The debate "Its NOT okay to kill pyschopath murders but its fine to kill innocent babies and even to fund it" was started by
November 17, 2015, 7:10 pm.
By the way, liberalssuck is disagreeing with this statement.
8 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 59 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.
bearunter posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
liberalssuck posted 1 argument, Alex posted 13 arguments, omactivate posted 2 arguments, Wookie posted 5 arguments, lawyer_to_be posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 7 arguments to the disagreers part.
bigB, Tiredandred, AstroSpace, DannyknowsItAll, keponefactory, debaterjr and 2 visitors agree.
Alex, liberalssuck, omactivate, Wookie, bearunter, naina08, RationalAtheist, Skeetc15, lawyer_to_be, historybuff, Swissor, lexham, Yuki_Amayane, zoeclare7, Bodaciouslady16, ADrunkenRobot, calebtanner, action007man, curlyyxx, AngryBlogger, AlenaMaisel and 38 visitors disagree.
Im not saying a fetus isnt a live baby. Im saying that a scientific definition does not make it inanimate since it is a definition to fit an agenda.
What I'm going for here is "If it is considered alive, does it matter? we don't call killing a fly murdering a fly." And since The most common argument I've seen against abortion is how cells on Mars is considered life but a fetus isn't. Arguing life on matter of consciousness, a fetus can receive stimulus, react to it and dream, but still not be considered life. The back and forth in the comments already say the consensus is that a fetus is not alive, but more consistent thinking would say a fetus is like a useless organ that eventually becomes a human by itself. Sounds ignorant, but there is a difference
between dead tissue and living tissue, and a fetus can probably fit into one of these categories at the very least, even if not called alive
If we are not deciding this morally, which is fair because morals are vague and vary, then we are doing it legally. Legally is a social construction, science is a method of expanding understanding and finding truth. If you are religious, or if you are not, it does not matter because we impose our own thoughts on what we use to determine is alive. Science can help is be consistent in determining what life is, but really it is what we want to be alive, is our standard. This doesn't mean we can be inconsistent, but saying that "science tells us what life is" is the same as saying "religion tells us what life is". So, without further issues, this is the direction that the conversation should take. One says that development of consciousness should determine life, other says conception, but what have we determined to murder when it comes to life? Murder is separate from killing, seeing as killing a conscious fly is different than a fetus, but a fly's conscious understanding is limited. A better example, and more extreme is bacteria. Bacteria do not work together the way a fetus' is, but it is living. Legally though, we do not care about the life and death of a bacteria. So in being consistent, a fetus, while alive, is not in a degree of consciousness to care if it is alive. Rather, life would be considered on a spectrum instead of a yes no checklist of life. So how do we determine if a fetus can be murdered? Legally, we have to determine when it can be considered killed. If a pregnant woman is gut punched and the fetus does not survive, is it treated as murder, bodily harm, or to whatever option? Furthermore, should it be considered like an organ that can be removed or the family pet that when in too much pain or is no more fun be put down? If a fetus is not life, but in the case of being damaged and someone other than the woman has to be charges with something, is the fetus a circumstance that must be considered, and how? If it is not a moral argument, it must be legal, and legally it must be looked at this way. So where between the cell to the fly to the pet dog to organism does the fetus live when it is alive? If it does not matter because it is not alive, then someone else other than the woman against her will or knowledge stops the potential life from being anything else, then it shouldn't mean anything other than possibly battery. I'm certain that this line of thinking would help the argument move forward.
The research of the development, yes. The definition is not
science isn't an opinion. it is provable information.
Ill try to get you to see my point. My faith and conscience lead me to defend life at conception. I believe it is murder to abort. You are led by a scientific definition of life, but this too is of opinion. It may be frpm science; however, this is not a natural phenomenon but rather deciding to define life at a certain point. Please dont construe that as saying neurological and brain development is not a phenomena, but rather a chosen starting place
we show evidence why we think that. you repeat your religiously based opinion.
This argument is pointless. We say life begins at conception, you dont.
No, but their brain patterns would be about the same. They are not capable of thought and the brain cannot carry out tasks within the body. There is only a collection of cells that will one day be capable of these things.
right a brain dead person is dead, but is a fetus brain dead? I don't think so.
sorry I meant someone brain dead. you're right a vegetative state patient may recover. that isn't what I intended.
someone in a vegetable state may recover and regain awareness. dies that mean
1. they were never truly dead
2. they came back to life
brain parts isn't a functioning brain. someone who is a vegetable has brain parts too, but they're they are brain dead.
It may have brain parts but it is not concious as we keep saying, but you're right, just keep ignoring that!
a 12 week old fetus does have brain parts. and nerve cells.
Alex, we have covered this repeatedly in multiple debates. We are not arguing that the brain needs to be fully developed, we are arguing that it needs to be sufficiently developed to be conscious. Someone without brain activity is brain dead. Are you arguing that a single cell has a functional brain?
hey historybuff a brain isn't developed until around 21 years old. I guess a 20 year old is not human and ok to kill.
A foundation is protected just the same as a skyscraper. In the eyes of the law there is no difference. Upon its very conception, as far back as buying the land, it is protected. I dont care what form it is, it is protected.
And progressivism becomes Constitutional thought when?
my point is that it isn't a building until its built. a foundation isn't a building. and your quote was not intended to be about when a fetus becomes a person. it is therefore out of context.
It doesn't have to bee built to be protected
The fact that we have inalienable right endowed by our creator of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not out of context. If we do not have our rights upon on behalf of our creator (therefore implying creation), then surely you find conflict this statement by Jefferson. When a scyscraper is being built, it has the same rights. You cannot simply take the land or trespass since by its very decree it has property rights.
so your defense is to twist a statement that you took out of context? your whole point revolves around when we are created with inalienable rights. a fetus isn't fully developed. do you say a sky scraper was created as soon as you break ground? no its only created when its finished. you haven't made any argument for why a cluster of cells is an actual person.
I gave you a Constitutional example of the defense of creation. Upon what else do we base our laws. I could care less if the majoritt disagrees with me since fallacies remain fallacies even after they become fashions.
What if I said there was an easier was to argue against, in a more logical manner. I'm mixed on abortion but consider the following: A woman trying to buy baby clothes off Craigslist visits the seller, but she is attacked and the several month fetus was carved out of her stomach. Had she chose to abort it it would have been legal, but since it was not her choice should the criminal that attacked her also be charged with murder? Like I said, I'm mixed on abortion, so I wont say there's never a time to do it, but I think it shouldn't be done lightly. If you want to argue consistency, pose it as a question instead of a statement. A real life example was also used in the question, so research provides quick answers, should people care to look.
When is this science law state human life beginns. and it better be a law, because a theory cannot be proven and so may be false.
You are all again hiding behind the "prove my opinion isn't right" argument. I don't need to. Science and medicine have provided a definition of when human life starts, you just don't like it. The law has decided when human life begins, again you disagree. What you have yet to do is provide any logical reason for why your opinion is more valid that the scientific, legal, and medical communities at large not to mention the sizable portion of the public who disagrees with you. Either give a rationale to support your belief or give up because you have been arguing in circles and drawing flawed comparisons through hundreds of comments on numerous debates.
I respect that since your religion preaches that life begins at conception for you to sit silent on abortion would be morally reprehensible, but not everyone believes as you do. If you want people to agree with you it will take logic and reason, not restating your beliefs.
first of all I don't believe there is a "creator " and neither do alot of other people. so trying to make laws based around your religion isn't going to work. and you said he grants us inalienable rights. he didn't say when he granted us those. it's just as logical to believe they begin at birth. there is nothing in what you just said that is anything but your opinion.
You miss the point. This definition is not scientifically proven, its a guideline. This in particular is a progressive guideline that devalues human life.
The idea of the founding was of natural rights, and as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable right. Therefore upon conception, we are created. Even if you argue life is not existant at this stage, the prior statement is irrefutable. Therefore I believe that since we are created at conception, our right to life, liberty, and property must be protected for the child by government protection and criminal statutes.
a human is someone who is in their mother's stomach. it doesn't matter if they are fully developed or not. a human is a human.
what is the definition of a human? I've heard many different stories. not the brain life theory because 1. it's a theory 2. at week 12 the fetus gas a brain.
yes. science provides a defininition. a fetus does not meet the defininition of a human. unless you can prove it is a person your opinion carries very little weight.
Prove they are not. There is no way to say you or I am wrong. I believe babies are alive at conception. Your "science" is purely definitional.
prove a fertilized egg is a human life or give up. otherwise all you have is your own opinion.
also if you knock me out, I can't feel so it's ok to kill me right? you can't argue "they have never been alive" because things first becoming alive have never been alive before, so the argument is invalid and don't use it please.
Dave, a rape victim should put the baby up for adoption.
Alex, you are again ignoring the fact that it isn't always a choice. Rape happens. That is not a choice the woman made.
Beyond that, you still haven't backed up why you feel life starts at conception. You have defined it as doing so, but failed to provide any justification for that definition. I didn't ask to to restate your beliefs, I asked you to back them up with something other than opinion.
Look, the babies aren't even existent or conscious at the time of their demise, so they aren't alive, therefore they cannot feel, therefore they don't have emotions and cannot feel "hurt" by their death, because they never experienced life. Some people just do not have enough money to be able to have a child, and if they suddenly become pregnant, they don't want the kid. Why should they keep it? I think that if the kid was born and then killed, that would be bad. But just killed before birth? Yeah. that's fine.
You kniw, even me, a middle schooler can tell you that sometimes we want to have sex
if you don't want a baby don't have sex. easy. if you have sex expect a baby.
Enough of the straw man arguments anyway. You do not agree with my position and do not with yours.
All I really care about is that it should be a woman's choice on her personal belief system and values, it should not be decided by someone else. A baby is a life changing commitment and a decision that should not be made lightly or forced upon someone because of your bigoted beliefs.
They are a part of the man or woman. not independent. once they join they are neither part of the mother or father, and are a new life.
But if conception, a single cell is alive for the sake of your argument, what about sperm or eggs? They're single celled human organisms, do they not count?
why? why is the moment of conception a human life? that is your oppinon. that is not the prevailing opinion. if you want us to listen then prove your point.
alive is anywhere from conception to death.
Alex has trouble arguing his points so he likes to derail debates he is struggling in with other, unconnected debates. Immigration has no bearing on this topic so could you please stick to the discussion at hand.
We have repeatedly asked you to justify why a single cell constitutes a human being. If you honestly believe that life begins at conception you must first define what life is from your perspective. You have consistently failed to do so. We contend that a fetus is the potential for a human being, but until it is capable of being self sufficient it is not truly an individual. If you have a different interpretation of what makes a human being alive that supports your position, what is it?
have the fetus done anything to deserve death? no. has a death row criminal? yes.
I'm against the death penalty by the way. but I want to explain what those people think.
the abortion debate comes down to is:
is the group of cells working together, with a beating heart, forming a brain and resembling a human life?
liberals don't want to follow the law on immigration, but they sure do follow the law on abortion.
What I don't understand personally is people who are against abortion but pro death penalty, yet at the same time call themselves pro-life. Surely if life is that sacred to you, as you claim, then the life of a prisoner on death row has the same value as a foetus. At least that seems to be what you guys are always shouting about isn't it?
"All life is precious!" That seems to be the argument I always hear. Do you pro-lifers really not understand the word hypocrisy?
by law they aren't alive so you shouldn't call them babies to try and guilt trip people
I think the question is oddly worded haha its pretty one sided :p
Anyways i'm interpreting your question as almost comparing the two, where you could also be saying that it is better to kill psychopaths than to support abortion.
"psychopath" means they have a mental illness. If its something out of their control, then I wouldn't support killing them for it, unless its like a mass murder or something.
Abortion is a major topic today, and I have to say that I personally think it's ok. I don't like it at all. The fact that its such a big problem now just demonstrates the irresponsibility of people today. They aren't prepared to have kids. They don't want kids. So what will happen if they do have a kid? Three possible results.
1. They will love the child. That's the best possible thing. Unfortunately, it could lead to certain burdens, especially financial burden. Also, think about the lifestyle of the parents. If they are having a baby they didn't want to have, it could indicate unhealthy lifestyle, and that's not good for the child.
2. They will keep the kid but not be a proper family. That's neglect. Results in problems for the child, the family, and the future. I won't explain the effects of child neglect because that's pretty self-explanatory.
3. They will have the child but put him up for adoption. Plenty of chance that won't happen. What's that going to do to his psychological development?
All of these are bad situations. The best thing for everyone(child, parents, and the world they are born into) is to go through with abortion.
Also need to think more on a global basis. If you're powerfully against abortion, you probably have a very individualistic way of thinking, and I respect that. But can we afford to raise more kids who could potentially grow up not caring due to the fact that their parents don't care? Can we let the world turn into that? More and more people are getting abortions, and its sad. Sad that the child isn't going to be enjoyed or even be able to enjoy the life he was given. But when I think about what the future would have held for the child, I feel sad too, happy that he didn't have to go through that. I think the problem doesn't lie in the actual abortions; it lies in the people who even have to make that decision due to their bad choices. Like, have people forgotten that sex leads to children? The irresponsible behavior of the "parents" is what needs to be stopped, not the abortions.
see fetus does not=baby
I did a bit of reading on planned parenthood. other than Salinger being into eugenics in the 20s (which was the prevailing opinion at the time) and a few sporadic problems in a few locations i dont see how saying planned parenthood is an argument. the vast majority of their work is good. they have problems, but all organizations have problems with employees following the rules.
you must make an argument. you must say what about planned parenthood supports your case. you haven't even made a case.
do you really not know what planned parenthood is. or are you avoiding the truth? must we explain planned parenthood to you?
that is 2 words. not an argument. make an argument.
this is a rediculous statement that makes no sense. no one funds killing babies. we fund terminating fetus'. they aren't babies. The death penalty and abortion are in no way related. please don't try to link them.