The debate "Should abortion be legal in every country" was started by
April 30, 2019, 7:25 pm.
43 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 63 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 to the agreers part.
UnleashedPatriotism posted 1 argument, JDAWG9693 posted 19 arguments, Nemiroff posted 8 arguments to the disagreers part.
toriboo, elegushi, MADHURA, Syrkk, luis99, LucyTheDebatorQueen, Walter, saad786 and 35 visitors agree.
UnleashedPatriotism, JDAWG9693, GreatDivider, shaneyboo, Nemiroff, freakofnaturespitbucket, MagicMicah, InfinityMachine, amir_alhakim07, lukeluckynuke123 and 53 visitors disagree.
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.