Abortion is wrong

March 5, 2019, 7:16 pm

Agree76 Disagree55

58%
42%

The debate "Abortion is wrong" was started by Consitution101 on March 5, 2019, 7:16 pm. 76 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 55 people are on the disagree side. That might be enough to see the common perception. It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.

Consitution101 posted 17 arguments, Napoleon_of_Politics posted 1 argument, JDAWG9693 posted 15 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument, freakofnaturespitbucket posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 8 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.

Consitution101, JDAWG9693, HelloWorLd, Napoleon_of_Politics, jrardin12, troythegreat, AlissiaMathew, SanjayKumar, Liam_mc_Sherry, InfinityMachine, Harshrai29, freakofnaturespitbucket, kacho, Ayushkoul, benshapirofan, SMNR, Mj_Bossdude and 59 visitors agree.
Jippity_J, historybuff, HeyChiefIMightBeWrongBut, rainingdown, krojnar, Gray_son and 49 visitors disagree.

@ freakofnature - that argument is incredibly simplistic, and fairly childish. Your position appears to be that the second a sperm touches an egg it is a human and should have the protections we give humans. Also, that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be mentally handicapped. The irony of that statement is that the majority of people who would agree with that are either very religious or uneducated/stupid. And no those are not mutually exclusive categories. A fertilized egg is just that, and egg. It has no brain, heart, lungs etc. By almost any definition it isn't a person yet. A seed is not a tree, a zygote is not a person.

@JDAWG the problem with morality laws like banning abortion, banning alcohol, the war on drugs etc is that you can't actually stop it by cracking down on it. It is a service that people want. Banning it is not effective. It only causes people to need to do it illegally. If you actually wanted to prevent abortion the only potentially effective way would be to make it easier or worthwhile to carry a pregnancy to term that they don't want. But that would require significant social spending. And since the large majority of people who want to ban abortion are right wing, that is obviously not something they would support. If people want something badly enough, they will get it. So work on the underlying reasons they want the abortion, not banning the abortion itself.

4 days, 9 hours ago

If there were reasonable ways to enforce it, I would make it illegal to use any drugs while pregnant, yes.

4 days, 13 hours ago

abortion is wrong and should be prohibited worldwide because with abortion you're practically murdering the life of an unborn innocent baby. what did he/she ever do to you? why murder an unborn human life? if you didn't want a baby, a man and woman shouldn't've had sex in the first place and conjoin a sperm and egg to form a zygote, then a fetus, then an embryo, then a baby. you people are retarded af if you support abortion

4 days, 14 hours ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

not illegal, more like amateur abortions. and probably lots of debilitating fetal alcohol syndrome or other problems.

1 week, 3 days ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

there are ways to enforce. penalizing missed checkups or lack of folic acid (or presence of alcohol, etc) in blood work is easily obtainable objective evidence. also things already tested for routinely.

this is opening the door to illegal abortions that have always been a problem with bans in the past.

1 week, 3 days ago

I think that, yes, only abortion should ver illegal, in any style. And, the main reason not for the other things is because how would we enforce that? It wouldn't make sense

1 week, 4 days ago

a follow up question.

now that we recognize the fetus with certain activity as an individual, how much autonomy does the mother retain of her own body?

is it just the medical abortion that is banned? how about coat hangers? eating lots of unpasteurized cheeses? not taking enough folic acid?

where do we draw the line when their rights conflict?

1 week, 4 days ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

it is true most abortions are voluntary, but they are also mostly early term, with 66% being pre 8 weeks, and 90% being before 13 weeks.

I would imagine that usually, the later the abortion, the more medically urgent the reason for it.

1 week, 5 days ago
JDAWG9693
replied to...

2015, my bad.

1 week, 5 days ago

And, I 100% agree and have been advocating that if the mother's physical health is in jeopardy because of the fetus, it should be aborted to save the mother. However, as of 2016, more than 98% of abortions were for convenience.

That being said, even though I advocate for no abortion passed two weeks, I would be willing to compromise, for the time being, for no abortion passed eight weeks, as that is where you defined the average beginning of personhood

1 week, 5 days ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

yes, I see your distinction. however I put my line on when it becomes an IS person. as in it IS a person.

I do believe that being a WILL person does have value and is worth saving in many circumstances, will become something signifies it isnt that yet. and not yet a person cannot be murdered.

I feel that pre personhood abortions should be discouraged, but not penalized. I also feel that at any point, if the mother's life is threatened, abortion should be an option. no person should be mandated to self sacrifice for another if they don't choose to.

1 week, 5 days ago

But, to be intellectually consistent with your argument, at what point does the fetus/embryo/zygote become no longer a MIGHT person and into a WILL person?
Because I would argue that after two weeks it becomes a WILL person because it has about a 10% chance of miscarriage and it only decreases; by ten weeks it's down to about 2%. So, I'm okay with things like the Plan B pill because at that point, they're still a "might" person. But, after two weeks, it's almost guaranteed that they WILL develop into a person if not aborted.

1 week, 5 days ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

I disagree. a zygote is literally a ball of cells. the embryo is already more advanced but still building the fundamentals like blood networks and different kinds of cells.

a fetus is when it starts looking like, and functioning like a human, just inadequately.

reacting to taste and sound happens around weeks 10 to 13, along with the organs, I'm assuming that means the brain is already on at that time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/books/chapters/the-ethical-brain.html

references electrical activity (start paragraph 6). 8-10 weeks is when it *starts* developing, so 8 weeks would be the safe bet. but really it isnt about an arbitrary deadline, but custom measure of whether activity is present or not. physical requirements, not guesses.

1 week, 5 days ago

I know, but for all intents and purposes, fetus, embryo, and zygote are interchangeable for this discussion.

And, why do you think it is then and not earlier?

1 week, 6 days ago

I'm not a doctor so I don't have a definitive opinion on when precisely it becomes a person. I would say definitely after 13 weeks (the beginning of the 2nd trimester). But before the fetus is viable outside of the womb. It's not exactly cut and dry when that is, but somewhere around the 23rd week there is a chance a fetus could survive outside the womb.

Also as a side note. While looking up info for this answer I see we have both been using fetus incorrectly. It is only a fetus after week 10.

1 week, 6 days ago

Then, let us move on to your suggestion of when the fetus becomes a person or when it claims human rights?

1 week, 6 days ago

It's the "soon to be" part that is critical. Because by definition, it is not yet. A seed is not a tree. A fetus is not a person. It might become one, but it isn't one yet.

So why would we suspend one of the core human rights, the control of one's own body, in order to protect something that we both acknowledge isn't a person?

you might be willing to suspend other people's rights, but i am not. Once the fetus becomes a person, then it is reasonable to infringe on the rights of the woman to protect it. Up to that point she has the right to control her body and to terminate the "not a person" if she wants to.

1 week, 6 days ago

That is why the men should be required to pay child support, as they often are.

But my points are that after two weeks, it is almost guaranteed that the fetus WILL become a person. There is very little "might." And, what WILL become a person should have equal, or near equal, rights. And, should having there be a moderate burden to a few people be enough reason to kill a person, or soon-to-be person?

1 week, 6 days ago

Obviously I can't say for certain exactly what he meant, but it sounds like he means

1) potential person hood (ie something that might be a person some day) should not have the same weight as an actual person
2) The consequences of sex are largely put on women, not men. Men can't get pregnant and therefore the only potential cost to them is child support. And only if it can actually be enforced on the father. While a woman has to spend 9 months incurring personal, financial and physical costs that simply don't apply to men.

Back to my opinion: It is easy for a man to say that abortion is always wrong because they are guaranteed for it to never negatively affect them. All they have to do is run out on the impregnated woman and they are off scot-free.

1 week, 6 days ago

Can you explain what you mean by that?

1 week, 6 days ago

I wouldnt put potential personhood on the same level as actual personhood, but I would give it value. the consequences of sex are extremely 1 sided which I believe is the root of the abortion movement

1 week, 6 days ago

I would argue that two weeks after conception it should have rights because there is such a little chance that it won't become a person. And, that chance only decreases with time. I would say my compromise would be allowing abortions up to two weeks or, obviously, if the physical health of the mother is in jeopardy

2 weeks ago

There is a good chance the fetus will become a person. It is not guaranteed. But again, there is also a good chance a seed will become a tree. That doesn't mean i killed a tree if i dug up a seed shortly after it was planted. It would mean i prevented a tree from ever existing.

I do not, and will never accept, that a fetus without a functioning brain is a person. By virtually any definition it isn't one. It may become a person some day, and on that day aborting the fetus would become unacceptable. If you want to debate at what that point that is we can do that. But if you think that 30 seconds after conception a fertilized egg should have all the protections of a full fledged human being then I really don't see how your opinions could be based in logic and a discussion is pointless.

2 weeks ago

After two weeks, there is, on average, a less than 10% chance of miscarriage, so we can say almost for certain that the fetus WILL become a conscious person.

2 weeks ago

That simply isn't true. A lot of pregnancies naturally terminate (miscarriages of various sorts, fetuses consuming one another etc). Therefore no, a fetus is far from guaranteed from becoming a person. The most I will acknowledge is there is a fairly good chance that it might become a person.

I acknowledge that a fetus has the potential to gain consciousness and therefore has the potential to become a person. And terminating a fetus after it has reached the point of consciousness is certainly murder.

But by the same logic that if I stop you from planting a seed, i haven't killed a tree. I have prevented a tree. If you abort a fetus, you haven't killed a person, you have prevented one from existing. And if preventing a person from existing is murder, then there is no logical reason not to extend that to masturbation.

2 weeks ago

Please be sure not to conflate my arguments and Constitution101's, as I do not agree with his reasons, haha.

But, my argument as to why masturbation and the menstrual cycle is not murder is because, you're right, all of those MIGHT become a conscious being. However, a fertilized ova WILL become a conscious being if you do not terminate it. And, I would argue that something that WILL become a conscious being is equal to something that is a conscious being. And, as I said before, I don't care what species you are and we are all "clumps of cells." The only thing that really sets apart from the other clumps of cells is our consciousness; that's why that's what I care about.

2 weeks ago

You're already showing that your argument is largely based on emotion, not facts. People kill animals and other people all the time. Literally every single day. There are lots of legal reasons to kill someone (self defense, war, defending others etc). So saying "killing is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong" shows how limited your argument is.

I'm just going to completely ignore your attempts to emotionally extort me. As I have already covered. A fetus is not a child. So comparing my hypothetical children to a fetus is like comparing those same children to a plant or an animal. It is comparing apples to oranges. They are not the same thing.

No one here is arguing one person has more rights than another. We are arguing that a fetus does not yet meet the requirements to be a person. Therefore we are putting the rights of a real person over the rights of a cluster of cells that might one day become a person. that is a fairly simple choice to make. A fetus does not have conciousness, it is not a person. It has no rights.

Again, if you want to debate when a fetus meets the requirements to become a person I think that will be a more fruitful discussion that crude appeals to emotion. By the definition you seem to be using, masturbating should be seen as murder because those sperm might become a person some day.

2 weeks ago

Woah there, Bud, I'm on your side. I'm just saying that I don't want any fallacious arguments. And, obviously we all think killing is wrong. So, we should rather try to prove that the fetus is a conscious because I don't care if it's human or not, I care of it had a conscious or will likely have one

2 weeks ago

when did we take out the fact that this is KILLING therefore I think explaining on a more personal level is fine. just because liberals don't want to bring it to a more personal level cause they know how disgusting it really is.

2 weeks ago

and if this isn't logical to you than my oh my, we have an even more serious problem if not killing doesn't seem logical.

2 weeks ago

the only argument you guys are trying to prove is that somehow one person gets more rights than another..... tell me what FACT supports that idiocy

2 weeks ago

ok fact: killing is bad tell me what facts you are all supposedly using. science proves many things about a fetus that they didn't know for roe v Wade. roe v Wade is the law based on no science.

2 weeks ago

Well, that's an appeal to emotion, so I dunno why you would say that. Plus, bringing his personal life into this is irrelevant. When you make an argument, Constitution101, you should be able to prove it with logic and facts; not have to resort to emotions and fallacies

2 weeks ago

if you do then tell me you can look into their eyes and say: once upon a Time you were just a cluster of cells that luckily I wanted cause if I didn't I would have just killed you and you wouldn't be here right now. HOW DOES A WOMAN HAVE ANY RIGHT TO THAT?

2 weeks ago

plus so you even have kids?

2 weeks ago

the mother has no right to kill that fetus just like she has no right to kill her infant.

2 weeks ago

it's more disgusting that you believe it is just a cluster of cells with no rights. there is no stage in the development of a fetus that does not correspond with someone outside the womb. therefore if your logic is I can kill a fetus than. that means you can technically kill.many other adult people as well. tell me when you think a fetus turns into a human

2 weeks ago

We're all just a cluster of cells, so that argument is invalid.
And, I would say that abortion is wrong at any point, except when the physical health of the mother is in jeopardy, because it is disposing of a conscious person. And, if it is still in an embryonic state, then at the very least, it is disposing of a potential consciousness. The only difference between the fetus and the mother is that the fetus hasn't grown up, yet, but they're still the same in that respect.
Also, I don't care what the women does with HER body. But, abortion no longer has to do with her body, it has to do with the body, and the LIFE, of her child now. She made the CHOICE to have sex, which is totally fine. But, now that she wasn't careful enough, she has to deal with the c ok consequences. She doesn't have to keep it, but she does have to deliver it.

2 weeks ago

It isn't a baby it is a fetus. At the moment of conception it is just a cluster of cells. At some point it may become a baby. But aborting that cluster of cells prior to that point is not murder, it is a medical procedure. If a woman wants to have that medical procedure before the point the fetus becomes a baby, that is 100% her choice. You have no right to tell her what she can do with her body.

If you want to have a debate about when a fetus should qualify as a baby, we can do that. But arguing that the rights of a cluster of cells should out way the rights of an actual person is disgusting.

2 weeks ago

the right to murder is not a right. it's disgusting that women think that it is there right to decide if a baby lives or dies. the women's right was to not have sex in the first place.

2 weeks ago

Your argument might hold some water if there were any attempts at all being made to fix orphanages. The people who want to ban abortions have absolutely no interest in doing that. They only care about abortion, they don't actually care about children.

Additionally, abortion isn't only about orphanages. They are a women's rights issue. it is a medical procedure that you are banning because you don't like it. You don't have the right to take away the rights of others. the right to control your own body is a basic principle.

Also additionally, regardless of what the law says abortions will happen. Centuries of evidence have proven that you cannot ban a service that people really want or need. The only difference is whether they happen safely performed by a doctor, or whether they are performed extremely unsafely by a desperate woman. Banning abortion doesn't save lives. it just kills women by preventing medical professionals from helping them.

2 weeks ago

yes so you guys just want to run down the road to hell because " oh man I don't think we can handle the overload" be my guest my friend be my guest. why don't you get it through your brain that things can be fixed simultaneously. and once again you fail to realize that there wouldn't be a massive overload of babies. THERE ARE A TON OF PARENTS ON LISTS WAITING FOR BABIES. AND THEY ARE THROUGH PROGRAMS OTHER THAN ORPHANAGES.

2 weeks ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

lol if you think abortion money can fund orphanages. 1. we didnt fund abortions, just other services... services that were pretty basic by medical standards. these werent serious surgeries or MRIs.

our orphanage system is currently underfunded. the "abortion money" probably won't be enough to fix that, much less handle the inevitable overload post abortion.


" I don't agree with continuing to do something wrong just because we don't know what will exactly happen right after it is banned"

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
good intentions but minimal effort has never yielded good results. some easy preparation can avoid a disaster.

2 weeks ago

it's the older children that are harder to find families for and yes I agree that the orphanages should be fixed and let's do it with the government money that was going to abortions. I don't agree with continuing to do something wrong just because we don't know what will exactly happen right after it is banned

2 weeks, 1 day ago

how about we fix both at the same time. Trump just stopped funding abortion places so now we can use that money to help orphanages. as I said earlier, there is actually a large population willing to adopt newborns hen e the reason newborns aren't seen in orphanages. they have so many willing to adopt that there is a list made that some never get the chance to adopt

2 weeks, 1 day ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

the question I raised was what happens after? many will become orphans and our systems are already overwhelmed. shouldnt we prepare for the outcomes of our decision before creating a mess?

2 weeks, 1 day ago

planned Parenthood main business is abortion. they abort over 300000 babies a year and they don't do it for free my friend. and that is on THEIR website. a baby has a functioning conciousness at 6 weeks. it has been proven that babies can feel pain at this stage, so it looks like your definition means you are basically pro life.....

2 weeks, 1 day ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

the new york law is the only law being discussed on this topic so yes that is the one I'm talking about. where does it say it can be allowed "if the mother isn't ready"?

the problem with orphanages is the living conditions and the amount of attention the children receive regardless of age. the adoption rate isnt something we can control and we dont spend any money on abortion. pp is supported for their gynecological and STD treatments. abortions are not funded by tax dollars. please cite your information because I dont think it is real.

I dont consider a fetus a human individual until the upper regions of the brain activates consciousness (like reacting to sound). that's a custom definition I reached myself. after that point, I personally, believe it is murder. however health of the mother should be a major factor.

2 weeks, 2 days ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

"For those who think it isnt a baby or a person yet, we now have post term abortion. This is the baby after being born being killed which is infanticide and completely morally wrong."

post term abortion is a made up word.
what are you talking about?
are you claiming this is legal somewhere? Where?

2 weeks, 2 days ago

Abortion is the killing of innocent babies. Only in terms of health effects should it be aloud. if you didn't want a child you shouldn't of had sexual intercourse, killing a human being isn't the answer. For those who think it isnt a baby or a person yet, we now have post term abortion. This is the baby after being born being killed which is infanticide and completely morally wrong. It is no different than if I came to your house and killed you because you were burdening someone. That is murder, if we allow the murdering of babies we allow legal murder. Legal murder isnt what the founding fathers made America for or what America is based on.

2 weeks, 2 days ago

oh and your argument on not considering a fetus a baby. a toddler is not a school age kid but they are all people just like a fetus counts a a person. I don't consider you to be a baby either, that doesn't mean I get to kill you.

2 weeks, 2 days ago

oh an how about we spend all of the money on fixing orphanages and not on killing babies, plus you probably didn't know that that is of older children that they have a hard time getting someone to adopt. they have an overabundance of people willing to adopt babies to the point that you have a very little chance of getting a baby if they want to adopt. your argument sounds like" well black people will have a hard life cause of racism outside of plantations so we might as well keep slavery intact cause it's not worth trying.......... sounds the exact same doesn't it.

2 weeks, 2 days ago

haha really have you read New Yorker new abortion law. cause guess what........ mother's health is loosely determined to be even psychological meaning if the mom decides that she "just isn't ready" then they can kill the baby

2 weeks, 2 days ago

abortion may be wrong depending on the development, and I would love if we would properly fund our underfunded orphanage system before we send a tsunami of children to them due to an abortion ban. properly fund orphanages and I will agree in 99% of circumstances, unfortunately the prolife movement apparently stops caring after birth.

2 weeks, 2 days ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

unfortunately I don't consider a fetus a baby just like I dont consider a school age kid a toddler, or a teenager an adult. they are vastly different stages.

furthermore the late stage abortion is ONLY WHEN THE MOTHERS HEALTH IS IN JEAPORDY OR THE FETUS IS NON VIABLE.

noone is promoting elective late term abortions. that's idiotic and claims of such are kool aid.

2 weeks, 2 days ago

Abortion is a horrible thing that happens to babies and should be fought against. especially the new abortion push all the way to 9 months/birth.

2 weeks, 3 days ago
Discuss "Abortion is wrong" politics
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.