The debate "Abortion should be illegal" was started by
March 14, 2017, 5:36 pm.
23 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 19 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.
neveralone posted 14 arguments, thereal posted 5 arguments, Jericho posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 6 arguments, historybuff posted 1 argument, human posted 3 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 2 arguments, Nemiroff posted 6 arguments, Jericho posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
mmjd14, thereal, Your_dad, theshadow0, neveralone, Brayden24, qeteut13, EthanTReilly, FaithofExaltism, makson, Kronicle, hollieg, Delta_Force01 and 10 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, PsychDave, Pugsly, sickboyblonde, historybuff, human, TheExistentialist, M3phisto, braymus17, JordDorrell, SirIntegra, Argument_fightme and 7 visitors disagree.
could u clarify what u mean?
yeah it's difficult. trust me I know. like I said this happened to both of my sister's. but it's not impossible and is better than the only other alternative.
well then, why dont they just set the limit from 16 to 19 by 2020 or something???
thats a problem tho. about 1 million teens get pregnant, most of which is unintentional. the mothers would have to take care of them or day cares, which would be difficult on the family
I would like a situation where the mom can take care of there child and learn.
that could be a way as long as it's not too pricey and isn't horrible.
you want to allow young children in the classroom? not only will the mother's learning will be impeeded, the entire classroom will become disfunctional.
we need community day care, not uncontrollable infants in our classrooms. and of course it's going to be mostly low wage classrooms affect by this so that will be great for our educational inequality...
which is what needs to be fixed.
it's difficult... but more than doable.
young children are not allowed in classrooms at all, so if you can't find child care... it's not about school being difficult or being a social outcast... it's about you cant. drop out. end your dreams.
that is not doable.
pregnant in school isn't. for one u get outcasted. two moving all around later in the pregnancy sucks.
pregnant in school is easy. it's having a crying infant that is the issue.
it looks like a teenager. almost all teenagers have sex. the only ones I know who don't are religious but there could be atheist ones as well. then it shows that they decided to have the kid shows responsibility and determination and eventual maturity.
It doesn't... now what does is getting pregnant while at school
and how does that look on a resume? one step up from none at all.
I didn't say it's OK to kill the baby, i said there are complications and reasonings on both sides. there are many moral implications to banning it, especially considering real humans and not idealism.
personally I'm on the fence on this issue. it also isn't a major priority for me personally.
My apologies, i read this article which wasn't specific. it was actually the mother not the baby. and when i meant the 13th week i meant that most abortions happen until then, but this still doesnt mean its okay to kill the baby
theres a thing called home bound
well for one u shouldn't need to go all around the school while pregnant. they will eventually not be able to sit in a normal desk and make sure people aren't calling them ho's and other things since no one would want to be in such a situation and there's probably more but I would not know since I didnt ask them.
according to http://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html
fetuses don't feel pain until the 27th week. the scientist are arguing with utah law makers who made a law referencing fetal pain @ 20 weeks. where did you get 13?
also most abortions don't happen AT the 13th week, they happen BEFORE the 13th week. 66% happen before the 8th week.
according to the cdc.
How should the school take care of pregnant women
I beleive we increase research in that area to make sure such a situation doesn't happen and if it does it's for the man and women to talk about.
I wholly support support for the parents.
being a parent isn't bad at all. that schools don't help pregnant women is wrong. that used to be friends make fun of them is wrong. these are things that we need to fix. though I'm not sure if I should debate on that. I have had two sisters who got pregnant during school so I would probably be too close for other debaters.
Also, I believe that the baby should be killed if the mothers life is in danger
We both can conclude if people dont want a baby they can have protected sex. Btw a baby feels pain at 13 weeks, when most abortions are done
perhaps in an ideal world your scenario will actually play out. but not in reality.
what really happens in every case in history is abortion went underground creating fatalities for mothers and abnormalities for babies. it also correlates with an increase in dumpster babies.
unless we package this with some form of support, this will only create massive suffering, cost, and degrade our society.
yes it is alive, but the reasons/excuses are, it isn't conscious, it doesn't feel pain, it's pretty much a human being in off mode. killing it will snuff a life, but a life that isn't aware and doesn't feel pain. it is wrong, but weight it against the alternative, where both options are bad.
unless we make a 3rd option. but fiscal conservatives won't like it. even though it may save money in the long term.
what does that have to do with morals?
its called democracy, but democracy and its courses are often incorrect, like brexit, mire people voted to leave, but when they found out what it actually ment, they suddenly realise, its a big mistake. The public was told a bunch of lies, that the government couldent prove, and it led to the state the UK is in now.
yeah it does but if u go through the pregnancy u will have a child. something far better than what some realize.
so ultimately the dad doesn't matter. I guess the simple solution is to find a way that u can have the child outside the mother and she gives up any and all rights to said child.
are executions any better?
yes it does say that so what does this do with the debate?
The baby is not part of a mothers body. The baby can have a different blood type than the mother. Even if the baby wasn't conscious that doesn't mean that you can kill it. We cant kill people who have been in a car wreck and are now unconscious. We will be charged with murder. So why is it okay to kill a baby, just because its legal doesn't mean its okay. The faq is if a woman was raped is it okay to kill the baby. The answer is no, i believe that she should have the option to give it up for adoption. You may say thats a problem because the adoption clinics is over flooded with unwanted babies. There is an easy solution. Mothers and fathers who weren't aware that having sex makes the woman pregnant should take responsibility and raise the child. If you are financially unstable then have protected sex, this also goes for abortion. There are many solutions for sex. You can either wear a condom or take birth control pills or you could take sex positions which doesn't involve the penis in the vagina.
the parasite analogy serves to illustrate the truth of the relationship between mother and fetus. there is no symbiosis as there is only the consumption of resources by the fetus and no actual benefit to the mother. She may choose to bare the burden of pregnancy for a child, however, pregnancy is a physical burden, not some symbiotic relationship. I think this may be a bit of wishful thinking and romanticizing of the situation on your part. Although hard to swallow when you see happy expecting mothers, there is simply nothing gained by the mother while the child is growing in her womb. In fact, pregnancy may very well kill a mother and does so on a fairly regular basis.
As for the Dad.
I believe they ought to be considered in the decision making process, but ultimately the decision must be the mother's. it is her body after all, and if she does not want to play host to fetus, then no one should be able to force her to. She still has agency over her body and may choose not to carry a fetus to term. she can do this through legal and safe abortions or through illegal and dangerous methods.
to the consciousness question.
most neuroscientists actually don't believe children are conscious even at 24 weeks. this is simply the stage where you have the most minimal structures in place to have a semblance of consciousness. essentially the fetus, at this stage is able to respond to stimuli. however, keeping in mind that consciousness will eventually manifest in a fetus of this age, it is time to begin considering that aspect of it's development. that's why you see a lot of pro-choice advocates use the 21 week benchmark as a way to cut off elective abortions. it is simply a very conservative approach.
the murder question.
no, it wouldn't be murder, it would be an execution if sanctioned or simply killing if unsanctioned but legal.
hebrew makes the same distinction. killing(harag) and murder (ratzah) are two different words with two very different moral connotations, and the commandment in the Bible uses the Hebrew word ratzah, which means that the proper translation of the commandment from Hebrew into English is, "Thou shalt not murder"
I consider the as u would say "fetus" a child still. so it's death has more meaning to me than a parasite. I know u don't mean it as rude and it's not but the comparison of the two is painful. I usually think of it as more symbiotic relationship than parasitic.
for America I could see that point .
I'm happy that at least u included the dad.(as a side note what's ur opinion when the dad wants the child but the mom doesn't?)I guess for me it is my responsibility at that point.
I had the kid so now I need to raise him/her
so how do we know consciousness enters then when we don't understand consciousness yet?
so if there was no law agaisnt killing someone and I just killed my neighbor that wouldn't be murder to u?
death is not necessarily relevant. you would remove bot fly larva wouldn't you? that causes death doesn't it? the larva isn't necessarily harmful, but it's irritating and we consider the hosts happiness over the parasites don't we? a fetus before personhood isn't much more than a parasite.
on to the slippery slope
this is an interesting observation, and generally slipper slopes are poor arguments. Our legal system however is based on legal precedence. So allowing legislation based on one religious principle allows for legislation of other principals. So, while generally a poor argument, it is relevant due to the nature of our legislative body.
the consideration portion of it
that is where personal choice comes in. it ought to be up to the parents whether or not they want a child. having a child is a lifelong commitment and if you don't subscribe to the concept of personhood begining at conception, then it is fairly easy to justify aborting a fetus rather than dealing with a child for the rest of your life.
"has science not shown that we discover something new all the time that makes us revise our hypothesis. especially when new technology comes into play?"
sure, however, physiology doesn't really change much and the pieces that we know are necessary for the sensation of pain and consciousness simply aren't in place before 21 weeks. I don't know what research you suppose would contradict this. Our knowledge of anatomy and physiology doesn't change much; we may discover small ancillary functions and different biochemical pathways, but as far as form and function go, the science is pretty settled.
I doubt you'd expect great changes in our understanding of how the heart generates an impulse, how it contracts, which way the blood flows etc.... we may discover certain cell death proteins that help us manage heart disease etc... but not anatomical structures or physiological processes that change our fundamental understanding of the heart.
"murder is killing a human unless there is no other option correct?"
no, murder is the illegal killing of a human. the definition of murder is intrinsically tied to the legality of the taking of someone's life. that's why in war we don't say our troops murdered the enemy, nor do we say a doctor murdered a patient when assisted suicide is legal. We also don't say murder when we withdraw care from a patient even though we are directly causing their death.
dangerous how? this sounds like a slippery slope theory which as I believe nemiroff says can't we just stop before hand. but I believe when we are doing wrong it's diff. so I guess it depends.
why should it not be considered? I would think ending any life before or after should only be when their is no other option and u should realize what u might be ending unless u r trying to distance urself from the act.
has science not shown that we discover something new all the time that makes us revise our hypothesis. especially when new technology comes into play?
murder is killing a human unless there is no other option correct?
they might not be able to experience pain but there is definitely death in the situation.
we definitely know that consciousness is not possible before 21 weeks. the 21 week mark is the earliest possible time period for a fetus to even feel pain (most studies put it at 24 weeks). consciousness is even more complex and again, doesn't develop until 24 weeks. the physiology is simply not there yet. the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester.
scientifically we can say that a fetus has none of the qualities of personhood prior to 24 weeks; thus we can make the moral claim: abortion before 21 weeks (to be conservative) is not a moral issue, but a preference issue.
to support the concept of personhood at conception however, you must invoke supernatural claims and they must be accepted by faith alone. This kind of reasoning is fine for personal ethics, however to formulate legislation with this kind of reasoning is dangerous.
on to the Happiness of the fetus.
the fetus at this point is not capable of feeling happiness thus it needn't be considered.
the potential argument.
we know that after a certain amount of time the fetus is likely to develop personhood. however, it does not currently posses such qualities. therefore, the fetus has no more moral status than any other entity with it's capacities. we can say we should take care to be aware of it's potential and be conservative in our analysis, but that's about it.
on to the murder argument.
this is an argument that stems from your position and so I disagree with the premise of the concept that "abortion is murder.". please refer back to my previous arguments to see why.
In response to your question, if I were a doctor, or would look at all available evidence. We know that a fetus cannot feel pain before the brain is capable of experiencing it. That is based on measurable information. We know they are incapable of being conscious until the brain is sufficiently developed to be active.
So yes, I believe I would be able to live with myself since I would be satisfied that I am not, in fact, killing children. I might feel differently of actually in the situation since it is always easier to be objective about a hypothesis situation, but that is the best I can do without trying to become a doctor just to find out.
The problem is you are equating potential for consciousness with consciousness. By the same argument, we could be sparing them pain and misery. That is why we make decisions based on what is, not what has the potential to someday be.
Yes, brain death is when someone is dying. When their brain stops, they are dead. Where is the disconnect with saying when the brain starts they are alive?
do we definitely know when consciousness (possibly soul) enters the equation? I would think it's when the ball starts rolling.
what of the happiness we steal from the child?
should we not consider that we definitely know that wether they feel now or not that they will?
no matter where it comes is it better to be careful and help the parents or be quick and possibly murder children?
is possible child murder acceptable?
but for the brain dead their usually on their way our unlike abortion where we didn't even give them a chance. also as a side note if u were the doctor could u live with the chance that u might be killing children? no matter what the law says?
while the majority does not dictate morality, science and education can, and in fact do inform our morality. we know, for example that a fetus is physiologically incapable of feeling pain or being conscious before 21 weeks. this is a simple fact of medicine. so unless you believe that our personhood is derived from something other than consciousness, it becomes very difficult to mount an argument against abortions prior to 21 weeks.
if we take a completely utilitarian approach to morality here (actions are right if they produce more happiness than pain) we see there is nothing morally wrong with abortions (no pain is being caused to the fetus, only happiness is gained by the mother).
in humanism you look at a person's feelings, desires, pain, etc... to make moral decisions, since a fetus has no such capacities, the moral consideration is solely the mothers feelings, desires, pain, etc... thus a choice must conform to her not the fetus
the only real argument against abortions is one of theology. since you must have an external source of personhood to grant a fetus such, one must invoke an abstract concept like the soul. this is the only way to make sense of the concept that the potential for personhood constitutes the granting of such. this means that you must impose your religious views onto the public at large.
a pro-choice legal status means that people are free to act in accordance with their faith (not have an abortion) while allowing others to act within their moral philosophy (to have an abortion).
religious entities should be and are allowed to provide alternatives for abortion, provide counseling, etc... However, to impose restrictions on a person's freedoms based on such religious beliefs is not acceptable.
That is a fair point. Popularity does not make an idea or action right.
That is where it comes down to WHY it is right or wrong.
Those who believe life begins at conception believe that any abortion is indistinguishable from murder. That informs their belief that it should be outright banned. Their passion for this cause is understandable since to remain silent while honestly believing people are being killed would be unconscionable. I understand this perspective, though I disagree with it at a fundamental level.
I believe, as the medical and legal system detail, that life begins when the fetus is sufficiently developed. Until then, there is no consciousness. I justify this belief by the fact that we declare someone dead when brain activity stops. Even if the heart is still beating, once brain death has occurred an individual is dead. Otherwise, pulling the plug on someone who is brain dead would still be murder, and many doctors and grieving families would be arrested. If we define death as being the absence of brain activity, is it not reasonable to define life by its presence?
morals do not rely on education. logic is not morals either. morals are what we believe is right and wrong. so it doesn't matter if the majority is educated or not. it's about what's right and wrong
I cant avoid the fact that "the majority" agrees it should be illegal, but you can not prove that the majority is correct, for all we know, "the majority" could have a large population that (im not saying they are) could be less educated and the smaller majority, less so (do not take this personly in eany way).But you have not proven this in eany way.
where exactly did you get your defininition of in certain circumstances? that could easily mean only until a certain point in the pregnancy.
either way, these are people that believe that abortion should be legal in certain cases. so saying that 79% of American believe that abortion should be legal is an accurate statement. you acting like we've twisted the data just makes you look stupid again.
Wow, several salty posts and still no intelligent rebuttal.
"Legal under any circumstances" would be the belief that there shone no restrictions.
"Legal under certain circumstances" means they think there are good reasons for abortion, but that there should be some restrictions.
I don't know how dumb you really are and how much is an act, but both of those disagree with abortion being illegal.
So no, you are still the one looking like a temper tantrum throwing child who can't debate rationally.
typical liberals manipulating data as usual. you learnt well from crooked hillary.
50% from YOUR poll believe that it should be only legal in certain circumstances such as if its rape. Thats just as good as being against it altogether seeing as rape constitutes only 1% of abortions.
Your OWN source states that only 29% of Americans believe abortion should be legal under any circunstances. Forget my "basic maths", you need to learn to read you conplete retard so you dont make yourself look like a ****** again like you did just then. Imbecile.
"41 percent of respondents stated they consider themselves pro-choice, meaning they would leave the decision to abort a pregnancy up to the pregnant woman. Pro-life supporters, which made up 50 percent of the respondents in 2012, on the other hand, oppose abortion altogether." ( https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.statista.com/statistics/225975/share-of-americans-who-are-pro-life-or-pro-choice/&ved=0ahUKEwjE5arvqtnSAhXBHZAKHbVyBIUQFggqMAQ&usg=AFQjCNHgeZU45RTYvrzvZVZHXNImy2duxA )
"81% Americans, 66% pro-choice advocates support ?substantial abortion restrictions? says Marist Poll" ( http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/19/abortion-poll-finds-81-americans-66-pro-choice-adv/ )
Also, you did not give your source either when you first made your statement so why dont you stop f***ing your siblings and become a non-hypocrite for once? dumbass f***.
you've tauted that same statistic before @thereal and I've shown you to be wrong on the subject. now @psychdave is once again showing you scientific poling data to contradict your claim. you need to provide the source of your stats or accept that you're wrong (at least that is what any reasonable person would do).
Would you like to cite your sources, or just look like an idiot as usual?
19% of people believe abortion should be illegal. The rest believe there are circumstances that should be legal, or that it simply should be. If you don't consider 81% of the population the majority, you desperately need to take some basic math classes.
Also the vast majority of Americans dont disagree. 50% of americans are against abortion and 59% of american women believe abortion is morally wrong. You should try researching your facts for once before you spout nonsense like a fool, psychdave.
first time neveralone said something smart! but then again, its not hard to counter-argue PsychDave.
doesn't mean the majority is right.
The vast majority of Americans disagree.