killing the child doesn't undo what has been done to the victimized girl. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Do you really believe that it is right to put a 11 year old girl through the pain of childbirth (through conception which wasn't even her choice) based on some outdated ideological basis?

Of course. A moral action is not limited by how difficult it is to be moral under undesirable circumstances. Instead, it shows the moral integrity of a nation as to whether it abides by morality especially in difficult situations.

By the way, I didn't realize that fundamental rights, the foremost of which is the right to life, was an outdated ideological belief. Can you tell me when this belief was repealed?

Since when is a fetus considered life?

Since modern embryology has conclusively shown that a unique human organism exists from the moment of fertilization onwards.

And shouldn't a woman be able to decide what happens to her own body?

Abortion is about what you do to the woman's child. Since we make parents (the natural guardians) responsible for a child after birth, I see no logical reason why this same duty of care and nurturing isn't applied prior to birth.

Here, have you heard of the violinist thought experiment?

Yes, and I find it relatively easily refuted.

Than go ahead.

P1: The violinist is gay
P2: Gay marriage is legal
P3: You shouldn't kill people because they're gay (homophobia is wrong, duh)
C: You shouldn't kill the violinist.

Your silly little analogy has been refuted using water tight logic. As we can see, this a valid syllogism. That means that the conclusion follows from the premises necessarily. It is a combination of BARBARA and CAMESTRES categorical syllogisms in order to arrive at a conclusion.

In symbolic form, the syllogism runs thus:

V --> 8====D>@$$
8====D>@$$ == O.K.
8==/==D>@$$ ~== O.K.
.'. V/v ~== O.K.

Thus, all one has to do is show the truth of the premises and the conclusion must be true.

Obviously the violinist is gay, since talented musicians are always gay and dress very metro. Furthermore, he's hooked up with you, and you're a male (Thompson was trans-sexual, but this is beyond the scope, since it would confuse transvestism with the logical operator of possibility). Therefore, it must be true that the violinist is gay.

Gay marriage just became legal in the United States [1]

Also, homophobia is defined as bigotry or violence towards homosexuals, which is, by the very definition, bad.

Thus, the conclusion is inevitable: It is immoral to kill the violinist. And thus, abortion is wrong too.

==Sources==
[1]http://tinyurl.com...

What are you talking about? I'm talking about the violinist thought experiment proposed by Judith Jarvis Thomson. What are you thinking about?

Yes. The analogy she presented here: http://spot.colorado.edu...

I just refuted it. I showed how by assuming certain principles which we all hold to be true, it's a false analogy. If you lack the intelligence and are too ignorant to understand the argument presented, I suggest you withhold judgment on the soundness of it.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."