Pick your stance on abortion

Posted by: Mikal

Support your answer

Vote
294 Total Votes
1

Abortion should be illegal regardless of the circumstance

104 votes
0 comments
2

Abortion should be legal in all circumstances

78 votes
1 comment
3

Abortion should be legal but only in cases of rape and when it threatens the life of the mother

45 votes
1 comment
4

Abortion should be legal but not late term abortion

41 votes
5 comments
5

Abortion should be legal but only when it threatens the life of the mother

26 votes
1 comment
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
gamefire says2013-11-03T21:28:06.8550228-06:00
Guys we don't kill homeless people just because they can't survive without support even though they cause stress and strain on someone (society) it's just something we do cause everyone deserves a chance to live and experience life.
gamefire says2013-11-03T21:28:13.4221604-06:00
Guys we don't kill homeless people just because they can't survive without support even though they cause stress and strain on someone (society) it's just something we do cause everyone deserves a chance to live and experience life.
gamefire says2013-11-03T21:28:14.5770723-06:00
Guys we don't kill homeless people just because they can't survive without support even though they cause stress and strain on someone (society) it's just something we do cause everyone deserves a chance to live and experience life.
gamefire says2013-11-03T21:28:16.9950878-06:00
Guys we don't kill homeless people just because they can't survive without support even though they cause stress and strain on someone (society) it's just something we do cause everyone deserves a chance to live and experience life.
gamefire says2013-11-03T21:28:43.1096552-06:00
Srry fckin computer acting up did not mean to spam
Jingram994 says2013-11-04T02:17:16.3318163-06:00
Not being able to survive without support or incidentally placing strain on someone isn't the point. People who do/are like that are still qualitatively different to fetuses that do. One is actually 'alive' in a real, actual sense, the other is only 'alive' at a cellular level. Cellular life and person-hood, or actual human life, are two qualitatively different things. A cell with human DNA is not a person. A lot of cells with human DNA are not a person, either. There's a very specific requirement of consciousness and self-awareness, and actual ability to think, which requires a functioning higher brain. A fetus doesn't have that until 26 weeks. People who lose this ability become what we call 'brain-dead', and this is in fact the legal point at which a person is considered to be actually dead for all intents and purposes save organ donation.
MasturDbtor says2013-11-04T11:13:01.6631224-06:00
@ Jingram What is this qualitative difference? What are consciousness and self-awareness made of and how do we physically differentiate them from a lack of consciousness or a lack of self-awareness? What is "thinking" physically speaking and how do you physically differentiate it from non-thinking? I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to these questions.
Jingram994 says2013-11-04T21:36:51.7670040-06:00
'Higher' brain activity, ie. Not just the autonomic parts that start functioning at 8 weeks, and may or may not still be functioning in a given brain-dead person, are required for all those things. If a majority of a person's brain, in particular the parts we differentiate as their 'higher brain'(ie. Not the brain stem, or related areas controlling primarily autonomic functions) is non-functioning, or just not formed at all yet, they couldn't *possibly* have any consciousness, self-awareness or even the tiniest ability to think. If you have a working brain (or some form of central nervous system), then on some level you are able to 'think'. A zebra can think, as can a housefly (to a *much* lesser extent), but a tree or a rock cannot think. A homeless person (presumably) has a working brain, with a lack of injuries or disorders that would prevent this, and so is conscious and self-aware of his own existence. A fetus with no formed brain areas capable of such a task, or someone who (for example) has had a steel rod jammed through their head and lost 86% of their brain tissue, do not have this same brain function. Higher brain function *is* consciousness/self-awareness.
Jingram994 says2013-11-05T04:54:36.5347584-06:00
'Higher' brain activity, ie. Not just the autonomic parts that start functioning at 8 weeks, and may or may not still be functioning in a given brain-dead person, are required for all those things. If a majority of a person's brain, in particular the parts we differentiate as their 'higher brain'(ie. Not the brain stem, or related areas controlling primarily autonomic functions) is non-functioning, or just not formed at all yet, they couldn't *possibly* have any consciousness, self-awareness or even the tiniest ability to think. If you have a complete, working brain (or some form of central nervous system), then on some level you are able to 'think'. A zebra can think, and technically a housefly can as well (to a *much* lesser extent), but a tree or a rock absolutely cannot think. A homeless person (presumably) has a working brain, with a lack of injuries or disorders that would prevent this, and so is conscious and self-aware of his own existence. A fetus with no formed brain areas capable of such a task, or someone who has lost function in most areas of their brain, or at least their higher brain, do not have this same brain function. Higher brain function *is* consciousness/self-awareness.
Amoridere says2013-11-17T10:06:49.5224948-06:00
In my opinion and be noted that I am it should be and I look forward to the day when the Roe v Wade is overturned. I am indeed pro-life but I have my reasons, aside from the fact it is wrong and the unborn doesn't deserve to die for someone else's sins or irresponsibility. Like I said, before, I have reasons as to why I am pro-life and, if you wish to know them, then ask. I do however believe in birth control
Jingram994 says2013-11-18T00:07:38.9555138-06:00
Not meaning to sound mean of offensive here, but Roe v. Wade is not going to be overturned. There is no way to do so without creating glaring flaws and enormous contradictions in the way human beings are treated with regards to the law. Higher brain function is a biological requirement of being a 'person'. If we rule that this is not the case, then brain-dead bodies must be given the same rights and responsibilities as all other 'people', and be legally treated as though they are actually still the same person they were before they lost higher brain function and *died*. There is simply no actual difference between having lost this ability, and simply not having had it in the first place. Though, I would actually like to hear your reasoning for being pro-life, if that's okay with you.
michael90000 says2013-12-25T14:24:54.3352625-06:00
Life should be defended on all stages. The first stage is part of the cycle of life that should not be aborted, no different to that of murder. The first stage of human life is no different than to a person sleeping or in a coma.
Jingram994 says2013-12-25T21:49:03.1244030-06:00
'Course it is. There is also a huge difference between a person being asleep or in a coma, and a person actually being completely brain-dead. In the former two cases, the person qualitatively still exists as a person, and brain scans can and will show ongoing activity in their higher brain; they still have consciousness, their consciousness is simply 'unconscious', or conscious on a different 'level' to the waking state. A fetus does not have this brain activity, or the potential for it, until 26 weeks; they are effectively brain-dead, which is *the* quantifier for legal and actual death in medical and scientific terminology.
michael90000 says2014-01-17T09:18:19.1367867-06:00
Jingram994; Everything starts off small though, abortion doesn't give these people a chance to develop a brain or to experience life. It denies them the right to develop these things and a life. It's completely logistical that abortion denies the right to live, and is ultimately and completely murder.
michael90000 says2014-01-17T09:20:27.8548620-06:00
Aside from science, birth control is tolerable and acts before science.
michael90000 says2014-01-17T15:26:00.5974374-06:00
Before pregnancy*.
Jingram994 says2014-01-17T23:13:09.8917613-06:00
@michael90000 (that the right number of 0's?) "Everything starts off small though, abortion doesn't give these people a chance to develop a brain or to experience life." You seem to have missed the point; 'no brain' = 'no person'. If no brain exists to 'create' the mind that is this person, then nobody has 'missed out' on anything, as nobody ever existed to miss out in the first place. "It denies them the right to develop these things and a life. It's completely logistical that abortion denies the right to live, and is ultimately and completely murder." That isn't how we define the term 'murder'. Whether or not a fetus is 'alive' at a cellular level, and what DNA those cells have, simply is not relevant at all. It is still not a 'person', due to it's lack of higher brain function, which is a required trait of 'person-hood', and is physically required to be conscious, self-aware, or capable of any kind of actual thought whatsoever. And like I stated earlier, there isn't any qualitative difference between a fetus before 26 weeks and a brain-dead body; neither has any higher brain function, and so does not qualitatively exist as an individual. Whether or not such function might exist at some point in the future isn't really the point.
GEIxBattleRifle says2014-02-14T19:33:10.3720263-06:00
WOW did you just compare a unborn human to someone sleeping or in a coma? During sleep you still retain your rationality and your reasoning abilities or else when you wake up in the morning you would be exactly equivalent to a profoundly mentally retarded human. Abilities mental or otherwise do not vanish the moment they're not being used. This is why a boxer is STILL a boxer while he sleeps and a surgeon is still a surgeon while he sleeps despite the fact they're not using those abilities at the moment. As for the coma? Bad example. Most comas last only for a week or so and most that come out of it are just fine. Parts of the brain that allow rationality or reasoning abilities to exist and NOT DAMAGED the vast majority of the time while the coma persists. Which is why when cases like that happen you have to wait for the coma patient to come out of the coma to assist the damage. This is why when your computer crashes on you you don't claim everything is lost and throw it in the garbage can. You reboot it back up and wait for it to finish and check to see what is gone or not like we do in the case of a coma patient.
Jingram994 says2014-02-14T23:57:40.8735192-06:00
"WOW did you just compare a unborn human to someone sleeping or in a coma? During sleep you still retain your rationality and your reasoning abilities or else when you wake up in the morning you would be exactly equivalent to a profoundly mentally retarded human." No I did not. READ, sir. I compared a fetus to a brain-dead person. Please actually find out what words mean before you start throwing them around. Being in a coma, or being asleep, is not the same as being brain dead. I don't need to explain this further; if you don't understand what the difference is, and are not willing to do a google search to find out, that's simply not my problem.
davy.jia says2014-02-16T21:53:57.4982668-06:00
@jingram994 your whole scientific conclusion on the difference between "personhood" and human life seems more philisophical in nature, but on the note with you suggesting that a pre 26 week fetus is comparable to a brain dead person, what would happen if you shot a brain dead person? Im legitimately curious, I couldnt find a definitive answer.
Jingram994 says2014-02-17T04:00:38.8597388-06:00
More than likely, they would bleed. They would suffer impact wounds. They may or may not react in some basic manner, such as a flinch or whatever, due to localized nerves in and around the area where they were shot. They would not react in a coordinated manner with any actual 'intent' behind the action, though, because you do need a working central nervous system for that. If you are asking what would legally happen, then I'm actually not sure myself. You would likely be sued by the family of the brain dead person, or by the hospital, who likely had some reason for keeping the body alive. This would possibly be construed as something along the lines of 'willful destruction of private property', but I'm not actually certain about that. You likely wouldn't be tried for murder if this caused the body to die, though, at least not in any state where the laws actually made sense, because by definition you didn't kill a person by committing that action. They might still attempt to charge you with murder regardless, but if medical records show that the body was brain-dead before you shot it this approach would not work. I suppose it also depends on how exactly the state in question construes family/hospital wishes with regards to the body, and whether or not the body was actually supposed to be kept functioning for some reason, such as scheduled organ donation, or simply because the family wanted the body kept 'alive'.
Ian_B525 says2014-02-20T20:35:07.7998445-06:00
@jingram994 if I recall killing a pregnant woman is double homicide no matter the stage of development. You compare a unborn child to a brain dead person and killing the latter wouldn't be murder. So from a legal stand point that comparison is invalid because the unborn is legally recognized as a Human
Ian_B525 says2014-02-20T20:40:54.2117342-06:00
Define Human jingram
Ian_B525 says2014-02-20T21:04:21.5512625-06:00
Also read the Hippocratic Oath
Jingram994 says2014-02-23T04:12:03.0363658-06:00
"if I recall killing a pregnant woman is double homicide no matter the stage of development. You compare a unborn child to a brain dead person and killing the latter wouldn't be murder. So from a legal stand point that comparison is invalid because the unborn is legally recognized as a Human" No, it isn't, and the laws that make that decision and differentiation obviously change from country to country. I assume you're referring to the UVVA (Unborn Victims of Violence Act) with this; I cannot stomach that law, which is a blatant attempt to slippery-slope abortion into criminality, and which is not based on good grounds/science. I will not accept arguments using that law as the standard to be 'good' arguments because the law itself is ridiculous and flawed at the basic axiom level. As a side note, if you were actually reading what I wrote you would of course know that the term 'human' is not relevant to the issue at all; 'person' is. Human denotes nothing more than genetics; a literal corpse is just as much a 'human', at a genetic level as I am right now; this does not change the fact that it is not a 'person'.
Ian_B525 says2014-02-24T19:28:52.3158320-06:00
And the Hippocratic Oath
Jingram994 says2014-02-25T05:00:30.9537228-06:00
What about it? You don't *need* to have taken the Hippocratic Oath to be a doctor, nor are you somehow forced to adhere to a distinctly unrealistic and very religiously-informed view of what the oath actually entails even if you have taken it. What exactly is your point here?
michael90000 says2014-02-25T06:03:32.1673779-06:00
Everything has to develop, including the brain. This just denies the chance to develop, and then denying the chance to freedom. At the moment of conception, there is certain to be a life. Treating human life as only a mere scientific object is unethical, immoral, and wrong.
michael90000 says2014-02-25T06:05:24.0951555-06:00
Saying this with respect but, now's not the time to deny or be ignorant.
Jingram994 says2014-02-26T03:08:22.5043033-06:00
I don't think that's how it works. At all. I think that's nothing more than an attempt at justifying unreasonable personal beliefs, not an actual rationale in itself. A person does not qualitatively, subjectively exist without their brain. Trying to tell me that any person is being harmed, or being denied their rights, by not allowing this potential future person to become an actual person, is ridiculous. I have the potential to become a millionaire playboy. This is not relevant; I am not a millionaire playboy. Denying me access to those things that I do not actually own or have a right to own is not 'wrong'. It is not 'morally wrong' to prevent a potential from becoming an actual. It is wrong to kill an actual person; it does not follow that it is wrong to prevent one from forming in the first place, unless you are also willing to argue against all forms of contraception and birth control, seeing as how they do the exact same thing, merely at an earlier stage. I also do not believe you have been reading anything that I've been writing; whether or not a fetus is alive at a cellular level, and whether or not it has human DNA, are not relevant factors at all.
AMcCormack21 says2014-04-11T20:44:09.7328691-05:00
I agree that abortion is literally murder. It can cause infanticide (the killing of young children) and unless the mother has dubstantial evidence of rape that a judge and jury can rule then abortion should be illegal.
Debatedebates says2014-04-23T10:23:35.4924415-05:00
Why would you want to keep a baby that was brought on to you by a rapist
jordysonn says2014-05-06T09:22:06.2901088-05:00
No matter the circumstance abortion is murder. It doesn't matter if the baby has had its first heartbeat, after conception there is new DNA. People pro abortion do it simply because it is convenient for them. Because it is easier for them. But it is not there choice. Just because the person is inside them does not make them any less of a person. Every year there are estimated 40 to 50 million abortions a year. That corresponds to 125,000 a day. This year alone 14,430,301 abortions have been preformed and this number just keeps growing. 14,430,301 babies have been murdered. This year. One of those people could have found the cure for cancer. But all of them where people. Different people. Abortion should not be the mothers choice because it is "convenient" for them to just get rid of the child. Abortion is murder no one can deny that.
Jingram994 says2014-05-07T03:52:02.6012268-05:00
"No matter the circumstance abortion is murder. It doesn't matter if the baby has had its first heartbeat, after conception there is new DNA." DNA in and of itself is not relevant to the discussion. Strictly speaking, this means that sperm cells (which actually DON'T have identical DNA to the person they come from), human eggs and tumors count as people. This also means that identical twins count as the same person. You can see why this is ridiculous, surely. "People pro abortion do it simply because it is convenient for them. Because it is easier for them. But it is not there choice." The fact that it is 'easier' (read: NOT traumatic and reprehensible, like forced pregnancy is), does not make it 'wrong'. Arguments for it being 'convenient' have no weight in this discussion. "Just because the person is inside them does not make them any less of a person." No, the fact that it has no higher brain function does. Also, the fact that it is growing inside a person's body makes it party to property laws. People have an inviolable right to autonomy of their own body. This is a necessary extension of assorted other rights that everyone objectively has and nobody argues against. "Every year there are estimated 40 to 50 million abortions a year. That corresponds to 125,000 a day. This year alone 14,430,301 abortions have been preformed and this number just keeps growing. 14,430,301 babies have been murdered. This year." *Fetuses*. 14,430,301 *FETUSES* have been killed this year. Keep in mind that 'baby' refers to human offspring ONLY after it is born. Also keep in mind that fetuses before 26 weeks are only 'alive' at a cellular level, which is simply not how we define 'human life' or 'personhood' in the real world. ALSO keep in mind that almost 98% of abortions occur WELL before this point, and the only ones that occur after are done for necessary medical reasons. Women aren't just going around casually aborting their 9 month old fetuses. "One of those people could have found the cure for cancer. But all of them where people. Different people. Abortion should not be the mothers choice because it is "convenient" for them to just get rid of the child. Abortion is murder no one can deny that." One of them could also have been the next Hitler. And no, you are simply not correct on a basic axiom level. Fetuses are NOT people, as the term requires personhood, which is a product of higher brain function in sapient species. Abortion is not 'murder', and people that say it is are either ill-informed, willfully ignorant or bald-faced liars.
jordysonn says2014-05-08T09:27:30.6381927-05:00
Yes i am well aware of late-term abortions "and the only ones that occur after are done for necessary medical reasons." But this statement is far from true. In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:[2] 71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation 48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion 33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents 24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion 8% Woman waited for her relationship to change 8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion 6% Something changed after woman became pregnant 6% Woman didn't know timing is important 5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion 2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy 11% Other (Wikipedia) Also the point where a abortion is defined as late is not clearly defined some sources even define 16 weeks as late.
Jingram994 says2014-05-09T06:25:11.3474579-05:00
"Yes i am well aware of late-term abortions "and the only ones that occur after are done for necessary medical reasons." But this statement is far from true. In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:[2] 71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation 48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion 33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents 24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion 8% Woman waited for her relationship to change 8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion 6% Something changed after woman became pregnant 6% Woman didn't know timing is important 5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion 2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy 11% Other (Wikipedia) Also the point where a abortion is defined as late is not clearly defined some sources even define 16 weeks as late." 16 weeks is not a 'late term' abortion; during the third trimester is 'late term'. And if that's the only point you're able to contend (and very weakly, I might add; those statistics actually skew in favor of legalized abortion and dissemination of proper information about sex, reproduction and pregnancy), then your argument hasn't really got any validity behind it. 1987 is also quite a long time ago; those statistics more than likely do not hold true anymore.
Zdog14 says2014-05-18T18:35:01.8310636-05:00
Abortion should be legal only in cases of rape and when it threatens the life of the mother or if something is wrong with the fetus. I don't see how anyone can like abortion although it is needed and I am surprised that a majority believe that abortion should be prohibited under all circumstances no matter if the health of the women is threatened. In my opinion you'r only opening the door for a black market for abortions where there is no safety or regulation and while I oppose abortion I strongly believe that it shouldn't be banned.
Lovelessly says2014-05-19T01:12:30.2795566-05:00
I support it as well as don't support it. I don't believe that abortion is a form of birth control. If you're carrying a perfectly healthy baby and it poses no health risks to you, then you shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion. However, if the child will be born with missing limbs, deformities, or some other problem, then abortion should be allowed. The children shouldn't be forced to suffer through such hardships. An innocent child. I also believe that if the child poses a health risk to the mother, it should also be allowed to be aborted. Like I said though, if there are no health risks nor risks of problems with the child, abortion should not be allowed. Abortion is not a form of birth control. If you didn't want a kid, you shouldn't have had sex. It's a very simple concept.
Jingram994 says2014-05-19T02:31:16.0655566-05:00
"If you're carrying a perfectly healthy baby and it poses no health risks to you, then you shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion." Depends how we define 'health', really. By definition *all* pregnancies pose a serious threat to the health of the mother, and *all* unwanted pregnancies pose serious threat to the mental and emotional well being of the mother on top of that. To put it bluntly, ALL pregnancies carry a serious enough health risk to warrant abortion if the mother is not willing to take that risk. There is absolutely no reason to imagine that an impartial law is a better indicator of what a woman should have to be 'okay' with risking than she herself is when it is *her* body and life that is at risk. "Abortion is not a form of birth control. If you didn't want a kid, you shouldn't have had sex. It's a very simple concept." Consent to have sex =/= consent to get pregnant, go through with pregnancy or have a child. Is your opinion the same even if multiple forms of birth control were correctly and consistently used? What if one or both participants has had surgery to prevent unwanted pregnancy (vasectomy, tubes tied etc.) and it simply failed? It is known to happen. Are you saying that these people should be punished for what amounts to a bad roll of the dice?
debator_debates says2014-07-21T09:51:26.4898964-05:00
I think that abortion is the mothers choice only. If the baby is theirs, let them decide. There is no right and wrong to this. However, I have to say that there are more con's than pro's. The con's: Every child deserves a life. Do you know how many great people there could've been in life? The child that was aborted could've been a successful character. Or they could've at least been able to see the world for a second. The pro's: Say the mother of the child was a drug dealer, or was depressed, or messed up in the head. That baby would have to live a life where the mother never took care of them. Or where the mother ignored the child. Sometimes, in life, its better to just NOT have the baby! When you're getting ready to have a child, think about the money it takes, think about if you're ready. Or if you aren't responsible enough. Because the baby doesn't deserve a tough life.
Jlp757 says2014-11-22T20:13:52.2688291-06:00
Would you rather have a child be born with a serious disorder, deformity, or into poverty and live a miserable life, or allow mothers that know ahead of time that their child will suffer in its future abort them so they will not need suffer? Your uterus, your choice.
MewMew says2014-12-10T11:50:37.9188939-06:00
Many people argue that a baby is not a person yet only because it supports their cause. A baby is a baby, no matter how small. A baby is a human, no matter how small, a baby is a PERSON, no matter how small. In the modern day and time, would the murder of a 20 year old be legalized? No! “Allowing abortion conflicts with the unalienable right to life recognized by the Founding Fathers of the United States. The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."Abortion takes away from the unborn the unalienable right to life that the Founding Fathers intended for all human beings.” “why would the beliefs and values of one religion mandate actual laws for all citizens? “ Religion serves no part in how legal or not legal abortion is, as I hear often."In some religions, murder is considered wrong, in some other religions, human sacrifice is not wrong. This is not a sacrifice. It is teenagers not wanting to sacrifice their fun, for having to take care of a child, in most cases. In other cases health problems, are a cause for abortion, I acknowledge that. But, why should the beliefs and values of your religion mandate actual laws for all citizens?
Jingram994 says2014-12-10T20:24:12.4368414-06:00
"Many people argue that a baby is not a person yet only because it supports their cause. A baby is a baby, no matter how small. A baby is a human, no matter how small, a baby is a PERSON, no matter how small." First of all, no. People say foetuses aren't babies because they haven't been born yet, and therefore literally do not meet the criteria for being a baby, which includes 'having been born'. Secondly, yes, foetuses are human, genetically. This isn't relevant, and it doesn't make them a 'person'; having a functional higher brain makes you a 'person'. Brain-dead people are medically and legally considered to be actually dead due to the lack of this; this is a universal standard. If you are arguing that foetuses before 26 weeks are 'people', you are in direct disagreement with how the medical community, and to a theoretically similar degree (barring this one specific case, though generally only in backwards areas) the broader legal community, construes 'human life'/'personhood'. "In the modern day and time, would the murder of a 20 year old be legalized? No! “Allowing abortion conflicts with the unalienable right to life recognized by the Founding Fathers of the United States. The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Many states allow, and in fact mandate, murder all the time; that's what the death sentence is. At any rate, it still isn't relevant; a non-brain-dead 20 year old is still actually alive, in a meaningful sense, whereas a foetus before 26 weeks could not possibly be as it has not developed to the point where that is possible. You are also equating abortion with 'killing the foetus', which is not correct. Abortion aborts the pregnancy. Even if you *could* successfully argue for foetal rights! Which you really can't, you still need to explain why the foetus' imaginary right to its mother's body is more important than the 'mothers' right to her own body, and explain why this only applies to foetuses. Why can't I just go out and steal people's organs if I'm sick and I *really* need them?" "Abortion takes away from the unborn the unalienable right to life that the Founding Fathers intended for all human beings.” Regardless of their genetic makeup, foetuses still are not people by way of not having higher brain function until at least 26 weeks. Human rights are thus not an applicable concept. This is the exact same standard that is used for everyone else who lacks higher brain functions. "In some religions, murder is considered wrong, in some other religions, human sacrifice is not wrong. This is not a sacrifice. It is teenagers not wanting to sacrifice their fun, for having to take care of a child, in most cases." No. Well over 50% of abortions are sought by married women, a vast majority of which already have at least one child, and either way a majority of people seeking abortions were already using at least one form of birth control. Educate yourself. "In other cases health problems, are a cause for abortion, I acknowledge that. But, why should the beliefs and values of your religion mandate actual laws for all citizens?" All full-term pregnancies are potentially life threatening, and every form of abortion is at least ten times safer than even the 'safest' full-term birth. Why do women not get to decide if they place their own lives in mortal danger or not? The last sentence is false equivalence. Legalised abortion does not mean women are to be forced to have abortions if they don't want them, whereas illegal abortion directly prevents women from fully exercising their right to free access to and use of their own body.
Thegreatdebate98 says2015-01-12T12:03:26.8642138-06:00
If the mother's life is threatened, than both would die, so it's at least saving one life. In those cases, regular doctor's should perform it (abortion clinics shouln't exist), and do it in such a way that the unborn child won't feel pain. It's still very sad, but necessary. Other than that, abortion shouldn't exist because you're not God and shouldn't be choosing when to take life away or not, he's the judge of that. It would be a very difficult decision if I had to abort my child in that case, but I would never forget the possible potential and that that child was a gift from God, someone with a soul. I would be pro-life if I were an Atheist, because Atheists can still have morals, it's human nature. Taking away something that was naturally supposed to be here goes against the laws of nature. Taking away all of that possible potential, that unborn person never got to see the light of day. You don't suddenly become human after exiting the womb, it's a scientific fact that life begins at conception. We're all developing, yes at first they are at a very small scale, but we're all still developing. Your brain doesn't fully develop until the age of 25. It's so illogical to think that it's not murder, when a pregnant woman dies, 2 people are considered dead, not just one, Try to justify that with "MY BODY" explanations....
Jingram994 says2015-01-13T04:54:00.4595293-06:00
"In those cases, regular doctor's should perform it (abortion clinics shouln't exist), and do it in such a way that the unborn child won't feel pain." Before 26 weeks, it isn't a 'person' so it doesn't matter if or how much 'pain' (actually just localised nerves, not the actual, coordinated sensation of pain we are used to experiencing) it feels. I also don't see why abortion clinics shouldn't exist; this just puts extra pressure on general practitioners to know how to perform abortions. "It's still very sad, but necessary. Other than that, abortion shouldn't exist because you're not God and shouldn't be choosing when to take life away or not, he's the judge of that." Well what if 'God' (When you can prove that he exists, *then* you can start using 'him' to justify arguments, not before) wanted the woman to choose to have an abortion? Are you also insinuating that all instances of miscarriage and stillbirth are God deliberately 'killing babies'? "It would be a very difficult decision if I had to abort my child in that case, but I would never forget the possible potential and that that child was a gift from God, someone with a soul." When you can prove that a soul even exists, *then* you can use it to justify arguments. Not before. "I would be pro-life if I were an Atheist, because Atheists can still have morals, it's human nature. Taking away something that was naturally supposed to be here goes against the laws of nature." Define 'naturally supposed to be'. People starve to death, miscarry, have stillbirths, get murdered, die from exposure & natural disaster and catch lethal diseases all the time. Are you suggesting that preventing those things from occurring is 'immoral'? You also need to show that a foetus is a person before you can show that killing it carries the same moral weight as killing an actual existent human does. You also need to demonstrate how outright ignoring the pregnant woman's inherent rights could possibly be 'moral'. "You don't suddenly become human after exiting the womb, it's a scientific fact that life begins at conception." Right. It's also a scientific fact that brain activity, presence of which is the universal legal and medical standard for actual death, begins at 26 weeks. Cellular 'human life' does begin at conception, yes; 'Personhood' begins at 26 weeks. If 'killing' cellular human life is itself inherently 'immoral', then you would also have to rule that male masturbation, exfoliation and the natural female menstrual cycle are also 'immoral'. "Your brain doesn't fully develop until the age of 25." True, but it develops to the point of actual functionality at 26 weeks. It only matters if it's functioning, not how developed it is past that point. Even if that *weren't* true, all this would demonstrate is that it *is* actually 'okay' to kill young children and sufficiently mentally disadvantaged people. You can't just extrapolate to the absolute logical end-point of an idea and expect that to disprove the idea itself rather than merely your extrapolation. "It's so illogical to think that it's not murder, when a pregnant woman dies, 2 people are considered dead, not just one, Try to justify that with "MY BODY" explanations...." Simple; those laws are ridiculous and should not exist. At best, it should be considered a punitive rule to stop people targeting pregnant women to kill; 2 people are not actually killed unless the pregnant woman is past the 26 week mark. And the pregnant woman's rights are still relevant even if the foetus is considered a 'person'; ignoring her inherent rights is inherently degrading and inhumane irregardless of other factors. The pregnant woman necessarily has to have absolute discretionary control over how and if her body is used by someone else; this is kind of the same reason why you can't just go out and kidnap people to steal their organs, even if you are very ill and you actually need those organs.
RXR says2015-03-16T09:47:53.8710188-05:00
The government makes billions of dollars from the abortion industry. None the less, abortion will not leave any time soon. Even though abortion is probably the biggest crime humanity has done since the holocaust.
RXR says2015-03-16T09:51:08.8360694-05:00
@debator_debates So you agree on mother's killing their unborn just because of any reason at all ? Why can't the mother also kill her 2 year old just because it's her ''choice'' too. Every choice has a good and bad side, and abortion aka kill your unborn, is not even close to touching the good side.
CarrieChildress says2015-07-09T18:26:17.8860691-05:00
The 'person to be' does not have consciousness and is unaware. Would-be mothers are ill equipped and/or the timing is wrong for the responsibility in many cases. Having the child would relegate the woman to poverty in many cases, as well. The male donor has no consequences. This disparity marginalizes women in society and limits their ability to prosper in the same way as their male counterparts. Hence, there is continued inequity among genders. Let women keep their chances of achieving their life aspirations by allowing them some control.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.