Total Posts:93|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should abortion be legal?

ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 6:15:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
We all know regardless the way it happens, the only way a woman gets prego is having sex. A man has sex with her and from that man comes seed. Inside the woman the seed goes and hits the egg inside the woman. When this seed hits the egg life is produced. If the seed did not hit the egg life would not be. No way around it Jack!
So should a child that we just established is life be killed because the parent makes that decision. Is that not killing another, Your own child? Is this different than sacrificing babies? Is unborn life less important than born life. If our children can be killed before concieved and this is law. What stops each and every soon to be parent going out and getting abortions because they want it? What stops the government requiring abortions in the future?
My opinion is a heavy NO on abortion for any reason.
I mean look at it the can kill criminals and now babies, when will it end?
TheAsylum
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 10:13:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The way I see it is that the woman takes a conscious risk by having sex, and therefore risks being pregnant. Any such nonsense about "not knowing" or "not her fault" is absolutely misleading and false (unless rape). As a result, it is not a violation of one's property rights if one makes a conscious risk that may allow the person to come into their property. As a result, pregnancy is the women's fault.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 10:24:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why would one choose abortion over adoption? If one has sexual intercourse, one should be able to accept the consequences that follow. It is irresponsible to use abortion as a back up plan. Spermicide, plan B, Condoms, and so forth are all viable options, but abortion is a step too far.
Who are we to determine who shall be grated a chance at life, and who should be denied such an opportunity?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 10:38:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Once cannot hold moral responsibilities to non-sentient beings. Even past the level of sentience which I think in trimester 2, the child doesn't attain self-consciousness until much later. IMO, it's the ability of the individual to have a conception of self that's of considerable importance. I wouldn't even consider arguments against abortion until sentience is attained, but even after that self-consciousness doesn't occur until a little after birth. To me, this is where the line is truly drawn.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 10:45:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 10:24:07 AM, DanT wrote:
Why would one choose abortion over adoption? If one has sexual intercourse, one should be able to accept the consequences that follow. It is irresponsible to use abortion as a back up plan.
It's eminently responsible, unless you rely on charity or welfare to pay for it for you. Get pregnant? Woman the **** up and pay a doctor to take care of it.

Who are we to determine who shall be grated a chance at life
So... sex should be mandatory so all reproductive cells get a fair shot?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 10:45:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
As a result, it is not a violation of one's property rights if one makes a conscious risk that may allow the person to come into their property
You left the door unlocked, so I can take your stuff.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 11:09:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 10:13:27 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
The way I see it is that the woman takes a conscious risk by having sex, and therefore risks being pregnant. Any such nonsense about "not knowing" or "not her fault" is absolutely misleading and false (unless rape). As a result, it is not a violation of one's property rights if one makes a conscious risk that may allow the person to come into their property. As a result, pregnancy is the women's fault.

LordKnukle, the very fact that you are connected to the internet means that I can potentially hack every aspect of your computer and steal all of your information. If I were to do that, should I be held liable?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 11:40:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 11:09:14 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/21/2012 10:13:27 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
The way I see it is that the woman takes a conscious risk by having sex, and therefore risks being pregnant. Any such nonsense about "not knowing" or "not her fault" is absolutely misleading and false (unless rape). As a result, it is not a violation of one's property rights if one makes a conscious risk that may allow the person to come into their property. As a result, pregnancy is the women's fault.

LordKnukle, the very fact that you are connected to the internet means that I can potentially hack every aspect of your computer and steal all of your information. If I were to do that, should I be held liable?

If you drive, then there's a chance a drunk driver will hit you. If you go outside and walk, there's a chance a drunk driver will kill you.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 1:40:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 6:15:45 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Is unborn life less important than born life.

The greater question is: is unborn life... life? Some believe it is, others believe it is not. The only clear answer to this question is that it is in fact a matter of belief.

Here is another fact: outlawing abortion is taking away a womens right to choose what to do with her own body. This may seem reasonable if a fetus is in fact a life, however that is again only a matter of belief. If you believe in outlawing abortion you are in fact stating that you feel that your beliefs are superior to someone else's, and therefore it is ok for you to take away someones else's rights based on that.

If our children can be killed before concieved and this is law. What stops each and every soon to be parent going out and getting abortions because they want it?

If everyone wanted abortion we wouldn't be debating whether it should be legal.

What stops the government requiring abortions in the future?

The people who elect them. That is how denocracy works.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 1:57:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 10:13:27 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
The way I see it is that the woman takes a conscious risk by having sex, and therefore risks being pregnant. Any such nonsense about "not knowing" or "not her fault" is absolutely misleading and false (unless rape). As a result, it is not a violation of one's property rights if one makes a conscious risk that may allow the person to come into their property. As a result, pregnancy is the women's fault.

So what? How does it follow that one shouldn't get an abortion?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 2:03:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 10:45:28 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/21/2012 10:24:07 AM, DanT wrote:
Why would one choose abortion over adoption? If one has sexual intercourse, one should be able to accept the consequences that follow. It is irresponsible to use abortion as a back up plan.
It's eminently responsible, unless you rely on charity or welfare to pay for it for you. Get pregnant? Woman the **** up and pay a doctor to take care of it.

Once again, adoption is an alternative to keeping the baby.
Who are we to determine who shall be grated a chance at life
So... sex should be mandatory so all reproductive cells get a fair shot?

No; I never said that conception was mandatory, I said after a child has been conceived it is the parent's responsibility to follow through with the pregnancy. If one wants to prevent conception, they should take measure of contraception in order to prevent the pregnancy.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Jericho15
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 7:54:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Abortion is an interesting topic. I personally am pro life and believe strongly against it. I even go as far as to believe that abortion is wrong even if the woman was raped. I believe that life is life and it most be preserved. All of this sentience crap is reminiscent of Brave New World. I mean come on, once we start weighing and measuring human life, what are we?
Clash
Posts: 220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 8:05:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In my opinion, abortion should not be legal, unless the woman was raped, or her life is in danger. Sure, people have the right to choice what they want, but the murder of a innocent baby should not be something we can choice to do or not. Even if a fetus is not a human yet, it will soon be, and thus you are not even allowing that fetus the chance to become a baby and have a life if you kill it.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 8:09:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So, judging by the past two posts, I will give a better insight.

What about women who serve in the military and are raped by other American soldiers and become pregnant, but don't want the baby?

By banning abortion (on military bases too) you are preventing a woman soldier, who is protecting our lives, from controlling her reproductive organs, and socializing her reproductive organs. For her, she is denied the chance to have an abortion, and must have the child.

It is like being raped twice, once by the other soldier, and the second time by a self-righteous conservative ideologue.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 9:06:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 2:03:32 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/21/2012 10:45:28 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/21/2012 10:24:07 AM, DanT wrote:
Why would one choose abortion over adoption? If one has sexual intercourse, one should be able to accept the consequences that follow. It is irresponsible to use abortion as a back up plan.
It's eminently responsible, unless you rely on charity or welfare to pay for it for you. Get pregnant? Woman the **** up and pay a doctor to take care of it.

Once again, adoption is an alternative to keeping the baby.
Sounds pretty irresponsible, just laying there and accumulating medical bills while hoping someone is in the market to raise your genes (generally only true for white people).

No; I never said that conception was mandatory, I said after a child has been conceived it is the parent's responsibility to follow through with the pregnancy.
No, what you said is "Who are we to determine who shall be grated a chance at life?"--a rhetorical question declaring that no one has the right to alter who has a shot at life.
It's not my fault if you can't take responsibility for the logical implications of your declared principles.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 9:17:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 11:09:14 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/21/2012 10:13:27 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
The way I see it is that the woman takes a conscious risk by having sex, and therefore risks being pregnant. Any such nonsense about "not knowing" or "not her fault" is absolutely misleading and false (unless rape). As a result, it is not a violation of one's property rights if one makes a conscious risk that may allow the person to come into their property. As a result, pregnancy is the women's fault.

LordKnukle, the very fact that you are connected to the internet means that I can potentially hack every aspect of your computer and steal all of your information. If I were to do that, should I be held liable?

You are consciously and maliciously hacking into my computer with intent to steal all my information. The same cannot be said about a foetus.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 9:18:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 10:45:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
As a result, it is not a violation of one's property rights if one makes a conscious risk that may allow the person to come into their property
You left the door unlocked, so I can take your stuff.

Again, since you have malicious and conscious intent when doing so, then no.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 9:56:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 9:18:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/21/2012 10:45:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
As a result, it is not a violation of one's property rights if one makes a conscious risk that may allow the person to come into their property
You left the door unlocked, so I can take your stuff.

Again, since you have malicious and conscious intent when doing so, then no.

My rights are not about your intent, and vice versa.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 11:09:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 9:56:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/21/2012 9:18:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/21/2012 10:45:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
As a result, it is not a violation of one's property rights if one makes a conscious risk that may allow the person to come into their property
You left the door unlocked, so I can take your stuff.

Again, since you have malicious and conscious intent when doing so, then no.

My rights are not about your intent, and vice versa.

What right are you talking about?

People can violate other's rights, they will just be reprimanded. No sense in reprimanding one who doesn't know that he is violating rights.

Would a mentally retarded person be sent to jail if they killed somebody when not control of their mental faculties? Of course not.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 12:06:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 9:06:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/21/2012 2:03:32 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/21/2012 10:45:28 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/21/2012 10:24:07 AM, DanT wrote:
Why would one choose abortion over adoption? If one has sexual intercourse, one should be able to accept the consequences that follow. It is irresponsible to use abortion as a back up plan.
It's eminently responsible, unless you rely on charity or welfare to pay for it for you. Get pregnant? Woman the **** up and pay a doctor to take care of it.

Once again, adoption is an alternative to keeping the baby.
Sounds pretty irresponsible, just laying there and accumulating medical bills while hoping someone is in the market to raise your genes (generally only true for white people).

1st off, that is racist as all hell.
Furthermore, it is more irresponsible to abort; to deny a child life because you do not want to face the consequences of your actions; when a viable alternative is to put the kid up for adoption to be raised by people who could give the child love, and security.
No; I never said that conception was mandatory, I said after a child has been conceived it is the parent's responsibility to follow through with the pregnancy.
No, what you said is "Who are we to determine who shall be grated a chance at life?"--a rhetorical question declaring that no one has the right to alter who has a shot at life.
It's not my fault if you can't take responsibility for the logical implications of your declared principles.

But before conception the DNA of both parents have not merged, and remains separate. The father's sperm does not have the mothers DNA nor does the mother's egg have the father's DNA.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 12:11:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Abortion should only be an option in the case of rape, or if the fetus is threatening the life of the mother.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 2:17:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 11:09:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/21/2012 9:56:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/21/2012 9:18:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/21/2012 10:45:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
As a result, it is not a violation of one's property rights if one makes a conscious risk that may allow the person to come into their property
You left the door unlocked, so I can take your stuff.

Again, since you have malicious and conscious intent when doing so, then no.

My rights are not about your intent, and vice versa.

What right are you talking about?
Property rights of course.


People can violate other's rights, they will just be reprimanded.

You murdered someone. That is very bad. *smacks a wrist* Are you feeling reprimanded? Go forth and murder no more.

Would a mentally retarded person be sent to jail if they killed somebody when not control of their mental faculties?
They'd be sent to a mental hospital, which is not morally different (a cage is a cage is a cage), and if one were unavailable, you can bet they would go back to putting them in jail.

Of course not.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 2:23:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 12:06:39 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/21/2012 9:06:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/21/2012 2:03:32 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/21/2012 10:45:28 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/21/2012 10:24:07 AM, DanT wrote:
Why would one choose abortion over adoption? If one has sexual intercourse, one should be able to accept the consequences that follow. It is irresponsible to use abortion as a back up plan.
It's eminently responsible, unless you rely on charity or welfare to pay for it for you. Get pregnant? Woman the **** up and pay a doctor to take care of it.

Once again, adoption is an alternative to keeping the baby.
Sounds pretty irresponsible, just laying there and accumulating medical bills while hoping someone is in the market to raise your genes (generally only true for white people).

1st off, that is racist as all hell.
I'm not the one adopting the babies. The people adopting the babies are. And they tend overwhelmingly to adopt the white babies.

Furthermore, it is more irresponsible to abort; to deny a child life because you do not want to face the consequences of your actions
If I break my car, fixing my car is exactly as much facing the consequences of my actions as no longer driving.

when a viable alternative is to put the kid up for adoption to be raised by people who could give the child love, and security.
Assuming they exist, that alternative involves outsourcing consequences in a manner that abortion does not.

But before conception the DNA of both parents have not merged, and remains separate. The father's sperm does not have the mothers DNA nor does the mother's egg have the father's DNA.
Irrelevant. Homo sapiens DNA is Homo sapiens DNA. Having one set of it does not make you less worthy than having another, larger set of it. Either DNA is the relevant moral factor or (as I believe) it isn't. You're being arbitrary and capricious here.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 4:30:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nope. Besides denying the right to life of the fetus (who does not only have the potential to become fully mature, but will do so), abortion rights promote less caution about sex, which isn't good for a society. I don't think any woman should have the thought of being able to abort when having casual sex.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 8:02:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 2:17:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/21/2012 11:09:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/21/2012 9:56:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/21/2012 9:18:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/21/2012 10:45:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
As a result, it is not a violation of one's property rights if one makes a conscious risk that may allow the person to come into their property
You left the door unlocked, so I can take your stuff.

Again, since you have malicious and conscious intent when doing so, then no.

My rights are not about your intent, and vice versa.

What right are you talking about?
Property rights of course.

Ok.
People can violate other's rights, they will just be reprimanded.

You murdered someone. That is very bad. *smacks a wrist* Are you feeling reprimanded? Go forth and murder no more.

By reprimanded it is pretty obvious that either jail or a fine is meant.

Would a mentally retarded person be sent to jail if they killed somebody when not control of their mental faculties?
They'd be sent to a mental hospital, which is not morally different (a cage is a cage is a cage), and if one were unavailable, you can bet they would go back to putting them in jail.

They might be sent to a mental hospital, but they would in no way be punished directly like a conscious and intentful attacker would.

Of course not.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Nosaj5q
Posts: 175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 9:57:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
how i look at it is like this sometimes things happen and u want a second chance well thats it everyone gets 1 abortion (rape exempt) don't be a fool wrapp ur tool the same thing should be done with welfare you only get so much money and hen u run out u run out.
Slimy yet satisfying"
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 10:13:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 9:57:16 AM, Nosaj5q wrote:
how i look at it is like this sometimes things happen and u want a second chance well thats it everyone gets 1 abortion (rape exempt) don't be a fool wrapp ur tool the same thing should be done with welfare you only get so much money and hen u run out u run out.

Being allowed one chance at an abortion would require a massive bureaucracy to keep track of all abortions made and determine who has already had an abortion. Huge problems for the private sector and not very practical.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 9:22:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 6:15:45 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
We all know regardless the way it happens, the only way a woman gets prego is having sex. A man has sex with her and from that man comes seed. Inside the woman the seed goes and hits the egg inside the woman. When this seed hits the egg life is produced. If the seed did not hit the egg life would not be. No way around it Jack!
So should a child that we just established is life be killed because the parent makes that decision. Is that not killing another, Your own child? Is this different than sacrificing babies? Is unborn life less important than born life. If our children can be killed before concieved and this is law. What stops each and every soon to be parent going out and getting abortions because they want it? What stops the government requiring abortions in the future?
My opinion is a heavy NO on abortion for any reason.
I mean look at it the can kill criminals and now babies, when will it end?

I suspect your equating from the moment of conception is the same as a child, factually its incorrect. That's why its wrong for you to say a "child has just been established". If you have to lie or you have been led to believe this lie to justify taking away a womans choice here, that should tell you something is messed up in your analysis.

And do you really think forcing women to give birth is the answer ? what do you think happens next ? all happy family's ? sure sometimes. Sometimes the child is abandoned. You can force a women to give birth, you can't force her to take care of it. Children have been known to get tortured by their own parents.

More unwanted children = bad things going to happen, are you prepared to deal with that ? or just sit back at a distance and tut tut the immorality of these people ? oh lord how evil they are, lucky we are saved by Jesus.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 9:42:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 6:15:45 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
We all know regardless the way it happens, the only way a woman gets prego is having sex. A man has sex with her and from that man comes seed. Inside the woman the seed goes and hits the egg inside the woman. When this seed hits the egg life is produced. If the seed did not hit the egg life would not be. No way around it Jack!
So should a child that we just established is life be killed because the parent makes that decision. Is that not killing another, Your own child? Is this different than sacrificing babies? Is unborn life less important than born life. If our children can be killed before concieved and this is law. What stops each and every soon to be parent going out and getting abortions because they want it? What stops the government requiring abortions in the future?
My opinion is a heavy NO on abortion for any reason.
I mean look at it the can kill criminals and now babies, when will it end?

There is no excuse anyone has for abortion. Doctors will have you to believe that a birth is a sin, and death is OK.

My line is when the heart starts beating. When the heart is beating, you're aware that a primitive brain does exist and is receiving oxygen via blood. Self awareness isn't the issue. Being alive is the issue.

Since pro-murder people can't account for the complete science of consciousness, you can't talk about a baby in the womb as not being alive because it hasn't torn through, no matter what stage.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 9:43:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, not once have I heard of people who were adopted instead of being aborted as a majority wish that they were not born, so taking away the right to life is not only wrong, but should be criminal.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman