The debate "Who thinks that abortion is wrong" was started by
September 17, 2015, 6:09 pm.
56 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 40 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.
Alex posted 22 arguments, josejose posted 2 arguments, goldfox1987 posted 9 arguments, bigB posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 13 arguments, sloanstar1000 posted 3 arguments, AstroSpace posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 14 arguments, pajrc1234 posted 1 argument, Yuki_Amayane posted 5 arguments to the disagreers part.
josejose, Zeno, Ryan, Alex, goldfox1987, AstroSpace, hmd, abby1212, sidhant, The_lamp, bigB, toughgamerjerry, ariel22, Ego_edoga, steady_current, Tiger1738, Hitmenjr, Adimario, opinionsvsfacts, ailasorecarg, deca808, KicknRush, debaterjr, blakelovesjesus, Thejw and 31 visitors agree.
kayla, Yuki_Amayane, historybuff, sloanstar1000, PsychDave, hogan, Skeetc15, Specimen, xbulletwithbutterflywingsx, gouthamabi, athinus, pajrc1234, Bodaciouslady16, Trout, carltonlasy, sageuraeus, shyanne, sighnomore99, J_Blue, Robert16, Eechyobooty, stevenchen, madhusudhan, NaggingNut and 16 visitors disagree.
What you still dont seem to understand is that you cant just change the rules for one specific case. Manslaughter is Manslaughter and giving an organism with the potential to become a human, the same rights to life, just as we give a fully developed human being, means that the ending of that life, should be met with the same consequences whether or not it was intentional, unintentional, or unevitable. Ill ask again, does that seem correct to you?
I will talk to lawyers too because I'm not a expert on law. I will consult many people when changing a big law. I will never be president, so this will never happen.
Why would you consult a doctor when you are already saying you would disregard their input? You have already decided to make abortion illegal, so you would be better served talking to lawyers to close loopholes.
lol why would you ask the Pope? What would he know about the details of embryology and abortion?
That is the only question on my law.
Before I will change the law I will consult a doctor, and the pope.
"I don't know" immediately means that you should not be able to change the law. You don't have an answer to a situation that does come up so how can we trust your proposed laws?
same rule for if a mother crashes and anyone in the car dies.
As for medical abortion I do not know.
I think that is all the possible outcomes.
So if it was due to reckless driving, the driver faces vehicular manslaughter charges. Now what about if the mother gets into an accident? If she was speeding, or swerved to avoid an animal, should she face criminal charges?
What should happen in cases where, for medical reasons, the mother is not able to carry to term? Should a) she be condemned to death since the child has as much right to live as she b) the doctor be able to perform an abortion, them go to jail for murder or c) the doctor will s able to perform an abortion and save to woman's life?
You open up a lot of potential for terrible outcomes with your well intentioned change to the law.
same rules aply in the car crash as a regular crash where someone dies.
after a known miscarriage doctor will ask a few questions and if any supision of a purposeful miscarriage check for sighns of intentional miscarriage
The hypothetical I threw out never stated that you could choose the specifics of laws. We're just pretending that a fetus has the same value and rights as a human being. So, yes it would be manslaughter if it was due to any recklessness whatsoever.
If a driver accidentally hits a car with a pregnant woman in it and the baby is lost, is the driver charged with manslaughter or is it chalked up to an accident?
How do you decide if a woman intentionally injured herself to abort the child (which used to happen before safe, legal abortions were possible)? Would every miscarriage be followed by an interrogation of the heartbroken parents? Who decides if they are adequately sad and it was really an accident or they are faking and they deserve to be imprisoned?
It is by accident so that is ok. amendment to my law "any accidental or natural death of the baby is not murder and is ok, but if someone pushes the woman and kills the baby they shall be charged with manslaughter" That better?
Miscarriage due to accident is not natural. If a woman falls and loses the baby, by your proposed rules, she has killed someone.
miscarriage is the NATURAL death of a baby. In most cases cannot be prevented unlike abortion.
Alex, must I really repeat myself?
Why is contraception opposed by the church?
A miscarriage is the unintended death of an unborn child. Under your proposed laws that would be manslaughter. That means that a mother who has just gone through a horrible experience must now go to jail for it.
Give me an example please.
Following your ideology, yes.
are any of those purposeful killing of the child?
They would probably get the death penalty after being charged with the premeditated murder of an infant, not just jail time.So, lets consider for a second that a cluster of cells have the same value as a human being, because, according to prolife ideology, if it could be a person then it is a person, so if we follow that train of thought far enough, miscarriage and ovulation without getting pregnant are manslaughter, masturbation is first degree murder, as is contraception, ejaculation is genocide and male masturbation is reckless abandonment because it was clearly not seeking an egg. Then, if a female swallows, it is cannibalism. Does that seem right to you?
BigB, I explained why I am opposed to capital punishment. The reasons are not carried over to abortion.
Because of the law. the law says it is legal. I do not make the law nor enforce it. if I did the law would say any woman who had an abortion shall go to jail, and so should the doctor.
Alex, if I may. If you truly do see abortion as murder, then shouldn't women who perform illegal abortions get the death penalty or life in prison?
if one id against capital punishment then how can one be for abortion?
pajrc, people can make their own choices. What if I know someone who is going to kill another. what should I do? nothing and let them make their own choices?
We do not or should not force people not to get one because of the law, however we can advise people not to get one.
Also I have said in a previous debate people are forced to aid those who want an abortion.
That is a separate debate with vastly different parameters.
For the sake of humoring you, I am opposed to capital punishment because there is no evidence it serves as a deterrent to crime and it is less cost effective than lifetime in prison. Therefore we are paying more for no measurable benefit. It is also impossible to rectify if an innocent person has been executed.
who here is against capital punishment?
I think Dave and buff have said enough. Of you don't like abortions, don't get one. Don't encourage it. But don't think people aren't allowed to have one, because people are allowed to make their choices, as you can also.
I believe that until the fetus develops a brain, and is therefore self aware, the rights of the mother take precedence. I believe this because the mother will experience harm if her rights are ignored, while the fetus is, by definition, incapable of feeling anything until the nervous system develops. This is the view that the vast majority of the medical and scientific communities have taken, as well as that of the courts.
dave, one thing you said is correct ans overriding for our discussion on this topic, our views are radically different. that being said, while I have argued the point with evidence you dismiss, the only real evidence to counteract that is case law. the statement was made that life does not begin at conception, I disagree, the is the beginning of life. where you and I seem to differ on most poignantly is when a person is granted rights. my position is conception, the biological beginning of life? where do you say it begins? and most tellingly, why?
If there is going to be harm done no matter what, it is a doctor's duty to minimize the harm. You claim that abortion is nearly always the more harmful option, but have not produced any arguments supporting that it is more harmful to the mother. It is impossible to argue about harm to the fetus as we have already established that our views are so far apart as to break down the discussion.
We as a society do stand up for the weak in the face of oppression. The disagreement here is where that oppression is coming from. You feel that doctors and women should be prevented from performing abortions to protect the unborn children. You opponents feel that your religiously based views are oppressive to women who want the right to control their own bodies. Unfortunately for you in this case the law has sided against you.
and what about the Hippocratic oath? Do NO harm? and don't we as a society stand up for the weak? are not the unborn the weakest amongst us? do we not also have a duty to them?
You do not get to decide what is best for others. it is their right to decide what is best for them.
in rare cases, and I do stress rare, it would be damaging to the mother to have a child instead of aborting it. that leads to a very different but also equally difficult question. but to say it doea not damage the mother BOTH emotionally AND physically would be in error. there are thousands of women who have and continue to give testimony to this fact. regardless of the baby's life, an abortion will always damage the mother. how is that what is best?
You say that, but often it is the mother seeking abortion. Whether because she is not physically, financially or emotionally able to bear the child, whether because of rape or for as many reasons as there are people. To say that it unquestionably hurts the mother is to claim that you understand the intricacies of every decision to seek abortion, which I don't think you can claim.
While I will agree that it is often emotionally damaging for the mother, that doesn't mean that having the child would not be more damaging.
well said dave, we do disagree, and it is a very emotional issue that strikes at the core of who we are. thankfully more and more people are against abortion, especially among high school and college age people. that being said, I would disagree anout the science behind it. both sides hold up science to "prove" their point. more than science, it is about morals. and to historybuff, it is not about rhe health of the mother. unquestionably abortion hurts the mother, mentally and physically. this is what is especially sad, beyond the loss of the child is the harm to the mother.
Historybuff says it a bit more strongly than I would, but his points are valid. He is not saying that human life does not begin at the moment of conception, the legal system, as well as the medical and scientific community are.
I do understand where you are coming from and I understand that of you view life as starting at the moment of conception, as you have said that you do, there is no room for compromise. If you honestly believe that people are being murdered, to not speak out against it would be unconscionable. That said, please try to see it from the other viewpoint too. If human life does not begin at the moment of conception, abortion by definition is not murder. I don't mean that to cast doubt on your beliefs, but hopefully to try to encourage conversation and dialogue rather than emotional outbursts from both sides.
No. that is the good news. that most people have advanced beyond using 2000 year old mysticism that has been horribly corrupted by evil men to make their decisions in the modern world.
the sad thing is most people think I'm wrong.
we are just going in circles. luckily most people agree that that you are wrong. and it is not a real issue. I'm not totally clear on the law in the US but in Canada the supreme Court struck down anti abortion laws as unconstitutional. The health and wellbeing of the mother trumps a cluster of cells. period.
Historybuff the egg and sperm together is the life. the chicken may have some chicken cells in it, but it is no murder to eat animals. you cannot compare an animal to humans.
the difference historybuff is not the state the human is in, but the fact that it is human. we eat other animals because they are meant to be food. there is nothing in our food that can be considered sentient, unless you are a cannibal. that is the difference, humans achieve sentience, lower life forms do not.
and Alex I appreciate your zeal, but I have cracked open many eggs that have already started to develop. they are chickens, just in embryonic form.
my point exactly. and a fetus is not a human life. it is a cluster of cells. at some point that becomes a human. but trying to argue the moment of conception is a human life is just rediculous. it's an egg and a sperm at that moment. nothing more. at some point it's a life and a some point it's not. it is not a clearly defined line by very little about life is black and white. we humans live in shades of grey. this is yet another one.
a chicken egg the yoke and white are food for the baby. the eggs you have eaten do not have live chicken cells in them. only human life is precious.
Life in and of itself isn't all that precious. we eat lower animals every day. we kill plants for lots of reasons and most people agree it is necessary or right to do so. Human life is precious. we are discussing if a life is human. And a cluster of cells is not a human being. it is a cluster of cells not much different than a chicken egg. and I'd bet you've killed some of those without flinching.
Why do you get to draw the line where life exists. and say that living human cells are not life?
it does but we think we are smarter because we set the artificial constructs determining a line where none exists. life is precious, whether a gift from God or no.
My logical argument was cells are life and killing human life is murder. anyone can see that. the line for life is crossed once conception occurs. any cell is life no matter how small and helpless. forget the religion for a minute and think Science and The law. the law gives all human life equal protection under the law. even if the the human life is unborn it is still human life.
Alex all you did was spout some religious nonsense. that doesn't work in a debate. use a logical argument or prepare to be ignored and or ridiculed. And you are partially right gold. it is an extremely difficult decision to decide where the line between life and a cluster of cells is. but there is a line. and we as a society have to decide where it is. You can't paint the world as white and black. all life has meaning or none of it does. the world doesn't work that way.
logically speaking what makes more sense that no life has meaning or all life has meaning? beyond that logic becomes fallacy as we construct the rules for one life to have meaning and another to not. that is insanity. a human being with no eyes, ears, mouth, arms or legs who is a vegetable in a hospital on life support is just as useless in some minds as a single cell human. tell me, would you fight for the vegetables right to life? if not then why is any life sacred? not talking religion, just sociologically speaking.
I have told you the real reason.
Please stop just repeating yourself. you only look foolish. we have explained why it isn't murder. come up with a real reason why it is or just stop.
I would agree with you then on this one astro. It should be able exceptional event for you. if you make a mistake once then that's fine. if you're using it all the time as birth control then it is a problem.
So I can kill someone once a year and be fine. if you are raped you can put the baby up for adoption.
Depends on the circumstances. If you are raped then you should be allowed one with no questions. If it's a one time thing, fine. If it's once a year then there's a problem.
it is human life. That is a fact. all life is sacred, if it is not then it would be okay to kill people. Religion is not a sham it is the truth God has reveled to us.
gold, so a single cell, or more realistically a group of cells undetectable by the human eye in your mind is a human being? That's clearly ridiculous, if that was the case, why not stop guys from masturbating? That's millions of potential human being being killed of in one go.
There's a point where a fertilized egg becomes a human with human rights, and its not at the moment of conception.
First of all nothing is "sacred" because pretty much all organized religion is a sham. If you want to talk about religion go to a church. you cannot debate based on religion because religion isn't based on logic. Second of all it can't be a person without a brain. If it can't think, or feel then it isn't a person. it's a lump of cells. maybe those cells will be a person some day, but until then aborting those cells is not murder.
Historybuff those cells are human cells.
if life is not sacred what is? just because it cannot speak or think does not take away from its humanity. and being human it is entitled to all the rights the rest of us are. just because it is single cellular does not take its personhood away from it.
this is never an intellectual debate, if you don't know the difference between a fetus and a baby, you have a long way to go before you can even understand the complexities of this kind of debate
Yes I understand that it is living cells. But those cells do not make a person. I meant life in the human sense of the word.
the definition of life, as found by a dictionary is: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
a single celled ameba is considered alive, so why no a single cell fetus? just because it is in someone else's body does not detract from the FACT that it is still a life.
It is alive. it is made of cells only living things have cells. it is not a potential for life because it is life.
Seeing as I would never have had consciousness I don't see how I could possibly object. Never will any aborted fetus. because they aren't people. they cant be happy, or sad, or anything at all.
you didn't answer my question would you be happy if your parents decided to abort you and throw you like garbage????
It isn't a baby. it is a fetus. It doesn't have a functioning brain. it doesn't feel pain. it doesn't realize it exists and won't miss existing. you are not destroying a life. at most you are destroying the potential for life.
yes you are still killing a baby. hey historybuff i want to ask you something what do you think about if your parents decided to abort you and trow you like a piece of garbage???? its still a living thing. look im against abortion in one way but i probably accept abortion to woman that were raped. if a stupid horny teen wants to abort because she had sex without protection, well the baby doesn't have any fault.
No. Aborting a fetus is not murder. A fetus is not a person, it is a fetus. It might become a person some day. But if it doesn't reach that stage then it never was a person.
if you think killing people is wrong, them you think abortion is wrong because it is the same thing