The debate "Should abortion be legal in every country" was started by
April 30, 2019, 7:25 pm.
101 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 141 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.
LucyTheDebatorQueen posted 1 argument, Damian posted 1 argument, DanielSays posted 1 argument, bernie posted 1 argument, universalboytim posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
UnleashedPatriotism posted 1 argument, JDAWG9693 posted 33 arguments, Nemiroff posted 10 arguments, justincase posted 1 argument, Hellow posted 1 argument, Repent_4_The_End_Is_Near posted 2 arguments, Light posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
toriboo, elegushi, MADHURA, Syrkk, luis99, LucyTheDebatorQueen, Walter, saad786, wtann6979, Damian, DanielSays, Ssk, bernie, Threelip, sakshi, universalboytim, trent, EmiMoro, Communistguy and 82 visitors agree.
UnleashedPatriotism, JDAWG9693, GreatDivider, shaneyboo, Nemiroff, freakofnaturespitbucket, MagicMicah, InfinityMachine, amir_alhakim07, lukeluckynuke123, justincase, Hellow, imjustheretommorow, sssk, kadijatu, boispendaddy, fireball4thewin, nikhil, hollieg, Repent_4_The_End_Is_Near, Harshit, Deat, pankaj1407singh, sk25, Light, romeroa251, fry, BakitGalit and 113 visitors disagree.
What is your definition of a person? Like, a list of attributes that a being would have to have a certain number of to be considered a "person"
I'd say it is a person the second the egg is fertilized but you will never get the majority to agree with that so I was going for a slightly more mild approach.
It's not a potential alone, it's that, without something explicitly stopping them on purpose (abortion) or an accident (miscarriage), that fetus WILL become a person. They just aren't one, yet.
Also, I would argue that an unfertilized egg does not have the potential to become a person because until it is fertilized, there is a 0% chance of it developing into personhood.
Also that wasn't really my main point in my statement, although your rebuttal is definitely valid. My main point was to give my definition of a person and ask for yours, or at least where you disagree with mine.
@ light you just said it isn't a person until 8 weeks. So if it isn't a person why don't you agree?
@ JDAWG9693 I agree with your 1st point. A human and a person aren't inherently the same thing.
However we disagree that the potential to become a person is relevant. At that point you open it up to all sorts of hair splitting. An unfertilized egg has the potential to become a person. Therefore a woman is committing murder every time she menstruates. The second a sperm hits an egg it has the potential to be a person. But if you tried to enforce this kind of thinking into law you are just banning abortion. This has been tried and it never works. All you are doing is hurting people.
We, as a society, need a line. What makes a person a person. What level of brain activity, ability to survive on your own, level of development etc makes a person. Before that point a fetus is not a person and does not have the legal protections of a person. After they point they are and they do.
I don't agree with an abortion at any stage but the point is you will never convince the vast majority of people it is completely wrong so a compromise is needed.
I think we agree that we don't care if the life in the womb is human or not, we care if it's a person. Then the question becomes what is a person and when does a human become a person? My definition of a person is being sentient (feeling pain and pleasure), sapient (higher levels of intelligence), and sophont (self-aware and able to self-reflect). I also believe that the direct potential of becoming a person (meaning that it is almost certain that the being will become a person) is equal in value to an already actualized person.
This also means that there are a few beings that are not human that are a person, under my definition. Alex the African Gray Parrot is the first that comes to my mind.
Do you disagree with that definition?
So you agree an abortion before 8 weeks is fine?
I'd argue that a fetus becomes a legal person fairly early. The brain starts to developed at 4 weeks and it has a heartbeat at 8. So it seems as if though it would be classified as a person sometime in that period.
@Light I think we need a specific decision on when a fetus becomes a legal person. After that point murdering the mother would also mean murdering second legal person. Before that point the fetus is just a fetus. Those laws are usually written by right wing people who believe it is a person the second an sperm hits an egg. you are arguing that right wing people think a fetus is a baby, so those right wing people pass a law saying what they believe and then use that law is evidence that the right wing people are right, which is circular logic.
@JDAWG9693 I don't understand your 1st paragraph. Are you saying that a baby at the moment of birth isn't a person? That they somehow become a person 1 month after birth?
A cancerous tumor is also a clump of cells. So is a cow. No one is charged with murder because they remove a tumor or eat a hamburger.
Under my definition of "person" a human usually isn't a person until about a month after exiting the womb. That's why I believe the potential for personhood is equal (or at least, like, 98% of) to an already actualized person.
Also, I've got some bad news for you: you're just a clump of cells, too, Bud. That's what we all are.
Abortion should be illegal in every country. It is the taking of innocent lives. Why is it that if you kill a pregnant woman you can be charged with two accounts of murder but that baby's life is allowed to be taken in other ways with no consequence.
The fundamental place we disagree is not in the morality of killing a person, it is when does a cluster of cells become a person. No one is ever going to make be believe that a cluster of cells a few days after sperm meets an egg is a person. It isn't. It is a cluster of cells that has the potential to become a person. It has no brain, no heart, no lungs, nothing.
Once you accept that it isn't a person at the moment of conception and that it is clearly a person when it is born, we as a society need to decide when it becomes a person. When should it get the legal protection we give to legal persons. If the fetus if aborted prior to the point it becomes a legal person, then no person has been harmed.
When do you think a fetus becomes a person?
I agree. I think that most of the time, abortionists think that we as pro life activists are trying to have power over women's bodies but the main issue is the concern for the growing unborn life in the womb. A fetus or embryo or whatever you want to call it, is a human being, not a bundle of tissue or a ball of goo. To take that life because it is not self-aware is deeply dispicable, especially when it's for personal convenience.
I'm truly sorry to say. But it's better to give the child up for adoption rather than to kill the child
We are all living cells on this planet, none of us have the right to t ake ones life. I cannot take a humans life. It doesn't only limit to human beings but also to all other animals and insects.
This is also natures law. The universe itself collapses and expands, the storms and avalanches floods and high tides, torrential rains, cyclones and even earthquakes destruct. Even the cat family kills their children if their cub is deemed unlikely to survive to them.
If so much works according to nature, who are we to not obey? Who in the name of God are we to practise something that disrupts the process of nature? Yes people do say that abortion isn't natural. Obviously. But surely an excessively high population is not natural.
Furthermore, the partners may not be mentally or financially ready to produce a child.
If the child is brought into this world, he would have to fight against the whims and famcies of being poor or less cared for or not ever being able to live the life it dreamt of and may have to settle debts that his parents left.
What's worse, is that population is increase at such a high, humungously high rate, it is so absurd that all governments of all countries haven't even tried to legalise abortion
Our earth is an already full, all resources are depleting at an alarming rate. We live in fear that tomorrow there would be no water to drink. And here we are arguing if a bortion should be legal or not. The foetus doesn't know what love is, hasn't breathed the air of the planet, hasn't even as much as had any contact with the world and yet we think we cannot exercise our rights over the foetus. Killing a foetus is meaningless. Killing a child isnt.
Yes. I do not condone the horrible act of murder because of the heinous act of rape.
Also, even if I were to grant you abortion for rape and incest and medical emergencies (which I already grant), that is only about 1.3% (or 1.7%, I can't quite remember) of abortions in the U.S. So, either you would agree that 98.7% of abortions were morally abhorrent or you are just straw manning which is a useless argument to make.
so rape victims should be forced to give birth to the a** holes child
Firstly, that is flawed logic for an array of reasons. Secondly, it's not the woman's body that I care about, it's the unborn child.
Men should not make laws on WOMENS bodies.. it is not up to anyone else what I do to my body
You can put up for adoption and won't have to live with it. And, I've said before that I'm willing to concede for rape and incest children (even though that's a strawman argument and not worth the time of day). So, if you were raped or committed incest, you can abort the child. Luckily that's about 1.3% of abortions. So, by your logic, 98.7% of abortions was still murder.
abortion should be allowed based on what if you get raped are you meant to live with the baby that wasn't meant to be?
interestingly early unions were ineffective because companies ignored them. they go on strike, the company replaces them. they block the entrance, the company calls the police.
it was unions who petitioned for government interference. and it kinda makes sense. corporations lobby government for favorable laws all the time. citizens are unable to do that individually, so they have unions lobby for their interests (in law making).
thus history shows us that there must be government interference on some level, if only to force the employers into good faith negotiations. because just because a union is stronger then an individual, doesnt mean it is the equal of a Walmart. they were very easily ignored.
in any and every context, leaving humans to their own devices creates a world where the strong prey the weak. I'm not saying full on dictatorship, maybe in several generations, but definitely a one sided playing field with increasing concentration of wealth and power. which may eventually lead to a worst case scenario. liberitarianism works in a mom and pop scenario, but anything beyond that, it is a delusional system that will lead to a dystopia. a few have much to gain from pushing it, but most of us have everything to lose.
Nemiroff, I mean in a purely social sense and in that we won't have a government telling us, for example, what healthcare to use. We will have the choice of what healthcare to use. Also, I believe that if libertarianism was enacted, unions would massively form and that is just one example of people banding together and counting on each other.
Well, ideally everybody would be responsible for themselves, yeah. But, libertarianism isn't that people should look out for themself as an individual or even just as a family, it's that we the people, as a society, should look out for ourselves (each other) instead of relying on the government to do it.
Ok. Well that kind of underlines my point. You believe that children should have help, you just don't think anyone should be responsible for helping them. That seems counter intuitive to me.
Libertarianism and "helping people" are kind of opposites. There are lots of branches of Libertarianism, so I don't want to pretend like i know exactly what you believe. But at it's core it requires that people are responsible for looking after themselves. So things like taking care of poor people and their children is not something a libertarian would support. You can either want poor people to get help, or you can want everyone to be responsible for looking after themselves. I don't see how you can support both.
I would suggest that you look up free condoms because they're everywhere where I am and in much of the U.S. (if I remember right, I know you live in Canada so it might be different).
But, definitely I argue for libertarianism. But, because I believe strongly that if the healthcare system became capitalist with little government intervention, then prices would go down drastically because different companies would be competing for business, rather than being the only, government mandated, option. That is to help the poor.
And, I also believe that the number of groups and attendance in those groups helping those such as I help is growing.
I have never seen condoms given out for free. And no, condoms aren't cheap usually. I'm not sure what the condom situation is like where you live. Maybe it is different.
Are you in favor of government provided health care? Are you in favor of government providing better financial aid to poor people? If I am wrong than I am certainly willing to withdraw that point. But have you not made the argument that government should be small? IE should not provide social assistance?
The points you just said you are in favor of are mainly to assist children that don't have parents. But most kids do have parents. Many of those parents can't afford to properly care for their children because of systemic societal problems. Does your caring not apply unless they are orphaned and/or abandoned?
I'm sorry to be brash, but I really hate it when people just assume that I don't give a shit about the kids just because I'm anti-abortion (anti-murder).
Firstly, condoms are free and the not free ones are cheap.
Secondly, I understand that abstinence isn't a good argument, I was just listing out and categorizing all of the options.
Thirdly, f*** you, too. Don't assume that I don't care about the children. I have always argued for better care for children and a reformation of the foster care system, and I, personally, volunteer to help coach fostered and orphaned youth, abused youth, and the homeless.
Well as we have established, these people are poor. Contraception isn't cheap. So if they don't have the money for contraception to prevent the child, they should then have the child they couldn't afford to prevent? That logic is extremely flawed. Not to mention that if they are poor, they likely don't have alot of disposable income to spend on entertainment. You know what is cheap entertainment? Sex.
And quite frankly, the idea that abstinence is an acceptable option isn't even worthy of a response. Humans are biologically wired to want sex. It is one of our fundamental impulses. Denying a core part of what makes us human and a core part of romantic relationships is not an acceptable option.
If you honestly cared about "the children" you would want more comprehensive care for them. You would want government provided healthcare for them, food programs to make sure they don't go hungry. But the problem is you don't actually care about those children. You want to make sure people are forced into having them, and that is where your concern ends.
Contraception and abstinence is to prevent having children, adoption and motherhood is dealing with the consequences maturely/morally, abortion is murdering an unborn child.
I think his point was the hypocrisy of people arguing poor people shouldn't have children while also making it harder for them to prevent having children. And yes, that is hypocrisy.
There's a huge difference between "You should be extra careful to not have children because you can't take care of them right now, or at least consider adoption" and "Oh, you're poor? Kill it."
its funny how many of the same people who advocate against abortion often say that poor people shouldnt have children.
Why should a child not be born into this world?
I disagree, it's not the childs fault that they were born in the wrong time and to the wrong person...Why not just wait till the baby comes out and give it to the people who would gladly take them, they should be given the same right to live their own life. Even if you are raped, if you commited abortion, that wouldn`t change the fact that you were raped or that you carried a person in your belly. Don`t blame the child for what the person has done to you. Blame THAT person for not giving the child the love a parent should give to their own child.
I get what you are saying.
So, the reason I made that comment was because buff, Nemiroff, and I all agree (to my understanding) that it doesn't matter your species (human) whether it is okay to terminate the life, it matters whether they are a "person" or not. I gave my definition of a person and animals don't fit into it, and I would assume that they don't fit into most. But, if it is only okay to have an abortion because the unborn child is not yet a "person", then it would logically follow that it is okay to kill any animal for any reason, being that they are arguing that women can abort their unborn children for any reason until they are a "person".
No I would argue for animals. I don't agree with people beating on their pets. Sorry if didn't clarify the last comm I made. I actually was agreeing with you.
So you don't believe in animal rights and someone beating their dog for fun is okay with you, both legally morally,
Yes I would.
This is directed more towards Nemiroff and buff.
Also, because we can all agree that rights (specifically to life) should be granted to those who are "persons", not necessarily humans. Does this mean that you would not argue for animal rights on the same basis?
yeah, but I'm not saying I'm not pro-life. I'm just saying that if a woman wants an abortion, she can.
I would like for the baby to be born, I really do.
It's not the woman's body, it's the body and life of the unborn child.
well it's the Woman's body so...
And, she'll most likely get sick because nonprofessional manual abortions are dangerous and she'll either get hurt or go to seek medical help. I think the enforcement that we can do is worth it.
when there is a murder there is usually a missing person or a gruesome scene. we identify the crime before making a list of suspects. not the other way around.
you don't look for murderers before knowing there was a murder. if a women never reveals her pregnancy, there will be no suspicion, just the damage.
Well, if there's a murder are they gonna come in and confess? No, but that doesn't mean we make murder legal.
and if she doesnt come in? (which she wont)
will she even reveal her pregnancy when she finds out?
I guess, but there are major differences for the woman's body between when a manual abortion and a natural abortion occur and it is not hard to tell. Near any medical professional will often be able to tell easily without further investigation whether the mother is telling the truth. When a mother has a miscarriage, they often go to the doctor to make sure their body is okay, and the only thing that a medical professional wouldn't be able to easily tell without a test is if the mother took a poison.
because if abortion is illegal, noone will admit to having an abortion... therefore every miscarriage must be treated with suspicion.
Why would we have to inspect?
I believe what he is trying to say is that few if any children will be saved. banning abortion will only spread punishment without helping anyone.
however I have a different concern, namely enforcement. we would have to investigate every miscarriage, force invasive exams, and assume they may all be guilty. this would be a massive invasion of privacy and a violation of our constitutional right against unreasonable searches.
Since I believe that the unborn child is a life, if they are actually willing to risk their life to kill their unborn child, I have no issue with them dying.
Also, just because people will do something even if it's illegal does not mean it should be legal. You have to know that that is a horrible argument, right?
Ultimately, the case is pretty much moot. You cannot stop women from getting an abortion. People have tried for a very long time. It doesn't work. For the same reason that prohibition of alcohol didn't work. For the same reason that the war on drugs is a hugely expensive mess that is completely impossible to "win".
Women who don't want to have a child will find a way to not have the child. Banning it just means they have to find a less safe way of doing it which endangers their life as well as the fetus they are aborting. Laws restricting abortion don't save babies. They just kill women. So you need to ask yourself whether or not you want desperate women to die. If the answer is yes, then 1st you are a complete ass, 2nd then you should support banning abortion.
If you want women to live, then you should support a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body.
Yes, yes I would. As a victim of rape, yes I would.
And, rape and incest caused abortions only make up less than 1.5% of abortions in the U.S., so please don't bring up an extreme case to prove the common.
Well some people may see it as morally wrong, but what if the carrier has been raped?
If you were raped, would you want to keep a byproduct of that rape? No, no you wouldn't.
Well, where would you put the legal limit of abortion at, then?
As I said. I don't have a firm line in the sand on where it is a fetus and where it is a baby.
The problem is that there is no firm line. I can say for certain that a fertilized egg is not a person. I can say for certain that a baby once it is born is definitely a person. I don't have an easy way of determining the exact moment that changes.
they cant sustain themselves externally, but their internal organs are perfectly capable of independent homeostasis provided nutrients.
but does an imperfect muscle tone and temperature control (pretty certain the final stages of womb development) really that consequential? I thing lungs may also be an issue in the final weeks, but do these auxiliary functions really matter in determining individuality? unlike the ball of cells, these late stages can be perfectly analogous to humans on respirators or the a deteriorating old person with malnutrition and weakness.
Babies can't survive "on it's own" either.
And, I have never ignored you, I simply disagree with you. And, that's okay, but that's also what this whole forum is about. I'm willing to talk about it again if you are
I did specify "on it's own". Not with massive amounts of medical intervention.
@buff survivability is a soft line that is dependant on tech. we are developing artificial wombs that would allow fetal survival from day 1.
@dawg there is a high chance early on, but that's a general statistic. it's mostly chromosomal or similar abnormalities that are set in stone. so each individual fetus is already mostly guaranteed to make it or fail from day 1.
I don't have a firm line. I am hardly an expert on the fetal development. I would say there are merits to tying it to brain development or the point at which it is capable of survival on it's own, therefore being a separate entity from the mother.
And you are correct. I did not go into significant detail as I have had this same debate with JDAWG before and he has always held to the idea that as soon as a sperm hits an egg it is now a person. Therefore there was little point in laying out a detailed position as it would be ignored. But I agree, that doesn't make for the best debate.
Yeah, but um willing to concede up to two weeks, for the sake of argument, for the plan B pill simply because the chance of a natural abortion is so high. But, ideally yes.
so the moment of conception would qualify
Person: a being capable of, with time, sentience, sapience, and sophonce
can we define what constitutes a person?
my definition is clear, the point when the brain conscious thought happens, like when the baby starts varying reactions to specific flavors or sounds. or best of all, brain activity in specific sectors.
maybe this convo would go easier if we knew each others definitions of person are? it would at least make the disagreements understandable.
although your question of when buff would draw the line was a step towards actual discussing and away from repetitive reframing.
unfortunately I disagees with you both on the near equal definition of maybe as well as which response showed better debating responses. he was vague, but you posted a technical contradiction, although both points make sense when one doesnt chase technicalities.
the point is, it isnt a person, but it's nearly guaranteed to become a person. both reasonings are valid imo. buff is correct in saying there is no murder if it isnt currently a person. prevention is not termination. but preventing human life can be a strong cause for concern even with the concession of it not being murder.
I think the both of you are busy framing the discussion instead of discussing the discussion.
I understand that it isn't certain, but saying "maybe," especially if that word usage is deliberate as a good debater will do, implies that there is a near equal chance of the child not being born, and that's my issue with it; that it misrepresents the chances of the child being naturally aborted or born.
But, yes, the line?
that aside, I am curious where buff puts the abortion line. that is a very important question to ask.
you said it wasnt certain, but you also said it's not a maybe...
I understand what you tried to say, but that is technically a contradiction.
I deliberately never said "certain," I have always said "near certain" because the chances, after 10 weeks, are over 93% that the unborn child will come to term. "Maybe" implies that there is a near equal chance of the unborn child dying naturally, which is not true.
I might also ask, at what point do you believe one should no longer be allowed to commit abortion? Because, from what you're saying, it sounds to me that up to nine months is okay and I'd like to know what your line is and why that line?
Until something happens, it is wrong to say that it is certain. The odds of a fetus at a certain point becoming a baby are high. but definitely not certain. So maybe is still a correct word to use.
And you still willfully refuse acknowledge any point on the subject so debating this with you is largely irrelevant. But I will make the same point. An acorn might someday become a tree, but it isn't one yet. If you pick up a acorn you aren't killing a tree. You are preventing one from existing in the 1st place. A fetus might one day become a person, but it isn't one yet. If you abort that fetus you haven't killed a person, you have prevented one from existing.
After 6 weeks into pregnancy, it is almost certain that the child will come to birth, unless murdered or naturally aborted due to malnutrition. That unborn child won't "maybe" become a person, it will almost certainly become a person. And, as I've said before, unless the mother is in mortal danger, there is no reason the mother should be allowed to abort the unborn child.
No, it is a fetus. It might one day become a person, but it isn't yet. A woman has the right to control her body. If she doesn't want to go through with a pregnancy she has, and definitely should, have that right.
It's not her own body, it's the body of the unborn child that she is killing.
Nations should have the right to decide their own laws. No one should make absolute statements about what the law should be in all countries.
However, all countries that value freedom and the rights of individuals should definitely enshrine a woman's right to control her own body in law.
Abortion should be illegal, yes.
Absolutes applied uniformly across all populations will always get a thumbs down from me.
Populations need to feel they somewhat chose their path or violent conflict is inevitable.