The debate "Abortion should not be allowed" was started by
August 7, 2015, 10:52 pm.
62 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 66 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
sabrina posted 6 arguments, toughgamer posted 4 arguments, toughgamerjerry posted 2 arguments, BryanTheLion posted 1 argument, Alex posted 3 arguments, reece posted 11 arguments, danielle posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 1 argument, sloanstar1000 posted 4 arguments, ari_pooya posted 2 arguments, Sosocratese posted 5 arguments, historybuff posted 7 arguments, Yuki_Amayane posted 1 argument, ReadyToBegin posted 1 argument, danielle posted 3 arguments, YouThinkYoureBetterThanMe posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
sabrina, sloanstar1000, toughgamerjerry, theQueenofdebate, Otabek, ajeng, wmd, toughgamer, cassiabngn, asaru, Jlav0820, dixie18, PranavArora, Edson, Victor_10n, The_lamp, Musstta, Inpoliticallycorrect, DeliriousMadam, debaterjr, Tania, Alex, reece, Firplius, StarSoul, blakelovesjesus, Thejw, zain and 34 visitors agree.
PsychDave, dylan21502, ari_pooya, Sosocratese, Bodaciouslady16, historybuff, gouthamabi, I_Voyager, jadesenia, wayneSPEC, Skeetc15, BryanTheLion, sherry2503, Jenna2208, desght, rishab, Tristanzee, Yuki_Amayane, MUNNER, Psych_Code, jmardis82, wkahhoong, Abraham, PandaKidd, ayesha97, shubham9311, countrybumpkin, Zinluu, ReadyToBegin, WaspToxin, YouThinkYoureBetterThanMe, danielle, starsnclovers, NaggingNut, SwaggerPoptart and 31 visitors disagree.
..really??..you sound like you belong on imvu and not on here..
Mad bro? Someone sounds slightly salty :P
.....and you are here to do what????? create an argument like the childish amateur you are or are you actually choosing a side and stating your reasons??????...
key word...eventually! I agree the earlier you have an abortion the better !
But thats where the big fference comes in..eventually the fetus will grow to become aware..in fact research shows that the fetus is aware when it is in the womb of the mother's stomach....
Sounds like Reece is either Trolling or a bit or a hypocritical pretentious religious fruit cake :)
AND NOR ARE FOETUSES! THEY ARE NOT SELF AWARE!
it does not have feelings and emotions.....like us humans
AND ALGAE IS NOT SELF AWARE.....
...There is no comparison between algae (plantlike ) and a baby (human) ....you kill a plant you cant go to jail but you kill a human you are absolutely going to jail...BIG DIFFERENCE
a plant is a living thing, is picking a plant killing? you don't care about that!!
yes and if they dont want kids birth control pills, condoms etc. exist today ...
is killing algae considered killing to you? it is alive and is just as self aware. but I doubt you're going to protest the killing of algae.
i wouldn't force her to have it but id suggest she deal with the consequences and be a woman about it since she was woman enough to make it .....
A fetus that has life potential.....so yeah it is in fact a living thing so you it is considered killing
some people just don't want kids, can't you understand that?
for all the reasons I said earlier!
why would she not want to have a child?
it is something that you can never fully understand until you are in that position! I ask you, if your daughter gets pregnant and doesn't want it would you really force her to have it? t
I don't know how many times it has to be said, they are not conscious! it is a foetus! it doesn't think, it doesn't feel!
adoption Is not the best, but it's better then killing. I know someone who is adopted, and he is fine. I would rather have the original patents keep the baby, but that is not always the case.
I would defiantly have a kid wonder why he wasn't wanted, then wonder why he is dead.
it is not killing! they are not kids!
so basically...you'd rather kill the 200,00 kids "without families" ...????
eurgh your obsessed with adoption! but as of march 2015 there were 69,540 children in care in the UK alone! that's nearly 70,000 children without families! you might think adoption "isn't nice at first" but I wonder if you've ever known anyone who was adopted? I did and she spent so much of her time trying to track down her real mum because she wanted to know why she wasnt wanted, and when she did track her down her mum didn't want anything to do with her! can you imagine how devastating that was for her!! and if you ban abortions you add 200,000 more kids every year! That's nearly 300,000 kids growing up without families without real brothers and sisters, wondering why they weren't loved etc! can you imagine how much cases of depression etc would increase not to mention the fact that we literally couldn't house 200,000 more kids in care homes.
you've then got to consider the psychological effects of the biological mother. if you force her to carry the baby until birth whether she likes it or not bonds will be formed, and when they baby is taken away for adoption both will experience intense feelings!
I understand why you see it as killing but what your actually doing is removing sometjing unconscious! you have to think of the future!
You're giving us the statistics on ways of getting impregnated..yet that still does NOT justify killing an unborn baby....
note 1: don't have sex if you aren't expecting a child.
note 2: actions have consequences.
I will attempt to explain all you ifs and buts.
What If she was raped? less then 1% of abortions are committed for this reason. however solution- if you don't want a child and you are raped put it up for adoption.
What if she is underage? wtf was she doing having sex then. see note 1&2.
what if she is not ready? see note 1&2.
what if they can't afford the baby? put the baby up for adoption.
What if they used protection and it failed? see note 1&2. could always acept the baby as a gift; or put the baby up for adoption.
What if they don't want kids? see note 1. put the baby up for adoption.
What if she thinks she's too old? don't see how you could be too old, but put the baby up for adoption.
What if the fetus is going to have a life limiting condition? a limited life is better then no life.
what if they have six kids? I know many families with 8,9,10 kids. they are all very happy. the more kids you have, the better your chance one will be famous:)
what If they want to travel? have you heard of adoption?
what if they don't want to give up their careers? nanny, daycare? lots of options besides killing.
what if they found out their partner is cheating? marriage theory, seperation. no need to take it out on the baby.
what if they have a life limiting condition? Who is "they"?
what if they have a mental condition? of it is one parent, then the other parent can watch the kid. if both parents, the baby could be put up for adoption.
What is they don't have a stable home? hopefully the couple can realize they need to make changes for the new baby. if not they can put it up for adoption.
I know adoption is not always fun at first, but ask a child if they would rather be dead, or the adopted kid of a wonderful family who loves them. overpopulation is no problem here. there are thousands of families who want a child and can't have one.
I am against it unless special cases, but if I had to chose one or the other than I would choose to have abortions for women.
Though the idea of a sixteen year old having multiple abortions sickens me
Abortions should be allowed. There are too many if's and but's to ban it.
what if she was raped
what if she's underage
what if she's not ready
what if they can't afford it
what if they used protection but it failed
what if they don't want kids
what if she thinks she's too old
what if the foetus is going to have a life limiting condition
what if they already have six kids
what if they want to travel
what if they don't want to give up their careers
what if they found out their partner was cheating
what if they have life limiting condition
what if they have a mental condition
what if they don't have a stable home
there are just so many reasons why someone might want or need an abortion. To ban them would be to force someone into something they don't want.
and before you say about the foetus not getting a say etc - despite what you believe - it isn't conscious not like us, it is effectively as conscious as a plant. most abortions happen asap before it even looks human, and those that happen after are normally for medical reasons.
in the UK 2 doctors have to approve the abortion making every abortion that happens have a valid reason.
you cannot force someone to have a child they don't want!!
Im not sure if someone already mentioned this but,Sabrina, if indeed abortion were to become illegal what would be the punishment for women who preforming ilegal abortions? I mean, if abortion is truly the same as murder, then shouldn't they receive the death penalty or life in prison? Also, wouldn't it also make sense that if a woman can not back out of a pregnancy then neither could the man regardless of circumstances? It just isnt logical AND I do personally pity the baby but the option should be available especially in the case of an etopic pregnancy. Its just not fair to impose on and endanger the life of an existing citizen.
toughgamer, sabrina, get OWNED
Sorry my numbering got messed up
The first doctor found religion and stopped putting his faith in science and reason. It doesn't really explain why she changed her mind. the third one was devastated by personal tragedy and allowed it to change his opinions. The third one got talked out if it by a religions woman. These doctors didn't change their minds for rational or logical reasoning. it was emotional or religious decisions which I reject as a valid reason.
This should answer all your arguments, it is a source of actual doctors.
equating abortions and the legal standing of a pregnant woman being killed constituting double homicide is a non-sequitur since the legal justifications for the two are vastly different.
The murder of a pregnant woman being considered double homicide rests on the believe that the woman intended to carry the fetus to term. Abortions operate under the assumption that the woman wants to terminate the pregnancy. So the woman wanting the child gives credence to the concept that the fetus will develop into a person due to the mother's complicity. Without the mother's complicity, the fetus will not develop into a person, thus eliminating the certainty of the fetus becoming a person.
A problem still remains, Mike Huckabee's plan doesn't follow legal standings. An embryo doesn't have the legal standing of a person since it fails to meet the legal definition of a person. Thus the 5th and 14th amendment don't apply. Again, Huckabee is not an expert in the field, he is not even an expert on the law. He has a degree in religious study, he has not accreditation in the filed of science, medicine, or law. So I don't know why you keep wanting to refer to him as an expert in the field.....It's like saying you should listen to a hermit when it comes to social etiquette.
You are making a few more logical errors when it comes to your differentiating between an embryo and a child. The difference between a child and an embryo goes far beyond the capacity to feel pain, it is about the ability to process information at all.
You are also misunderstanding what it means to sustain one's own life. No one is claiming that a newborn is able to provide it's own food etc...I know you don't believe for a second that I'd be claiming a newborn is able to fend for themselves, so you're making a strawman argument here. A child is able to maintain a homeostatic environment without the aid of the mother's body. It is able to oxygenate it's own cells, able to maintain a acid/base balance, able to pump blood, etc....An embryo is not capable of sustaining such an environment in their own body.
If abortion isn't murder, then why is killing a pregnant woman called double homicide?
Only if you see that it's a baby when it has a brain.
A fetus has no recognizable brain function until 14-16 weeks. that is a MAJOR difference between a fetus and a baby.
Sosocratese, Mike Huckabee is trying to get the fetus to be considered to be human, that is what he means when he says that the next president should invoke the 5th and 14th amendments. So your definition is irrelevant.
The only difference between an embryo and a child is that a child can feel pain. A child does not have a concept of self until he is taught, so a newborn, and even until a year old for most kids, and an unborn baby are the same except for pain, because I don't think a newborn can sustain it's own life.
developed and functioning are not the same thing. a fetus cannot process information or move in response to stimulus. this does not occur until 14-16 weeks. it is around this point that a person could be argued to exist.
petmd has some information on dog abortions
I think it's the first link if you google dog abortions......
A few problems that you have with Huckabee's quote. Using the 5th and 14th amendment wouldn't do much since a fetus does not have the legal standing of a person/human. A human being is defined (I'm paraphrasing here, I can get an actual quote and source if you like): a person who has been expelled from their mother, which has a pulse, is able to breathe on their own or is able to have voluntary muscle activity. So, currently the 5th and 14th amendments don't apply to embryos.
Secondly, we know that we have an embryo of the species homo-sapien at conception. We don't yet have a person however.
To your question about the difference between an embryo and a child etc.... The difference is quite simple, it's self awareness. The ability to recognize self and have a vested interest in life. Having the ability to suffer, the ability to feel pain, and the ability to sustain one's own life. An embryo is able to do none of these things. An embryo has no vested interest in living, has no concept of self, no ability to feel pain, and certainly doesn't have the ability to sustain it's own life. If it can't perform the functions of person-hood, you can't define it as a person. You have to define it as something other.
Also, you haven't addressed any of the arguments from utility.
For safety reasons the earliest doctors give an abortion is when the mother is 8 to 12 weeks pregnant.
You CAN'T get an abortion a couple of days after conception!
Also, by the 4th weak into pregnancy the babies heart and brain are both starting to develop, by the 7th week into pregnancy the babies heart and brain are nearly done with the process of developing.
No brain? No heart? Really?
http://www.petful.com/pet-health/can-dogs-have-an-abortion/ yes dogs can have an abortion. but generally you get them spayed or neutered first. Brain dead people have unique DNA too but it is still legal and ethical to pull the plug on them. once brain function ceases they stop being a person. likewise before brain function starts they are not yet a person.
And yet Obama is considered a person? (sorry couldn't resist)
I've been doing my research, and I have found pregnancy prevention in dogs, but not dog abortion. Please state some sources that perform abortions for animals, or evidence saying it actually happens.
DNA is what makes a person. We all have our own unique DNA. Everyone has a brain, that is not unique to each person. There are many things that are unique to a person, a brain is not one of them. A personality is unique to a person. The soul is unique to every person. Our DNA is the most unique thing that any of us have, and it's the first thing we every get. The first thing that we every get is what makes us a person.
Abortions for dogs are simple procedures done all the time. it isn't considered animal cruelty. DNA does not make a person. A grouping of cells does not make a person. if it has no brain it can't be considered a person.
Here let me quote him for you. "A lot of people are talking about defunding planned parenthood as if that's some big game-changer, I think it's time to do something even more bold. I think the next president ought to invoke the fifth and 14th amendments to the Constitution. Now that we clearly know that baby inside the mother's womb is a person at the moment of conception." I'm terribly sorry I got it a little bit mixed up. It's not a heartbeat at conception, it's that they know that the fetus in the womb is a person. He goes on further to say that the DNA is what proves that the fetus is a person.
What is the difference between a child and an adult, and a fetus and a born baby? One is being formed morally, the other is being formed physically. Do we say that a child is not a human because it does not have the mind of an adult? no. So why should we say that a fetus is not a baby because it has not fully developed?
I did not clearly state my last argument. I meant that the animal human societies would all criticize the veterinarian if they were to perform an abortion on a puppy because it is killing them. So they are prioritizing unborn puppies, more than unborn babies. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Performing an abortion on a puppy is considered animal cruelty, so why should performing abortion on a baby not be considered murder?
please, please, please, read your statement again, then go and think about what you just wrote. How can there be a heart beat 2 days post conception? Please look up embryonic development stages and rethink your statement. It is an absolutely absurd claim to say a 2 day old embryo has a heart beat. The cells haven't even differentiated into cardiac cells (or any specialized cell for that matter) at this stage. I have a pretty strong science/medical background and can say with absolute confidence you will not find cardiac cells in a 2 day old embryo.
You are also making a logical fallacy by claiming that Mike Huckabee, who has 0 medical or scientific education or background, is some sort of authority. First off there is a fallacy called argument from authority which is a logical error in itself, and now you even failed to provide an actual authority in the field.
Please reassess where you're getting your information from, since the statements you made above are just so far off base.
Next, let's move on to your vet abortion. Vets do abortions on dogs all the time, so your point there is quite moot at best.
Now, I'll let sloanstar and others debate the human/personhood argument since I find it a rather boring argument as it is a side argument at best.
The better argument stems from utility. It is a matter of suffering and happiness. An embryo has no vested interest in being alive. It has no concept of self or life. The mother, on the other hand, does. She has a distinct knowledge of how much pain and suffering she will go through, both physically and emotionally, in order to carry a fetus to term. Not to mention caring for it or giving it up for adoption later. By denying her the option to have an abortion you are condemning her to suffer through the pregnancy even though having an abortion would cause less distress overall.
The second argument from utility is the inevitability of abortions. Legal abortions have brought with it a lot more regulations on the practice, a much safer environment, and a way for us to control and regulate abortions. By denying a woman the option of an abortion through legal channels your are directly responsible for pushing them into illegal channels. You are advocating for abortions being done in basements, homes, etc....
Mike Huckabee didn't know what he was talking about at all. there can't be a heartbeat if there isn't a heart, or circulatory system. I don't even have to look that up, that's basic biology. Nor does that point counter anything I said.
"a fetus always has and always will become a human"
yes, the key word is "BECOME". a fetus is not yet a human. That was my whole point.
You also assume I wouldn't agree with dog abortions for some reason. which is a bit different because we can't consult the parents before a dog abortion because they're dogs. That's a different debate.
If any of you watched the American republican debates 2 days ago then you will know that, Mike Huckabee (I believe but I may be wrong) said that SCIENCE has proven that there is a heartbeat right after conception which proves that there is life. On live television. I can guarantee you that he knows more about this subject than all of us combined.
Sloanstar, you said that the fetus has the potential of being a human, can a fetus be anything else? Potential means that it has a possibility of doing something. A fetus always has and always will become a human.
If a veterinarian were to perform an abortion on a pregnant dog, it would be seen as animal cruelty because they are killing puppies. If you wouldn't do it to a puppy then why would you do it to a human being?
sabrina, your saying that life starts with conception. YOU are defining life as starting at inception. science disagrees with you. cells do not have rights. if cells had rights, then every day you are commiting murder by drinking, eating, and breathing microbes and cells. i choose sciences definition over yours.
there isn't a "waiting couple" Sabrina, just look at how many thousands go unadopted in the US.
regardless, you're saying that a cluster of cells is a human being, we disagree. Since a disagreement on a label the argument can't progress. I just don't see how you think a fertilized egg is a human being, its insane
Human life begins at conception.
Putting aside the question as to whether the fetus has a soul or moral worth, there is the undeniable fact that it is is human life. It has life because its cells are already growing. It is pulling nourishment the moment it implant in the Uterus. And it is Human.
Abortion is wrong even under the circumstances of rape.
The unfairness of this situation doesn't change the simple fact that abortion is murder. Instead of abortion, mothers can get help from pro-life organizations, who willingly make things as easy as possible during the pregnancy. After birth, give the child immediately to a waiting couple. This is far better solution since the child is allowed to live, and the mother can then continue with her life.
now I underatand that people might say abortion is taking a life away and that who are we to make a decision of anothers life. well, that life hasnt even begun! that baby is probabaly a small cell. cells shouldnt have rights. plus, would you rather live a life of pain because your mother never wanted you.....to be labeled a mistake the rest of your life?! and what if the mother was raped? what, should she carry the baby and be reminded every time she shes the baby the pain caused to create him/her? If you carried that baby you didnt want, would you really give birth to it and regret it the rest of your life? please, anyone tell me if you would. because I wouldn't. its the mothers choice. babys dont start out talking for a reason.
A living human person begins to exist at the moment of conception, even though only as a cell. What is important is not the accident of size or weight but the essence
- which is fully human.
The unborn baby has distinct, unchanging and unrepeatable genetic code, unique in all of history, from the moment of conception till death. Nothing is added except nutrition and oxygen.
I think that sounds equal to any other human being, including the one carrying the infant.
Are you saying that a fertilized egg, invisible to the naked eye is a human being? is a sperm cell a human being?
should the rights of a fully grown human being be equal to the rights of a cluster of cells?
Biology says it all...
The 7 SIGNS OF LIFE.... Within the first day, the fetus signs each sign. According to Biology, each in every single sign of life is present in the Fetus. After conception, the egg has a unique DNA print of it's own... It's gender is set, it's skin color, hair color, eyes... It's fingerprint, all of these are set in a unique DNA print.
I disagree with the idea that it's a "human being" yet. It's a potential human being, just like a sperm cell or an egg is a potential human being. a fetus at 22 weeks is not conscious nor does it feel pain because the neural connections haven't been made.
If a fetus is suffering from anencephaly is aborted, most people understand that it is justified because what makes a human a human is our brain's ability of awareness.
So the question is, at what point after fertilization does the zygote or fetus gain human rights?
What we have to remember is that there are two completely innocent human beings involved. Even in such a horrible and unwanted circumstance, it is wrong to allow one to kill the other. It is wrong to kill a two-year-old baby who was conceived in rape and as such it is wrong to kill a two-month-old unborn baby who was conceived in rape.
Telling a woman to carry an unborn child against her will and go into labor for that child against her will is extremely demanding. However, because another human being's life is on the line, this demand is justified. Just as the mother did not ask to be subject to the horrible situation, the unborn child did not either. Despite the mother being in an atrocious emotional state, it is wrong to allow an innocent human being's life to be a matter of "choice" when it does not have to be.
If someone is raped, what right do you have to force them to go through such a traumatic experience, potentially doing permanent damage to their body?
Alternatively, if a woman would be unable to safety carry to term, should she be condemned to death because you wanted to take a moral stance against abortion?