frame
Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Abortion should be illegal in non life threatening situations

I think that, from a moral and ethical standpoint, Abortion is disgustingly wrong. It is essentially the murder of a human life for the convenience of the mother. 
It is interesting to me, when i walk around protests i see pictures of abortions, and i think, "why would they just shove these in my face?" Nobody wants to see that. However this is how people would treat pictures of slavery in the 1800's. This connection is interesting enough because the argument in favor of abortion is exactly the same as the argument for slavery, exactly the same. "Your black, your on my property, you are my property i decide if you are a life or not" , "your a fetus, your in my body, i decide if your a life or not". Do you see the correlation?  History repeats itself and it is our job, as the american people to put and end to immoral and unethical evils that time and time again find its way into legality.
I will now debunk several common pro choice arguments.

1. It is just a bundle of cells
Technically they are right, it is just a bundle of cells, however that is essentially what a human is, a bundle of cells. So i don't exactly understand what they are trying to prove here. I have seen many pregnant woman over the years and that bump is not a simple bundle of cells, it is a living breathing human being.

2.reproductive choice gives woman power over their own bodies
first of all, if you really had power over your own bodies, you wouldn't have had sex in the first place, unless you are a rape victim which i will explain later. Second, the baby is not part of your body just because it is in it, just like a person is not a slave just because they are in your property. Now back to the case of rape. Rape victims account for less than 1% of all abortions annually. That is an extremely marginal case. There are several programs to help this extremely marginal and unfortunate group (https://www.rapevictimadvocates.org/programs-services/, https://www.rainn.org/)
outside of the case of rape, abortion cases, ironically are mostly women who cant control their bodies and have irresponsible sex.

3. It is a constitutional right
contrary to the roe v wade mishap. the actual constitution does not give woman the power to kill babies (http://constitutionus.com/)



In conclusion to my opening statement, Abortion is a violation of everyone's right to live, and even though pro choice people tell you that pro choice is pro woman, abortion is the single greatest cause of female deaths annually (pew research), Feminists use the veil of gender equality to push their political agenda, defaming the original idea of feminism and calling everyone who disagrees with their ideas a sexist racist bigoted homophobic hater. Thank you and i would now like to invite my opposition, whoever it is.
billpassedtherepSnakesOfferingApplesjoecavalry1Hacker0SilverishGoldNovaaarongnorthsouthkorea
  1. I Agree with the proposition10 votes
    1. I have an alternate opinion
      60.00%
    2. I agree with the opposition
      40.00%
«1

Comments

  • edited July 31
    I agree that abortion should not be allowed unless

    The woman's life is threatened or in the case of sexual assault. EDIT - Although sexual assault is a marginal case, it is still a case nonetheless and regardless of whether there are institutions to help out victims of rape, that doesn't mean that it is guaranteed to be accessible for everyone. I shouldn't have to contact a charity foundation to be able to help a woman in my life who was raped, I should be able to walk into a hospital and offer her quick and manageable help.

    P.S -

    "Technically they are right, it is just a bundle of cells, however that is essentially what a human is, a bundle of cells. So i don't exactly understand what they are trying to prove here. I have seen many pregnant woman over the years and that bump is not a simple bundle of cells, it is a living breathing human being." 

    Quote the actual person who said this, *cough Ben Shapiro *cough

    And also, find the Pew article you are alluding to, although Pew Global research is a very reliable source, it isn't going to cut it if you just mention that you read that on a Pew article. 
  • billpassedbillpassed 59 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Abortion can't be allowed. The procedure comes at a cost at times on other tax payers and can cause pain to the baby. 

    The procedure is not humane and babies should not be killed with that execution or any other execution though of.
    JuicyMelonTech
  • @SnakesOfferingApples Rape and abortion are two different things, i think killing a baby is the worst possible solution to rape. It may be quick and effective  but  that does not justify murder.  Contacting a charity foundation is the most ethical solution available right now. Believe it or not they are quite fast and they offer help as fast as possible, i know a woman who had been raped and contacted RAINN, and they were very attentive and they helped her deliver the baby. I think we should instead find ways to prevent rape instead of finding a horrible way to deal with it
    aarong
  • @JuicyMelonTech

    First of what is fallacious about what I said? Just a question. (The button is seriously abused, you must defend your claim about my argument being fallacious.) There is a whole entire list of fallacies, I think I am justified in asking you to defend your claim

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies ;

    Now moving on to what you said - Sure prevention of rape is best, but we know for a fact that until that day comes many girls and women will fall victim to rape. And birthing the child of your rapist is not only going to cause a lot of pain, stress, mental disorders, but it is arguably a death sentence. The impregnation is so sudden that it guarantees a life of poverty and dysfunction. You could argue that they could ask help from the charities, but it is not as simple as contacting them, your personal experiences don't mean anything as you have no way to validate them. 

  • @SnakesOfferingApples it was a minor fallacy about me stealing from Ben Shapiro. Although i am familiar with him, i don't watch a lot of his debates and i think it might just be a coincidence
  • @SnakesOfferingApples ;
    "Now moving on to what you said - Sure prevention of rape is best, but we know for a fact that until that day comes many girls and women will fall victim to rape. And birthing the child of your rapist is not only going to cause a lot of pain, stress, mental disorders, but it is arguably a death sentence. The impregnation is so sudden that it guarantees a life of poverty and dysfunction. You could argue that they could ask help from the charities, but it is not as simple as contacting them, your personal experiences don't mean anything as you have no way to validate them. "

    It does not necessarily create a life of poverty, i don't know how it would impoverish anyone.  As for dysfunction i agree with you, however there are many ways to cope with this such as therapy. I personally think that rapists should be castrated or killed. Doing this would probably have a tremendous effect on the number of rapes each year. Do you agree with me on that?
  • @JuicyMelonTech

    No, you need to name the fallacy otherwise the claim you're making is invalid, I know for a fact that Ben Shapiro said something exactly like this, it is not good paraphrasing if I can trace the exact quote. I am not attacking you so it's not an ad-hominem I am attacking your actions which is perfectly valid to do.
    JuicyMelonTech
  • @JuicyMelonTech

    No, you need to name the fallacy otherwise the claim you're making is invalid, I know for a fact that Ben Shapiro said something exactly like this, it is not good paraphrasing if I can trace the exact quote. I am not attacking you so it's not an ad-hominem I am attacking your actions which is perfectly valid to do.

    To be honest, I'm fairly new to this website and i thought that the fallacy button was simply reporting little mistakes

    you said something about me needing to quote Ben Shapiro when i have never watched the debate in which he said anything close to what you told me to quote.


    "Quote the actual person who said this, *cough Ben Shapiro *cough"
    this is the fallacy in question

    i never watched that debate or speech, so its not fair to ask me to quote it



  • i have corrected my mistake and taken down the fallacy

    therep
  • Anyways, does any leftist or 3rd wave feminist dare to oppose?
  • thereptherep 51 Pts
    @JuicyMelonTech , you provided some great arguments! A "reaction" is a DebateIsland exclusive that no other Debate website has out there. A "Fallacy" is a reaction which can be used when a user is making a false argument, mistake etc. 

    Abortion is a humane, painless procedure which can be done without using tax payer money and with doing so as another option. I am for Abortions occurring upon request.
  • Itherep said:
    @JuicyMelonTech , you provided some great arguments! A "reaction" is a DebateIsland exclusive that no other Debate website has out there. A "Fallacy" is a reaction which can be used when a user is making a false argument, mistake etc. 

    Abortion is a humane, painless procedure which can be done without using tax payer money and with doing so as another option. I am for Abortions occurring upon request.
    Thanks for the help!


    the fact that it is painless does not justify it morally. 
  • @JuicyMelonTech

    That's fine, you could have kept it... it's just a personal pet peeve that if someone points out a fallacy, they should name it and prove their point, you will encounter those types of people too, and you should and have the right to put them on the spot when they call you fallacious. Welcome to the site, and happy debating. 
    JuicyMelonTech
  • edited July 31
    i would never constitute the murder of another human being "Humane". As the definition of humane is having or showing a kind of compassion. Obviously the termination of a life is not humane so i don't understand what you mean by humane

    EDIT: i forgot to include partial birth abortions, in which planned parenthood delivers the baby except for the head, Rams scissors into said head, sucks out the brains, and then sells the parts.
  • @JuicyMelonTech

    "you said something about me needing to quote Ben Shapiro when i have never watched the debate in which he said anything close to what you told me to quote.


    "Quote the actual person who said this, *cough Ben Shapiro *cough"
    this is the fallacy in question

    i never watched that debate or speech, so its not fair to ask me to quote it"

    MY RESPONSE - 

    That doesn't mean that you were justified, doing something wrong and justifying yourself by saying you had no knowledge of something is an argument from ignorance which is a fallacy, now I am not going to mark your post because I see where you are coming from, not all fallacies are invalid, anyone who thinks so is guilty of the Fallacist's fallacy.

    JuicyMelonTechjoecavalry
  • MacraeMacrae 18 Pts
    @JuicyMelonTech

    Hello, my name is Macrae and I have discovered this website just a matter of minutes ago. You are the very first individual I've reached out to. First and foremost, I would like to say that I appreciate your open and honest opinion on abortion. I have opposing stances on your argument over this specific topic. Are you interested in hearing them?
    joecavalry
  • VaulkVaulk 209 Pts
    edited August 7
    I'm of the opinion and mindset that aside from Genesis, the creation of life is exclusive to pregnancy.  I'm also of the opinion that the creation of life begins after conception.  Conception is synonymous with fertilization, regarding the egg in the Female's fallopian tubes.  So then if creation occurs upon fertilization, then the stopping of creation cannot be done after that period...it has already occurred.  Life has begun. 

    Onto rape and pregnancies that stand as fatal risk to the Mother.  I'm in agreement with most people that no one should be forced to carry the child of a rapist...there does stand however, the opposing argument for the Child. 

    Who committed the rape?  Answer: The Rapist. 
    Who is the Victim?  Answer: The Mother. 
    Who committed the abortion? Answer: The Mother
    Who is the Victim of the abortion?  Answer: The Child. 
    Is the Rapist affected by the death of the Child?  Answer: No.

    While I know it's not quite as simple as the line of questioning above, this abbreviated reasoning serves as the argument against aborting children that are the result of Rapes.  The Child certainly didn't do anything wrong but neither did the Mother.  So then why don't we weight out the consequences?

    What are the consequences for the Mother?  Answer: She endures the pregnancy or she aborts the Child and does not endure the pregnancy.
    What are the consequences for the Child?  Answer: The child lives or the child dies.

    Who is at risk of suffering the harshest consequences? 

    All of the above however, is the marginal scenario.  For some reason the argument for or against Abortion tends to circulate around this marginal case...and wrongly so.  You cannot use the tiny fraction of cases to justify the vast majority...that's not how logical reasoning works.  If we're to apply logical reasoning to this critical issue then we will need to refrain from referring to this scenario as it does no justice for the debate and at best it's intellectually dishonest.

    joecavalry
  • @vaulk , amazing points you have made in your argument!
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • The fetus isn't considered a life form before the third trimester. It is merely an extension of the mother. Therefore I support abortion before the third trimester. Also abortion shouldn't be off of taxpayers money. You get to pay for your own abortion, unless its rape.
  • VaulkVaulk 209 Pts
    @1Hacker0, I agree entirely that Abortion should never cost the taxpayers a cent unless it's in the case of Rape.  I would have no issue if a fraction of my taxes were taken to support safe and healthy alternatives to Rape Pregnancies (Abortion).  However the idea that a fetus isn't considered a life form before the third trimester is exactly as you say it is, "Considered".  This term is indicative that the idea is not a fact, it is merely a belief.  So we're stuck at the impass of two or more beliefs which contradict each other.  Now I for one believe that everyone's belief (No matter how ideal or contrary it is to my own) deserves to be heard and considered...but I also believe that if we're going to agree as a Nation as to what something ought to be then we're going to have to take it out of the hands of those who are making these choices.  Government should not choose what ought to be, the people should.
    1Hacker0
  • @Vaulk Good point;this is more of a moral argument.

    I personally think in a moral standpoint, that abortion is good before the second trimester. The fetus can't think before a certain point or even feel pain. If the fetus doesn't care then why should we?
  • VaulkVaulk 209 Pts
    edited August 8
    @1Hacker0, This is a good point, I agree that the issue is of a moral nature.  While we have different standpoints I'm glad other people can see that it's not so cut and dry on the matter of life.  The answer to your question though:
    1Hacker0 said:
    The fetus can't think before a certain point or even feel pain. If the fetus doesn't care then why should we?
    I don't personally believe that our Moral fiber is dependent upon whether or not a potential victim cares or is concerned with something that happens to them.  While a grown Woman can't really be compared to a fetus...if she's raped and doesn't care that she was raped...we still exact justice against the perpetrator.  Morality is not dependent upon a victim's standpoint, while we do take into consideration how the victim might feel and it is in fact a attributed variable, I don't believe that the victim's personal feelings can influence whether or not something is immoral. 

    Consider "Pulling the plug".  When a loved one is no longer mentally viable, cannot think or feel for themselves due to any number of Medical issues that plague older people on their deathbed, we as the Family have to consider terminating the remaining biological mass.  If how the loved one feels or thinks is no longer a variable in the issue...why then is it still a moral dilemma to make the choice of halting life support?  Now I've never had to endure this process myself however, it doesn't take much imagination to see that there would undoubtedly be an issue of morality in the decision.  "Is it the right thing to do"?

    Likewise with a fetus, as I've stated before, creation (In my honest opinion) begins at the point fertilization.  So let me pose a question, (EDIT) "Is it possible to kill a fetus"?
  • @Vaulk

    If the victim doesn't care if she was raped, then would it count as rape? It's only rape if the victim didn't have consent. But if the victim doesn't care, then it isn't rape. She just has indifference. Your point with pulling the plug does make sense to me. If the sick person can't think right, then he shouldn't be able to make decisions.

    However, I think it is different when it comes to fetuses. It isn't that fetuses don't care about their lives. It's that they can't care. Just like your hand can't care about its life. Your hand doesn't have the same rights as a person. Just like your hand, a fetus is just an extension. Which is why I think it starts having rights, when it can start thinking and feeling.
  • 1Hacker0 said:
    @Vaulk

    If the victim doesn't care if she was raped, then would it count as rape? It's only rape if the victim didn't have consent. But if the victim doesn't care, then it isn't rape. She just has indifference. Your point with pulling the plug does make sense to me. If the sick person can't think right, then he shouldn't be able to make decisions.

    However, I think it is different when it comes to fetuses. It isn't that fetuses don't care about their lives. It's that they can't care. Just like your hand can't care about its life. Your hand doesn't have the same rights as a person. Just like your hand, a fetus is just an extension. Which is why I think it starts having rights, when it can start thinking and feeling.
    A fetus is a living human being, does your hand have brainwaves? They don't care about their lives the same way a six year old doesn't care about taxes, they are not experienced outside of the womb, its not that they can't care or that they don't care, it's that it doesn't care yet. It's obviously a life, it is not an extension, or a body part, it's a living breathing human being. You cannot say that it is not a life because it's not developed enough, it is not a hand, a hand is part of you, fetuses are not body parts, they are lives, you cannot kill it based on preference
  • 1Hacker01Hacker0 78 Pts
    edited August 9
    @JuicyMelonTech Read my earlier argument. The fetus doesn't have brain waves before the second trimester. They don't have a mind. A six year old can think and feel. If fetuses are given rights, then why not sperm cells? Sperm cells do not have a mind either, but eventually they will start to care about their lives too, just like a fetus. One of them is just in an earlier development stage.

    If abortion is murder, then ejaculation is genocide.

    Snippet from my earlier argument: I personally think in a moral standpoint, that abortion is good before the second trimester. The fetus can't think before a certain point or even feel pain.
  • 1Hacker0 said:
    @JuicyMelonTech Read my earlier argument. The fetus doesn't have brain waves before the second trimester. They don't have a mind. A six year old can think and feel. If fetuses are given rights, then why not sperm cells? Sperm cells do not have a mind either, but eventually they will start to care about their lives too, just like a fetus. One of them is just in an earlier development stage.

    If abortion is murder, then ejaculation is genocide.

    Snippet from my earlier argument: I personally think in a moral standpoint, that abortion is good before the second trimester. The fetus can't think before a certain point or even feel pain.
    Sperm cells, are once again not fetuses.
    Would you kill a person in a coma, knowing he or she would wake up in a couple of weeks? It is still the killing of a potential life. The fetus can't think, or feel pain, would you take away it's chances of experiencing those things? 

  • @JuicyMelonTech Fetuses are not humans : sperm cells are not fetuses. Fetuses matter because they have potential life : sperm cells matter because they have potential life. Fetuses matter because they will become humans : sperm cells matter because they will become fetuses. 

    A person in a coma has a mind which is unconscious. A fetus doesn't have a mind, just like any other body part. During a coma the person still has peripheral brain activity.

    Please answer this question: At what specific point does life begin?
  • 1Hacker0 said:
    @JuicyMelonTech Fetuses are not humans : sperm cells are not fetuses. Fetuses matter because they have potential life : sperm cells matter because they have potential life. Fetuses matter because they will become humans : sperm cells matter because they will become fetuses. 

    A person in a coma has a mind which is unconscious. A fetus doesn't have a mind, just like any other body part. During a coma the person still has peripheral brain activity.

    Please answer this question: At what specific point does life begin?
    Fetuses are Fertilised with sperm cells, sperm cells are not potential lives themselves, but fetuses are. Fetuses are unborn children, no matter how early on in their Growth they are, if sperm cells were lives themselves then a life would begin every time someone masturbates.


    To answer your question

    Life begins at conception.
    Upon fertilization, a human individual is created with a unique genetic identity that remains unchanged throughout his or her life. This individual has a fundamental right to life, which must be protected. 
  • VaulkVaulk 209 Pts
    @1Hacker0, I still have to pose the unanswered question:  "Is it possible to kill a Fetus"?
    northsouthkorea
  • @vaulk, there may be many way she to damage or kill a human or animal fetus. That may be in it's  state asbestos it wasn't or more less developed state.
  • VaulkVaulk 209 Pts
    @northsouthkorea & @1Hacker0 ,

    The point I'm making is that if it's possible to kill a fetus then it's alive, if something's alive then killing it is to end its life.
  • 1Hacker01Hacker0 78 Pts
    edited August 11
    @Vaulk Sorry I didn't answer.

    I think a fetus is always alive even when it is a sperm cell. Same thing with bacteria, animals, plants, etc. The reason I think a fetus doesn't matter is since it doesn't have a mind just like a sperm cell, smallpox, ebola, plants, eggs, etc.
  • @JuicyMelonTech The dictionary definition of potential: "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future".

    A sperm cell has and shows the capacity to become and develop into something in the future. Therefore if a fetus matters since it is a potential human, a sperm cell matters since it is a potential human. Of course a sperm cell has a slim chance of becoming a humans, but it still has the capacity.

    I agree with your masturbation example. Just because you masturbate doesn't mean you committed genocide, but the reason for that is because abortion isn't a murder. 

    To clear things up: "If abortion is murder, then ejaculation is genocide," but since abortion isn't murder, ejaculation isn't genocide.

    Thx for answering my question. 
  • 1Hacker0 said:
    @JuicyMelonTech The dictionary definition of potential: "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future".

    A sperm cell has and shows the capacity to become and develop into something in the future. Therefore if a fetus matters since it is a potential human, a sperm cell matters since it is a potential human. Of course a sperm cell has a slim chance of becoming a humans, but it still has the capacity.

    I agree with your masturbation example. Just because you masturbate doesn't mean you committed genocide, but the reason for that is because abortion isn't a murder. 

    To clear things up: "If abortion is murder, then ejaculation is genocide," but since abortion isn't murder, ejaculation isn't genocide.

    Thx for answering my question. 
    Well fetuses are not just liquid bundles of cells, sperm cells by themselves will never have a nervous system, while even fetuses as early as two weeks have some sort of precursor to the central nervous system called the neural tube. Although this is nowhere near a central nervous system, it is where it is formed and serves as a "first draft" of the Central nervous system. A sperm cell does not develop by itself, while a fetus does. A fetus is an unborn child, a sperm cell is a potential fertilization tool. A sperm cell is not a potential life itself, rather it is a tool in making one. This is why I believe that abortion is not moral or ethically possible unless the mothers life is in danger. 

    P.S 
    Thanks for being so rational, you are a rarity on the left, as most on the left turn to add hominem attacks. I think this is the sort of debates that should happen in the political scene, an exchange of ideas and facts, thanks for showcasing the best of the left.
  • VaulkVaulk 209 Pts
    edited August 12
    @1Hacker0, Agreed.

    I think the difference that we're not acknowledging is that sperm cells are sacrificial by nature and fetuses are not.  It's within the realm of the natural that the vast majority of sperm cells will die within the body and be reabsorbed.  It's also natural that the majority of sperm cells will die after being ejaculated into the vaginal canal.  The difference to note between sperm cells and fetuses in this debate is that it is natural that sperm cells die without ever having served a purpose necessarily but it is not natural that a fetus be intentionally killed.  Masturbation is healthy for the male reproductive system in most cases and refusal to ejaculate regularly can actually cause severe health problems for Men.  The killing of a fetus however, with the exception of the marginal cases where the fetus poses a fatal risk to the Mother, is not a healthy process.

    1Hacker0 said:
    @Vaulk Sorry I didn't answer.

    I think a fetus is always alive even when it is a sperm cell. Same thing with bacteria, animals, plants, etc. The reason I think a fetus doesn't matter is since it doesn't have a mind just like a sperm cell, smallpox, ebola, plants, eggs, etc.

    I agree that Sperm Cells are alive, however there is a distinction to note between Sperm Cells and Fetuses and that is that a fetus is the result of the conjoining of Sperm Cells and the Egg while Sperm Cells are the living seed.  To say that Sperm are alive and so are Fetuses but sperm can be indirectly killed without thought and therefor so can fetuses is an unfair comparison.  On a scientific level, yes the two elements indeed have life and are alive.  On a reproductive level, the sperm cells are constantly being shed and killed just as a woman's unfertilized eggs are constantly being grown and then die if not fertilized.  Essentially, and this may be an entirely new debate, a Man's Sperm Cell is a living creature in the same way a Woman's Egg is a living creature.  Both are shed and die naturally through direct and indirect actions but the question of morality is not and should not be imposed in this matter.  It's a matter of what simply is.

    The fetus however, is another life form above the Sperm Cell and Egg, it is a classification of life after the embryo stage.  Take note that an embryo is defined as a Human offspring in this context.  If a fertilized Human egg is an embryo and an embryo is a Human Offspring and a fetus is a class of Human Life identified by its surpassing of the embryo stage...then I personally arrive at the logical reasoning that abortion of a fetus is the killing of a Human Offspring.  An Offspring is:

    "A person's child or children".
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/embryo
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fetus
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/offspring





  • I'd like to disucss this issue from a somewhat different angle.

    Theoritically, the personel who has the authority over the mother's body is the mother herself, and that is what

    a reproductive right is.

    And as such, there should be no other player than the mother that can make decision over whether or not to abort.

    I feel something very ill about the idea of killing a fetus too, but even so, what can be the justification of intervening it when there is no other subject involved on legal terms?(Of course a fetus cannot exercise their rights)

  • rorelie12 said:

    I'd like to disucss this issue from a somewhat different angle.

    Theoritically, the personel who has the authority over the mother's body is the mother herself, and that is what

    a reproductive right is.

    And as such, there should be no other player than the mother that can make decision over whether or not to abort.

    I feel something very ill about the idea of killing a fetus too, but even so, what can be the justification of intervening it when there is no other subject involved on legal terms?(Of course a fetus cannot exercise their rights)

    First off, its not the mothers body, its the fetus itself, you do not get to govern other lives, or potential lives just because it is inside something you own.
    Can hotel owners kill loud guests? There is no justification for murder, No one gets to choose whats a life or what is not. No one cares about your appendix, no one cares about your hair, because those are part of your body, they are not independent lives. after abortion, you  must ask what comes next? will mothers get to abort already born babies? Will lives be deposable? We must keep a moral standard, and not try to justify what is so obviously murder. 


    Also you said what can be the justification of intervening, this is true? why intervene and kill the baby. 
    1Hacker0rorelie12
  • @JuicyMelonTech

    What I meant by the authority of mother's body is this:

    even if abortion is morally wrong, and probably it is so, you need something more to actually intervene and stop it, as intervening involves enforcement on the control of mother's body. If it's not punishable,(because seemingly it lacks the neccesary authority) attempts to deter abortion might not be as effective as it is desired to be.

    Plus, on legal terms, a fetus is not considered to own a right. that'll be another issue. As you've been discussing, at what stage can a fetus legally be considered as a man? This I shall deal with another time if possible.

    About the example of a hotel owner killing his/her host, while in a hotel there's a contract between a hotel owner and host and an owner is obliged to provide a necessary service for the host in return for the fee but there's none between a mother and a fetus.

  • VaulkVaulk 209 Pts
    @rorelie12,
    rorelie12 said:

    I'd like to disucss this issue from a somewhat different angle.

    Theoritically, the personel who has the authority over the mother's body is the mother herself, and that is what

    a reproductive right is.

    And as such, there should be no other player than the mother that can make decision over whether or not to abort.

    I feel something very ill about the idea of killing a fetus too, but even so, what can be the justification of intervening it when there is no other subject involved on legal terms?(Of course a fetus cannot exercise their rights)


    You've made a very logical argument here however, I believe that your argument is built upon the premise that a "Reproductive right" is simply the Mother's choice on whether or not the want to have an abortion. 

    I'll offer this as argument: "Reproduction" (In the case for Humans) is the production of offspring by a sexual process.  How then can the "Reproductive rights" of a Woman extend past the sexual process and into the realm of choosing whether or not to kill an offspring?  The answer is that it simply cannot.  Choosing to kill an offspring has nothing to do with reproduction because at the point where a Woman makes that choice...production by sexual process has been completed.  There is nothing in nature that involves a production process that can be halted by a means of reproductive control once it has been completed.  Once reproduction has occurred then any halting of the resulting offspring's life is not a matter of reproduction, it's a matter of killing the product before it's fully matured.  Just because an offspring has not fully matured or been birthed, does not mean that reproduction has not occurred.  The idea that a Human child must exit the Human Mother in order for reproduction to have occurred is absurd, it is a life form, if you can kill it then it is in possession of life.  If it is living, then killing it is not reproductive control.  Reproductive rights of the Mother involve the choice of when, how and with whom they want to reproduce.  Once reproduction has occurred...then reproductive rights have been exercised and are no longer a variable of subsequent choices regarding the life of the offspring.

    And lastly to answer your question:
    rorelie12 said:
    I feel something very ill about the idea of killing a fetus too, but even so, what can be the justification of intervening it when there is no other subject involved on legal terms?(Of course a fetus cannot exercise their rights)
    The justification of intervening on behalf of the offspring when there is no other subject involved on legal terms is simply this: The laws of our land (Speaking of the U.S.A. exclusively) in regards to intervening are not determinant upon the lack of a party to protest an action.  In layman's terms: Our laws don't require that someone take issue with an action before intervention can occur. 

    It is of the belief of "Pro-Life" advocates that living offspring do have a right to life and that the choice to kill them is not simply a matter of the "Mother's reproductive rights".


  • Vaulk said: 

    I'll offer this as argument: "Reproduction" (In the case for Humans) is the production of offspring by a sexual process.  How then can the "Reproductive rights" of a Woman extend past the sexual process and into the realm of choosing whether or not to kill an offspring?  The answer is that it simply cannot.  Choosing to kill an offspring has nothing to do with reproduction because at the point where a Woman makes that choice...production by sexual process has been completed.  There is nothing in nature that involves a production process that can be halted by a means of reproductive control once it has been completed.  Once reproduction has occurred then any halting of the resulting offspring's life is not a matter of reproduction, it's a matter of killing the product before it's fully matured.  Just because an offspring has not fully matured or been birthed, does not mean that reproduction has not occurred.  The idea that a Human child must exit the Human Mother in order for reproduction to have occurred is absurd, it is a life form, if you can kill it then it is in possession of life.  If it is living, then killing it is not reproductive control.  Reproductive rights of the Mother involve the choice of when, how and with whom they want to reproduce.  Once reproduction has occurred...then reproductive rights have been exercised and are no longer a variable of subsequent choices regarding the life of the offspring.





    @Vaulk

    Thanks for your reply. I'm layman in the field, so I simply appreciate your supplementing me.

    About the points mentioned in your comment, my answer will be two-folded.

    (a): reproduction is not a single sexual process but is a long series of social, as well as physical, acts. A mother needs to carry a baby and parents owe the huge responsibity of rearing up after a baby is born until s/he becomes an adult.(which can cost huge funds for their education and other reasons.) So I don't think reproduction is confined to a sexual process, which is a very significant moment in reproduction, though. I think reproduction is too wide a concept for a sexual intercourse to be taken as a base of consent in reproduction.

    (b):Reproduction is not the sole purpose of sexual intercourse. Perhaps it might be better in some culture zones that it is so, but many people have a sexual relationship without clear intention of havig a baby. It is morally incumbent on couples to avoid unintended pregnancy, but in reality it is the case that some women get pregnant without having intended so.

    So, my argument in response to yours is this: Reprduction is not confined to a sexual act that creates embrio, but is a broader concepts that have a close relationship with couples' socio-economic status. Therefore, it is difficult in assuming such a sexual act as "the exercise of reproduction right(and as an implicit consent to it.)"

  • VaulkVaulk 209 Pts
    edited August 13
    @rorelie12,

    Well said, I'm afraid we might have to agree to disagree though.  While I can see that in certain contexts reproduction can refer to and mean different things, when talking about reproductive rights we're talking about the literal meaning of the term.

    Reproduction: The production of offspring by a sexual or asexual process.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reproduction

    The reasoning for this is that in the debate of abortion and whether it's right or wrong the argument has nothing to do with what happens after the child is born.  Therefor child rearing and education costs don't come into play.  The abortion debate is heavily centered around reproduction as the production of offspring by a sexual process.  So within the context of the debate I would contest that reproduction is confined to the definition as accepted by the oxford dictionary.  I can respect people's personal understandings of words but if we're to allow personal preferences to influence the meanings of terminology in debate then we'd never arrive at a solution to anything.


  • Vaulk said:
    @rorelie12,

    Well said, I'm afraid we might have to agree to disagree though.  While I can see that in certain contexts reproduction can refer to and mean different things, when talking about reproductive rights we're talking about the literal meaning of the term.

    Reproduction: The production of offspring by a sexual or asexual process.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reproduction

    The reasoning for this is that in the debate of abortion and whether it's right or wrong the argument has nothing to do with what happens after the child is born.  Therefor child rearing and education costs don't come into play.  The abortion debate is heavily centered around reproduction as the production of offspring by a sexual process.  So within the context of the debate I would contest that reproduction is confined to the definition as accepted by the oxford dictionary.  I can respect people's personal understandings of words but if we're to allow personal preferences to influence the meanings of terminology in debate then we'd never arrive at a solution to anything.


           Okay, it's desirble that we share a certain understanding so our debate won't go astray, especially on the Intenrnet foram like this where we cannot afford time to examine each word we use. That said, my personal opinion when I opened this page was that for the argument to be not only coherent and easy to understand, but meaningful and even helpful in tackling the issue, the scope of what we understood by "reproduction" needed to be expanded to capture more closely how a couple is led to abort.(for example, poverty is sometimes a big motive for abortion). But if that's just misleading, plz forget it.

         But, even so I still think what I said in the argument (B) still holds because it says the sexual act is not necesarily considered as an act of reproduction. Given that many couples have a sexual relationship with a clear intention toward reproduction, such an act itself does not neccesarily count as an exercise of reproductuon rights.(If any pregnancy were the result of a deliberate decison, no couple would abort after all.)

    JuicyMelonTech
  • @rorelie12

    Sorry,minor collection:

    "Given that many couples have a sexual relationship with a clear intention toward reproduction"

    →Given that many couples have a sexual relationship without a clear intention toward reproduction

    JuicyMelonTech
  • edited August 13
    rorelie12 said:
    Vaulk said:
    @rorelie12,

    Well said, I'm afraid we might have to agree to disagree though.  While I can see that in certain contexts reproduction can refer to and mean different things, when talking about reproductive rights we're talking about the literal meaning of the term.

    Reproduction: The production of offspring by a sexual or asexual process.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reproduction

    The reasoning for this is that in the debate of abortion and whether it's right or wrong the argument has nothing to do with what happens after the child is born.  Therefor child rearing and education costs don't come into play.  The abortion debate is heavily centered around reproduction as the production of offspring by a sexual process.  So within the context of the debate I would contest that reproduction is confined to the definition as accepted by the oxford dictionary.  I can respect people's personal understandings of words but if we're to allow personal preferences to influence the meanings of terminology in debate then we'd never arrive at a solution to anything.


           Okay, it's desirble that we share a certain understanding so our debate won't go astray, especially on the Intenrnet foram like this where we cannot afford time to examine each word we use. That said, my personal opinion when I opened this page was that for the argument to be not only coherent and easy to understand, but meaningful and even helpful in tackling the issue, the scope of what we understood by "reproduction" needed to be expanded to capture more closely how a couple is led to abort.(for example, poverty is sometimes a big motive for abortion). But if that's just misleading, plz forget it.

         But, even so I still think what I said in the argument (B) still holds because it says the sexual act is not necesarily considered as an act of reproduction. Given that many couples have a sexual relationship with a clear intention toward reproduction, such an act itself does not neccesarily count as an exercise of reproductuon rights.(If any pregnancy were the result of a deliberate decison, no couple would abort after all.)

    At the moment when a human sperm penetrates a human ovum, or egg, generally in the upper portion of the Fallopian Tube, a new entity comes into existence. "Zygote" is the name of the first cell formed at conception, the earliest developmental stage of the human embryo, followed by the "Morula" and "Blastocyst" stages. So the sexual act is an act of reproduction, If it was not, then the male would use a condom.
    yes many couples have a sexual relationship but most of them use some form of birth control. If the couple does not use some form of birth control, then they are irresponsible and must deal with the consequences, i am glad you agree that abortion is morally wrong, because it is essentially the murder of a fetus or unborn child, however you also stated that the mothers "reproductive right" usurps all the rights of the child, which is a logical fallacy 

    are you stating that no pregnancy is the result of a deliberate decision? This is a logical fallacy.
  • @JuicyMelonTech

    >no pregnancy is the result of a deliberate decision? This is a logical fallacy.

    that's totally opposite to what I said.

    I said, no couple would abort if any pregnancy were the result of deliberate decision. You can paraphrase this "not  every pregnancy is the result of deliberate decision," which I actually said, but your intepretation is not logically correct.

    Plus, I said that in response to Vaulk's view of "when a reproductive right has been exercised," in other words, what constitutes the exercise of reproductive rights. According to Vaulk, reproduction rights have been exercised when a couple has had a sexual act(unless I misintepret Vaulk) and that's what I was questioning.

    Put differently, what I was talking about was whether a sexual intercourse is binding enough to assume that the couple has exercised their reproduction rights. I thought not.

    Roughly speaking, responsibility arises when there's an intention(or a motive) toward an act. When we punish someone, we punish the motive behind an act. And, I was skeptical to the view that an unintended act counts as the exercise of a right. Usually, exercising a right is something a lot more intentional and planned.

          

  • @JuicyMelonTech

    >no pregnancy is the result of a deliberate decision? This is a logical fallacy.

    that's totally opposite to what I said.

    I said, no couple would abort if any pregnancy were the result of deliberate decision. You can paraphrase this "not  every pregnancy is the result of deliberate decision," which I actually said, but your intepretation is not logically correct.

    Plus, I said that in response to Vaulk's view of "when a reproductive right has been exercised," in other words, what constitutes the exercise of reproductive rights. According to Vaulk, reproduction rights have been exercised when a couple has had a sexual act(unless I misintepret Vaulk) and that's what I was questioning.

    Put differently, what I was talking about was whether a sexual intercourse is binding enough to assume that the couple has exercised their reproduction rights. I thought not.

    Roughly speaking, responsibility arises when there's an intention(or a motive) toward an act. When we punish someone, we punish the motive behind an act. And, I was skeptical to the view that an unintended act counts as the exercise of a right. Usually, exercising a right is something a lot more intentional and planned.

          

  • @JuicyMelonTech

    >no pregnancy is the result of a deliberate decision? This is a logical fallacy.

    that's totally opposite to what I said.

    I said, no couple would abort if any pregnancy were the result of deliberate decision. You can paraphrase this "not  every pregnancy is the result of deliberate decision," which I actually said, but your intepretation is not logically correct.

    Plus, I said that in response to Vaulk's view of "when a reproductive right has been exercised," in other words, what constitutes the exercise of reproductive rights. According to Vaulk, reproduction rights have been exercised when a couple has had a sexual act(unless I misintepret Vaulk) and that's what I was questioning.

    Put differently, what I was talking about was whether a sexual intercourse is binding enough to assume that the couple has exercised their reproduction rights. I thought not.

    Roughly speaking, responsibility arises when there's an intention(or a motive) toward an act. When we punish someone, we punish the motive behind an act. And, I was skeptical to the view that an unintended act counts as the exercise of a right. Usually, exercising a right is something a lot more intentional and planned.

          

  • 1Hacker01Hacker0 78 Pts
    edited August 14
    @Vaulk Agreed. fetuses aren't sacrificial in nature. But I think that in some cases our intellect has brought us to know that there are tings more important than what is meant to happen. For example, it wasn't meant to be that we would get stabbed on our arm so that bacteria infect us, but we know now that it is a healthy process which we named vaccination. So morally speaking I would say that aborting a fetus isn't wrong.

    Your quote:
    "I think the difference that we're not acknowledging is that sperm cells are sacrificial by nature and fetuses are not.  It's within the realm of the natural that the vast majority of sperm cells will die within the body and be reabsorbed.  It's also natural that the majority of sperm cells will die after being ejaculated into the vaginal canal.  The difference to note between sperm cells and fetuses in this debate is that it is natural that sperm cells die without ever having served a purpose necessarily but it is not natural that a fetus be intentionally killed."

    It is natural for everything to die eventually. On the broader scale, nature will eventually absorb our bodies. Sperm cells do serve a purpose. They use safety in numbers so that one of them could enter. They also provide greater genetic variation. And like you said, they also provide health benefits when masturbating. Of course that would imply that I think murder is OK as well, but that is why I use my "having a mind argument".
  • @JuicyMelonTech Thx. I used to consider myself as left, but not anymore. Nowadays people on the left have become way too radical, and irrational.

    Back to the arg. I do not think that having a neural precursor, is the same thing as having a mind. Having a neural precursor doesn't allow you to think and feeI. If something with a neural precursor matters, then something with a "neural precursor" precursor also matters. Also the neural tube doesn't form right after the fetus has formed, like you said: 
    "...while even fetuses as early as two weeks have some sort of precursor to the central nervous system called the neural tube."
    That means that it doesn't explain why the fetus should matter right after conception.

    your quote:
    "A sperm cell is not a potential life itself, rather it is a tool in making one."
    Since the sperm cell is a tool, it needs to be able to operate on something to create the fetus then. That would be the egg, in which case there would still be potential humans dying since
    "a woman's unfertilized eggs are constantly being grown and then die if not fertilized."

    You also made an argument that a sperm cell cannot become a human by itself, unlike the fetus. But the fetus also can't become a human by itself. It needs the mother's body to grow. If we used this logic then abortion would be moral before the third trimester. The fetus has a mind at the second trimester so I do not agree with this, but I am just using it as an argument.
  • 1Hacker0 said:
    @JuicyMelonTech Thx. I used to consider myself as left, but not anymore. Nowadays people on the left have become way too radical, and irrational.

    Back to the arg. I do not think that having a neural precursor, is the same thing as having a mind. Having a neural precursor doesn't allow you to think and feeI. If something with a neural precursor matters, then something with a "neural precursor" precursor also matters. Also the neural tube doesn't form right after the fetus has formed, like you said: 
    "...while even fetuses as early as two weeks have some sort of precursor to the central nervous system called the neural tube."
    That means that it doesn't explain why the fetus should matter right after conception.

    your quote:
    "A sperm cell is not a potential life itself, rather it is a tool in making one."
    Since the sperm cell is a tool, it needs to be able to operate on something to create the fetus then. That would be the egg, in which case there would still be potential humans dying since
    "a woman's unfertilized eggs are constantly being grown and then die if not fertilized."

    You also made an argument that a sperm cell cannot become a human by itself, unlike the fetus. But the fetus also can't become a human by itself. It needs the mother's body to grow. If we used this logic then abortion would be moral before the third trimester. The fetus has a mind at the second trimester so I do not agree with this, but I am just using it as an argument.
    @1Hacker0 ;
    i have a couple of refutations to you, and other pro choice advocates on this debate:

    1. We can abort a fetus before he or she feels pain. We agree that fetuses are less developed than we are. But should we kill them because they are so? People in their sleep, on anesthesia, or with certain health conditions don’t feel pain. Can we kill them? Why does level of development determine value?

    2. When the baby is born, they are now a person. Since when does location determine value? Am I worth more inside a house than I am outside on the lawn? There are many pro-abortion advocates who believe we should value the baby in the womb — but only at a certain age. So which is it? Inside or outside of the womb? Why does environment determine value?

    3. Before a baby reaches viability, they can be aborted. Does degree of dependency  determine value? Infants are completely dependent on others for sustenance. Can we kill them because they are dependent on us? Why does viability outside the womb determine value? 

    Morally speaking, there is no difference in value between a zygote and an adult. There is no distinction between a person and a human being. The pro-abortion industry uses the personhood argument because science has proven beyond all doubt that zygotes are members of the human race. So pro-abortion advocates like yourself had to come up with some other reason to kill unborn babies that wasn’t based on science. They made arbitrary (and frequently changing) definitions of personhood in order to advance their abortion agenda. Don’t get caught in that trap. In the words of the immortal Dr. Seuss, “A person is a person no matter how small.”


    P.S it took me forever to learn how to turn on italics LOL

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch