The debate "Abortion should be the woman's choice" was started by
November 28, 2016, 5:39 pm.
48 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 43 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.
Ethan8336 posted 1 argument, harshita posted 3 arguments, Parallax posted 1 argument, emshanley posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
neveralone posted 35 arguments, Yanksxx21 posted 8 arguments, PoliticsAsUsual posted 4 arguments, Blue_ray posted 2 arguments, Christian posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
harshita, arpita00, Parallax, Marvelgirl2002, QueenSleepy, adriana, allyssa, Rajat, JunioRodgers, emshanley, LeftoverEye70, Petit_Lion, carrieunderwood007, historybuff, shehab, Argument_fightme and 32 visitors agree.
Yanksxx21, sabrina, XenoBoy, Matthew_Daniel, Blue_ray, neveralone, PoliticsAsUsual, Rakesh, deezmofonutz, dapollman, Your_dad, Fallaciae, Christian, Stidlet, thereal, lilmiller, slipknot, LSpalding, mmjd14, redstar, Frank, hollieg, Delta_Force01 and 20 visitors disagree.
it's a car in progress. still technically a car.
so if a car is one year away from being built it is a car? if a house is a year away from being built, is it a house?
if it isn't built, then it isn't a car or a house. if it is still a fetus it isn't a person. it might be some day, but at that moment it isn't.
would u try to save a corpse? also I am 18 so considering me to be a corpse would probably not be accurate if I die from natural causes. that is about 80+ years away. while for a child it's less than a year.
if the house was being built without the landowners concent, tearing it down would definitely be legal! the construction was illegal to begin with!
Let's say that someone tore down your house. You wouldn't like that. But what if someone tore down your house while it is being constructed? But it's not a house yet and there is no roof so therefore you it is legal.
and you are in the process of growing old and dying. are you a corpse?
you haven't grown old and died yet. a fetus hasn't developed into a person yet.
well if u do that I doubt it ever has a chance. though when u kill the baby it's already growing it is already in the process of becoming human.
we are looking at it. a fetus doesn't have a functioning brain. when someone masterbates is that murder? there is very little difference. your religion tells you a fetus is a person. we disagree.
Tell the woman who is planning to abort and say how do you like your mother aborting you? Do you like to be aborted? No. Look what you are doing!
Right to murder? Where did that come from?
Let's say you are handicapped. You can't walk. A guy walks up to you and shoots you. That is considered murder. But he considers things that can't walk aren't humans. Does time determine you can kill someone legally?
it is debatable if it isn't alive but either way it will be and it will have life.
Only if you define life as that
a fetus isn't a person and doesn't have rights. It is not sentient. It can not feel. The woman is sentient, can feel and has rights. Bodily autonomy is a right we all have, a fetus does not get to violate that. It needs freely given, continuous consent which a woman seeking an abortion clearly does but give.
For instance, Republicans say abortion is ok for rape and incest; an idea that rejects the original objection of murder.
Republicans are spineless. It is a populist party now trying to scrub up leftist votes. Conservatives are the true platform of the Republicam party.
If people wanted someone who was all Republican, Trump wouldn't have been elected. There were lots of other Republican candidates who better represent the ideals. They all lost. At this point even Republicans don't want an all Republican president.
or all republican
look below for all arguments
obviously it should be a womens choice as women has to give birth to that baby
that would be a mixture of both ideologies.
yeah. you are right.
we need somone with Republican ideas and democratic policy style
hey u can always hope:-)
And the Democrats could change and ban abortions. This is irrelevant since neither of these changes are likely as their support base wouldn't support them if they made changes like that.
true but that can change.
the ones that get elected.
some not all.
and yet Republicans are against social investment. therefore what you will achieve is a ban without any support, resulting only in increasing suffering, and likely productivity of our nation.
this isn't the democrats goal though. they think abortion is fine. I would prefer the farsighted Republican.
so who do you vote for? the Democrat who will fight your ultimate goal? or the Republican who will stop you from achieving your first step?
if you have such programs set up, why not wait and see. I have a strong feeling that you won't have to make anything illegal as it may not even happen anymore.
u set the programs first so there isn't one. we need them anyways. it would be unwise indeed to not have then set up before hand
what happens in between? after abortion is banned but before the social programs are set up?
don't get me wrong I'm not only thinking of the baby. I would set up programs to help the mother and the child and the father (always forgotten) and give said child a life. a life is better than none.
let me ask u this. would u prefer to kill thousands of babies because it was convenient or would u try to save them and help those mother's? which question has the bigger upside and downside?
and if the person has to choose between an education and a good life or raising a baby at minimum wage (awesome life for the baby as well) you will make that choice for her?
condoms don't work all the time anyways but back to it. in our time now when u get pregnant u have an extremely high chance of having that baby. unlike before fertilization which it's almost anyone's game then. so that baby has a high chance of life until somone decides he/she shouldn't and kill them.
the potential is always there. a condom stops potential as well. you can say that that is too early a stage, but because of that condom, a life did not happen.
I can understand what u mean but I see the potential. I see a child who is learning to love ride a bike laugh and be with there parents. I see the bad times, the break ups, the depression, the accidents, and eventually parents death. I see all this combined being taken away from them before they were even in this world. I can't say abortion is right when I see this. I know all u see is cells but I see more. this is why I can't stand by it. because a bad life is better than no life at all.
lots of life doesn't matter, from human cells to nonhuman fully formed organisms.
I can understand defending a fetus, but zygotes and blastocystes (what the cell/ball of cells is called before it becomes a fetus). this is not a baby.
it's not until week 4/5 that the cells differentiate into what will be the actual baby and what will just be the sac that protects it.
also, the bible is intended to be a concise instruction for life. if you accept it as a whole you can't pick and choose.
science does have it's accepted tenents, like evolution and the standard model, but much of the cutting edge research and controversies (scientific ones, not political, like nature vs nurture or the origin of life) are hardly established with no consensus and no definitive answer. they are still being explored, and just cause 1 person, even an expert, published a paper, does not make that the final answer.
u think it's a cluster of cells. u can't do genocide because u decided there life didn't matter.
2 amateur opinions have nothing to do with a consensus. a consensus is an international agreement of a VAST majority of scientists across numerous relevant fields. just cause 2 random individuals disagree on a site doesn't mean the international scientific community does not have agreement. I'm not sure if there is agreement on this or not, but the assessment you gave here is just plain wrong.
science can be missused, which is why the peer review system and consensus is so important. so much nonsense can be made to sound like science if you have a guy in a lab coat yelling technical garbage to a bunch of laymen. you need relevant experts to be able to judge the validity of scientific work.
you think it's a baby. alot of other people disagree with you. you can't violate women's rights because you decided a cluster of cells should have human rights.
u r violating the right of life. it's not to make me more comfortable but to save thousands of children.
I want to possibly save children's lives instead of murdering them just because someone decided that the babies life didn't matter. it's a baby not a pile of cells
so your opinion is we should violate the rights of thousands of women in order to make you more comfortable?
those fetus' have no consciousness or preferences. you want to put a clump of cells ahead of actual people.
ok since there can't be a consensus we got two options that I see. either we keep doing abortions which could possibly be killing babies or it might not be and having the I would prefer family choose. or we stop possibly saving thousands of babies lives but also harming the mother temporary before she can adopt or long term if she hates kids. or she would be happy once not being pregnant.
personally I would not like to murder thousands of children but I would set up programs for the mother and the father to help raise the child and improve the foster system
The problem with equating people are cherry picking from science with cherry picking from the Bible is that there is bad science out there. People who don't cite sources, or who misinterprete data, or who make leaps on logic they do not justify. Science, in the form of its authors, is capable of being misleading and of being influenced by personal biases. Unless you are saying that the Bible is similarly flawed, this is a false analogy.
While I in no way fault you for researching, I have pointed out a few ways that I am critical of the paper. I also caution you against using your personal beliefs as a metric for what is true. It is satire, but the Onion did an article on the topic that illustrates the risk.
I don't in any way claim to be an expert of this subject, which is why I defer to those who are. The laws and standards set by the medical community and legal system were set by those who have spent their lives studying the subject and as the research I have done supports their position, I accept it. If you want to argue that live begins at the moment of conception, there will need to be something beyond the genetically complete argument, as that has already been established to be fundamentally flawed, and the author doesn't actually give any other justification for her belief. She simply takes it as a given and uses her assumption of person hood to dismiss scientific "myths".
The author of that paper goes to great length to explain why human sex cells are not a person, citing their only possessing half of the human chromosomes. She then claims that an embryo, as it contains the full number, it a person. She never actually justifies this jump. We addressed the issue of human cells being "genetically complete" earlier in this debate, with it being pointed out that all normal cells are genetically complete, this does not make each one a person. She claims that only her branch of science, as an embryologist, should determine when life begins, but fails to explain why she has more expertise than other branches studying the issue. She attacks several bioethicists about their expressed views of personhood, but fails to actually substantiate why her view is the correct one. She dismisses the concept of brain death by equating it to being mentally disabled based on a single example of another person who has done so. She mentions that brain death is relevant, but strangely doesn't address the implications of brain death on when individual life actually begins. I understand that she cannot address everything in a single paper, but she has selectively interpreted information to force it to conform to her beliefs.
Finally, simply because you have found a scientific paper that supports your argument doesn't mean that the research contradicting your opinion is any less valid. While there is merit to what she says, it is not the consensus of the scientific community, it is one author's opinion. No matter how many freaking times you find a papers that support you, they don't diminish the references that contradict your belief. This is a subject for which there is no single answer and a great deal is up to personal interpretation. As such, there is no true scientific consensus. She does raise interesting points that I am still considering, but as most of her paper is based on the assumption that her beliefs are true and trying to justify them, it makes it hard to validate. Since she jumps from why sex cells aren't people to the assumption that a single cell embryo is without really justifying it, it prompts me to take the rest of her conclusions with a grain of salt.
But everyone should definitely read that link. I wasn't for sure pro life until I read it and a lot of my beliefs were confirmed by actual science.
ohh...now I'm depressed. haha
I was talking to historybuff sorry lol
but thinks for looking at my debates
The size of it or how complicated it is is no justification for killing it and neither is because you couldn't put a condom on. And don't whine to me about "oh what if she's raped" because I bet your an advocate for gun control, and if potential rape victims had guns on them there would be significantly less rapes and the already tiny fractions of abortions due to rape would drasticly shrink.
I am agaisnt abortion. I'm describing their feelings not mine.
actually I love Gun's. their great protection and I couldn't hunt(fav. sport) without a gun or bow. please ask before u assume. i would be happy to answer questions.
How many freaking times do I have to show you science that goes against your feelings or opinions for you to accept it? I've seen you argue that you can't cherry pick from the Bible, and if you cherry pick from science you are no better than all those crazy hypocritical liberals who brainwash minorities by saying institutional racism is still in America and they'll give you free money if you vote for them. It is a scientific FACT that a human being begins at or near conception, and the stage of development has no roll in deciding whether or not it is genetically, biologically, and philosophically a human being. The size of it or how complicated it is is no justification for killing it and neither is because you couldn't put a condom on. And don't whine to me about "oh what if she's raped" because I bet your an advocate for gun control, and if potential rape victims had guns on them there would be significantly less rapes and the already tiny fractions of abortions due to rape would drasticly shrink.
sorry for the delay been working.
to the ones for abortion it's simply a choice that has no effect on anyone or anything and harms nothing. it's just like removing a tumor or mole. there isn't a problem and "we" (agaisnt abortion) are weird to treat it as more than that.u see it as a simple operation.
but for us we see a child a life that has potential and is beautiful and can be great. then we see a women deciding to murder this precious baby. that a doctor goes against their code and murder this precious life. we see life being taken away before it can be even experienced
So it dosent matter
they do not, but at that stage they are identical. it is in essence a tumor of stem cells.
Do tumors become human beings?
Having an abortion is not a form of birth control
A heartbeat begins 3-4 weeks after consumption. The mother starts breathing for the fetus about 9 weeks in. It doesnt start to breathe until out of the womb. Theres no real concesus when human life begins since life is a continuum. People hold personal views based on their religious or philosophical views.
Right now it is illegal to get an abortion at 24+ weeks. Thats when studies shown the fetus will start to feel pain. Some argue it should be lowered to 20 weeks.
My personal view is that a woman should have that choice. Having a baby takes major responsibility. It takes careful planning and financial stability. A big decision like that should be a decision, not an accident. I feel it is wrong for a baby to be born with unfit parents who did not want it to begin with. Some argue they can put them up for adoption. The problem I have with this is thousands of childern get aged out of foster care each year and studies shown adopted childern arent loved as much as biological children.
In the end if the mother does not want to have a baby, then thats her decision. And her decision is none of my business.
Does it have a heart beat does it breathe?
so does a tumor. human DNA does not make it a person. how many times do we need to say that?
and as for who gets to decide? I would say that as a society that is a determination we need to make based on the scientific evidence.
It HAS human DNA what do you mean it's not a person?
who gets to decides which steps?
a fetus has different DNA than the mother. but that doesn't make it a person. and the capacity to become a person does not make it a person. under the right circumstances a sperm will become a person. but masturbation isn't mass murder. a fetus is one step closer to being a person than a sperm. but there are still important steps left before it is.
every cell in ur body isn't going to become a child. r u saying children are just detached cells from the parent? also half that DNA is the dads
every cell in your body is "Genetically complete". are they all people too?
it is not separate, it is attached and dependent on the mother to survive. at the moment of conception, when you say it is a human being, it has no eyes, ears, brain or heart. it is just a tiny cluster of cells. that is not a person.
You're an idiot with absolutely no scientific evidence. The fetus is a person and a genetically completely separate human being from conception, it is never less than human, a embryo is only smaller than the fetus.
and in that situation I would say that's a family talk then just the mother
Your treating a living life as property and its sickening and you cannot kill a living baby as a form of birth control, if and only can it be thought of an action if it directly aposses the life of the mother.
if this is true then ur still part of ur mother and still have no rights
a baby has a life matter what. u may believe it's the earliest science can confirm it for now but I believe it goes further back than that. what century do I live in? u spelled it wrong
You smell to be in fofth century lol. A fetus isn't a preson, a woman is the ONLY ONE who shall decide over its body and life
Unfortunately for you, your belief about whether a fetus is a person means little to nothing. Legally and medically it is not. You have decided that because you define it as a person contrary to the law, you should be able to dictate what women can and cannot do.
a good point
I believe that a fetus is living and is not property that you decide what you can do with, those whom are pro choice indirectly support slavery as alright as they were treated as property not people.
yes and yes. I try to stay with religion because I got on this app thinking it would be fun then I saw all these debates with the Christian faith being waylaid and decided to stand up where others may bow. yeah I'm from America
if i m not wrong u r from America
u argue a lot
also ur either accidentally or intentionally constraining the argument to scared young women forced to make a decision. now I can argue on this point but would like to say that most abortions are just people not stepping up and being a parent or just having the child.
also if u want to skip days of arguments this debate has ended on what time u think the baby is conscious and should be protected.
now for any who are for abortion can I ask u if it's better to go through temporary pain and save a life or if its better to murder one. if we put the baby's life at the beginning these are ur choices if u put it at the point it is now then u have the ones u have.
actually we did used to own lives. it was called slavery and is looked at as a bad thing.
would u call ur child a pet?
so no one can own a dog? people all over the world own life.
the child is God's, the fathers, the mothers, and itself. no one should own a life.
The child is the woman's and she may be to young to have children which would cause disease and probaly death