I'm Pro-Life | Persuade Me - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

I'm Pro-Life | Persuade Me
in Politics

By DylanDylan 52 Pts
As you can see from the title, I'm Pro-Life when it comes to the topic of abortion. I think this would be an interesting topic to bring up with the new abortion ban in Alabama so I decided to make this. I'm open to having my mind changed, so go for it. 
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • Can you be persuaded? Are you genuinely willing to listen to arguments or not? 

    It's been my experience that most people starting threads like this one just want to plaster their opinion everywhere but are not actually willing to listen... 
    ZeusAres42OppolzerZombieguy1987
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • ApplesauceApplesauce 240 Pts
    @Dylan

    just like I have said in similar threads when is it a baby and or when is it human

    Murder is generally frowned upon and or illegal

    if you believe at conception a human is made/created whatever and you are Pro-life you should not change your mind absent proof that a life/human is not created at conception.

    and since there is no clear definition of when life/human beings (yet) the issue will never be resolved.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • DylanDylan 52 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen I am open willing to have my mind changed, I actually used to be Pro-Choice myself but my mind was changed and my stance is now different. 

    @Applesauce I believe the only logically consistent train of thought is that life begins at conception. Because of this, I believe you should not have the right to end that life with the exception of extreme cases such as the mothers health being at risk.  
  • ApplesauceApplesauce 240 Pts
    Dylan said:
    @Plaffelvohfen I am open willing to have my mind changed, I actually used to be Pro-Choice myself but my mind was changed and my stance is now different. 

    @Applesauce I believe the only logically consistent train of thought is that life begins at conception. Because of this, I believe you should not have the right to end that life with the exception of extreme cases such as the mothers health being at risk.  
    that is a logical and consistent belief for someone who is Pro-life, so the only possible way to change your mind would to prove that life does not being at conception, which I don't believe is possible.  What happens at conception is a unique event/life/thing is formed (call it what you will) it is alive because it can die or be killed there is NO question or argument about that.  What you have to define or prove to change someone's mind is what is being killed and that is the issue for which everything else will be solved.
    Abortion is just a nicer term and makes people feel better than kill, though kill is more accurate imo.
    Dylan
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • DylanDylan 52 Pts
    @Applesauce So we agree then? Just from my experience, most people that are Pro-Abortion or Pro-Choice can't exactly pinpoint what they believe constitutes a human life or when it is or isn't okay to kill it. I've yet to hear anything when they try to define what constitutes a human life that is logically consistent, it typically has holes in the train of logic which leads to uncertainty. I believe that life begins at conception because that specifically is when a new unique genetic code is formed that creates an unique individual human being, trying to pinpoint exactly when that fetus/baby becomes a human life that you can't kill anytime AFTER conception has always led to an idea that just simply isn't logically consistent from my experience.That's why I'm here wanting to hear the rationale behind that stance and possibly be persuaded to an extent in the process. 
  • ApplesauceApplesauce 240 Pts
    @Dylan

    tbh I'm not sure where I draw the line exactly, I totally oppose late term for any non life threatening reasons.
    what ever is created at the time of conception is a live there can be no argument against that so that's not even something that can be argued.
    the argument is defining what it is.  It has unique chromosomes, dna, whatever all of which are human and nothing else.  If only humans have human dna then it must be human most likely because we do know what it's not, it's not cancer cells, it's distinctly different than the woman so this claim that it's part of her isn't accurate, it's dependent and attached to her but to claim it is no different than any other part of her is just not factual.  They only way to create conception is by fertilization of an egg from 2 humans, if grown to gestation it's always a human baby, it's never a puppy or a reptile.
    so yeah the sticking point is the definition, everything else is irrelevant pretty much.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • DylanDylan 52 Pts
    @Applesauce See, that's what I mean when I say that trying to determine what constitutes a human life at any point after conception isn't logically consistent. When I first changed my mind, I was mostly just against late term abortions in particular as well. However, I began to realize that there were holes in my train of logic. Why did I draw the line at late term abortion specifically? At what point specifically does it become NOT okay to kill that baby? I was unable to come up with a logically consistent answer for that and eventually came to the conclusion that it can only be conception that defines a human life  because that's the only point when a new unique genetic code is created that forms a separate individual. 
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1769 Pts
    If a creature can sustain itself independently, then its life is sacred; if it requires someone else's body to feed on to survive, then its life is secondary to the wishes of the body owner.

    Whether the creature is technically a human or not is not very relevant. Something being a human does not mean it is free to feed on another human as a vampire without the latter's consent.

    I do not see any holes in this rationale. I do see a lot of holes in an unconscious fetus being given the same rights as regular humans, however.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 435 Pts
    I don't like the terms pro-life or pro-choice which I think just create ever more polarization. As I've said before, the idea of abortion rests on a multitude of ethical and moral dilemmas with many different individual circumstances.

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • DylanDylan 52 Pts
    @MayCaesar I don't want to misrepresent you, so allow me to clarify. Your basis for determining what constitutes a life is the ability to sustain itself independently? Well if that's the case, babies aren't actually capable of properly sustaining themselves independently for a very long time after birth. They are entirely reliant on their mother or someone else for years whether it's inside or outside of the womb. Also, what about people on life support? They are entirely dependent on a machine for their own survival even though they aren't really conscious much like a baby is completely reliant on their mother for survival. Does this make them any less of a life than anyone else? I don't think so and I don't believe that is a logically consistent train of thought for determining what defines a human life that you can't kill, which is why (again) I believe the only logically consistent train of that is that life begins at conception since that is when a new unique genetic code is created that forms a new separate individual from everyone else. 

    @ZeusAres42 I was just using the term "Pro-Life" to clarify my stance that I am against abortion with the exception of extreme cases such as the mothers health being at risk. I've stated my views and for the most part my reasoning behind why I have taken that stance. 
    ZeusAres42Applesauce
  • DylanDylan 52 Pts
    edited May 16
    @MayCaesar I've already stated that I can understand it if the mothers health is at risk, I'm sure we all can. But other than that, I don't believe it's acceptable to do it for convenience purposes. I'm personally adopted, my birth parents allowed my grandparents to adopt me because they were more capable of raising me than they were and could give me an overall better upbringing and life. They didn't have to resort to killing me because it was inconvenient for them and I think that's how it should be. 
    Applesauce
  • I don't like the terms pro-life or pro-choice which I think just create ever more polarization. As I've said before, the idea of abortion rests on a multitude of ethical and moral dilemmas with many different individual circumstances.
    I'd agree that pro-life is a peculiar choice of words, unless you're a Jain that is...  ;) 

    Pro-choice on the other hand is clearly my position, there's no valid reason to frame it otherwise... I'm in favor of choice, nothing else... 

    You're absolutely right that the issue rests on a multitude of ethical and moral dilemmas, and that's the very reason why, no one but the pregnant woman, can deal with them... When personally faced with an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy, it's almost like the trolley problem, any choice will have consequences and only the one at the switch CAN make the choice, no one else can...
    ZeusAres42
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • ApplesauceApplesauce 240 Pts
    MayCaesar said:
    If a creature can sustain itself independently, then its life is sacred; if it requires someone else's body to feed on to survive, then its life is secondary to the wishes of the body owner.

    Whether the creature is technically a human or not is not very relevant. Something being a human does not mean it is free to feed on another human as a vampire without the latter's consent.

    I do not see any holes in this rationale. I do see a lot of holes in an unconscious fetus being given the same rights as regular humans, however.
    so a child's life isn't sacred until it can sustain itself independently, it can't feed or prepare food for itself thus needs and able bodied person to do it, unless that person feels like letting it starve to death.
    What about a person in a coma? or in a similar state?  people who are paralyzed, their lives aren't sacred?

    a baby that is cut apart, alive, that feels pain, a woman's feelings are worth more than preventing that death and suffering, that is truly barbaric.
    Dylan
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • ApplesauceApplesauce 240 Pts
    I don't like the terms pro-life or pro-choice which I think just create ever more polarization. As I've said before, the idea of abortion rests on a multitude of ethical and moral dilemmas with many different individual circumstances.
    one is accurate the other is not
    Pro-life is accurate so the opposite would be Pro-death, which is what the end result goal of "choice" actually is just like the end goal of Pro-life is life.
    I disagree, the issue is simpler than people make it out to be.  They complicate it to avoid facing the reality of what it is, they are afraid to face the truth.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • DylanDylan 52 Pts
    edited May 16
    @Plaffelvohfen A woman does not get to choose to murder a baby because she deems having one inconvenient, especially when she willingly chose to have unprotected sex knowing it could result in her getting pregnant. Ultimately, it comes down to defining what constitutes a life that you cannot kill. I believe conception is the only logically consistent train of thought in that regard therefore I don't think you should be able to kill it inside or outside of the womb just like you can't kill anyone else. As previously stated, I can understand it in extreme cases such as the mothers health being at risk or rape which only account for less than 1% of all abortions. 

    It's not about trying to "take away the woman's right to choose", it's about not allowing the murder of a baby for someone's own convenience.

    https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
    Applesauce
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 565 Pts
    edited May 17
    Dylan said:
    @Plaffelvohfen A woman does not get to choose to murder a baby because she deems having one inconvenient when she willingly chose to have unprotected sex knowing it could result in her getting pregnant. Ultimately, it comes down to defining what constitutes a life that you cannot kill. I believe conception is the only logically consistent train of thought in that regard therefore I don't think you should be able to kill it inside or outside of the womb. As previously stated, I can understand it in extreme cases such as the mothers health being at risk or rape which only account for less than 1% of all abortions. 

    https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
    A few problems in there...

    1: It's not "Baby" it's "Fetus"... Like a caterpillar is not a butterfly...
    2: You can only murder a person, fetuses are not persons... Though this may well change in the US if the Christian Talibans have their way...
    3: The mere possibility of something happening while doing X is irrelevant... People have sex for the sake of having sex, even protected accidents happens, that's also life, happens... I highly doubt anyone in history purposefully got pregnant just to get a kick out of aborting later, or cheered and giggled when faced with this decision...

    I can grant that life begins at conception, but then all living things die and procreating is effectively creating an inevitable death too... We could argue about the value of life itself but wouldn't that be purely philosophical? The government has no business in regulating philosophies, right? Freedom of thought and all, right?

    The reason why the government can and must enforce laws against murder of members of their society is because murder of a member is disruptive to society, and that's the sole purpose of the Law and the government, to insure order in society... Not because it's ultimately right or ultimately wrong, governments don't deal in what's right or wrong, philosophy does and therefore faith too, but both philosophy and faith are personal in ways no other things are, right? You wouldn't want the government to impose a particular belief on you right? 

    So the only valid rationale for being against the right to abortion, from a government stand point, would be to try and demonstrate factually, that abortion is disruptive to society, how it is so, in what ways and to which extent compared to other disruptive occurrences... 

    Then there might be grounds for something... Otherwise, it's a private matter between the pregnant woman and her own conscience or her god if she fancies one, no one else... And for that very same reason, you're perfectly justified in your stance about abortion (for yourself), as I am in mine...
    CYDdhartaApplesauce
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1769 Pts
    @Dylan

    I do not see the practical ability to sustain oneself without anyone's help as relevant here. What's important is whether the creature needs to feed on someone else's body to do so. A child that has already been born needs only external resources and no longer feeds on the woman's organism.

    Consider a fantasy world in which vampires exist and need to feed on people's blood to survive. They cannot survive otherwise; would it, in your view, justify prohibiting people from employing self-defense when attacked by a vampire? I would think not. It is the same here; abortion is nothing more or less than plain self-defense.

    Killing a child that has already been born would not have anything to do with self-defense, however; it would be murder. Letting the child starve, but not actively attacking it - that is a more complicated matter, and strongly depends on the dominant societal norms. A society in which doing so is legal is not absolutely impossible, although pretty difficult to imagine given our history.
    PlaffelvohfenApplesauce
  • John_C_87John_C_87 204 Pts
    Dylan said:
    As you can see from the title, I'm Pro-Life when it comes to the topic of abortion. I think this would be an interesting topic to bring up with the new abortion ban in Alabama so I decided to make this. I'm open to having my mind changed, so go for it. 

    How well do you think? Convince me you are not in favor of slavery?
  • John_C_87John_C_87 204 Pts
    Alabama may be addressing legal precedent in the admission of guilt shared as United State with all woman by legislating Pregnancy abortion.
  • DylanDylan 52 Pts
    edited May 17
    Dylan said:
    @Plaffelvohfen A woman does not get to choose to murder a baby because she deems having one inconvenient when she willingly chose to have unprotected sex knowing it could result in her getting pregnant. Ultimately, it comes down to defining what constitutes a life that you cannot kill. I believe conception is the only logically consistent train of thought in that regard therefore I don't think you should be able to kill it inside or outside of the womb. As previously stated, I can understand it in extreme cases such as the mothers health being at risk or rape which only account for less than 1% of all abortions. 

    https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
    A few problems in there...

    1: It's not "Baby" it's "Fetus"... Like a caterpillar is not a butterfly...
    2: You can only murder a person, fetuses are not persons... Though this may well change in the US if the Christian Talibans have their way...
    3: The mere possibility of something happening while doing X is irrelevant... People have sex for the sake of having sex, even protected accidents happens, that's also life, happens... I highly doubt anyone in history purposefully got pregnant just to get a kick out of aborting later, or cheered and giggled when faced with this decision...

    I can grant that life begins at conception, but then all living things die and procreating is effectively creating an inevitable death too... We could argue about the value of life itself but wouldn't that be purely philosophical? The government has no business in regulating philosophies, right? Freedom of thought and all, right?

    The reason why the government can and must enforce laws against murder of members of their society is because murder of a member is disruptive to society, and that's the sole purpose of the Law and the government, to insure order in society... Not because it's ultimately right or ultimately wrong, governments don't deal in what's right or wrong, philosophy does and therefore faith too, but both philosophy and faith are personal in ways no other things are, right? You wouldn't want the government to impose a particular belief on you right? 

    So the only valid rationale for being against the right to abortion, from a government stand point, would be to try and demonstrate factually, that abortion is disruptive to society, how it is so, in what ways and to which extent compared to other disruptive occurrences... 

    Then there might be grounds for something... Otherwise, it's a private matter between the pregnant woman and her own conscience or her god if she fancies one, no one else... And for that very same reason, you're perfectly justified in your stance about abortion (for yourself), as I am in mine...

     A fetus is just a baby that hasn't been born yet, it's still a baby but that term is just used for when it hasn't been born yet. But I want to ask you, if a fetus is not a person then what do you believe constitutes a life that you cannot kill? At what point during pregnancy or after birth do you believe it is no longer okay to kill that baby? That's what I base my stance on, I believe the only logically consistent idea for determining that is that life begins at conception. And because I believe that's where life starts, you cannot kill it just like you can't kill anyone else. 


    MayCaesar said:
    @Dylan

    I do not see the practical ability to sustain oneself without anyone's help as relevant here. What's important is whether the creature needs to feed on someone else's body to do so. A child that has already been born needs only external resources and no longer feeds on the woman's organism.

    Consider a fantasy world in which vampires exist and need to feed on people's blood to survive. They cannot survive otherwise; would it, in your view, justify prohibiting people from employing self-defense when attacked by a vampire? I would think not. It is the same here; abortion is nothing more or less than plain self-defense.

    Killing a child that has already been born would not have anything to do with self-defense, however; it would be murder. Letting the child starve, but not actively attacking it - that is a more complicated matter, and strongly depends on the dominant societal norms. A society in which doing so is legal is not absolutely impossible, although pretty difficult to imagine given our history.

    Again, I don't want to misrepresent you. So I'd like to ask you to clarify, when you do believe it is no longer okay to kill a fetus/baby? At what point during or after pregnancy does that baby become a life that you cannot kill? Also, almost all cases of abortion are most certainly not "plain self-defense". Less than 1% of all abortions are due to the mothers health being at risk, rape, incest, or other cases such as that. Almost all people have abortions because they just don't feel like having to deal with a kid, they can't afford raising one, they're done having kids, or they don't feel like they're ready for one despite deciding they're mature enough to have sex. There is almost always an alternative that doesn't include killing the baby such as adoption. 

    https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
  • @Dylan
    A fetus is just a baby that hasn't been born yet, it's still a baby but that term is just used for when it hasn't been born yet. 
    There's a reason why the term "fetus" exist otherwise it would not exist, calling it a "baby" is just an appeal to emotion in this debate...
     But I want to ask you, if a fetus is not a person then what do you believe constitutes a life that you cannot kill? At what point during pregnancy or after birth do you believe it is no longer okay to kill that baby? That's what I base my stance on, I believe the only logically consistent idea for determining that is that life begins at conception. And because I believe that's where life starts, you cannot kill it just like you can't kill anyone else.
    You want my opinion? It will be just as good as any other opinion, it won't be an argument, just a personal opinion but ok... 

    On life, my opinion is that yes, technically "life" begins at conception, I have no problem with that... Now, at what point during pregnancy can we proceed with an abortion? At any point really, the sooner the better but at any point before actual birth is fine with me...  I personally would not have one, or it would certainly bother me a lot to be faced with this decision... Late term abortion are very sad things, and doing our best to reduce those occurrences is a noble goal. But the best way to rightfully reduce those numbers is by facilitating early term abortions and by educating the population... If you deny early access to abortion procedures, (like in many southern states) you are in fact increasing the occurrences of late term ones, those bureaucratic hurdles are responsible for those late term abortions...

    Now, you're asking for AFTER birth too???? Seriously??? Ok.... Once a fetus is out of the uterus, we're not talking about abortion anymore... Postpartum abortion is not a thing... So after birth it would be murder in my opinion...

    You know, there's nothing wrong with being against abortion, I don't see why you would want to change your opinion on this... You can dislike it as hard as you want, the choice is yours alone... Likewise my utter disdain for religion is my sole prerogative, I have every right to despise religion, as long as I don't force this belief on others and do not act toward restricting others rights to believe in any god... Now, if we're talking abort the right for a government to ban the procedure, it's another matter... 

    Deciding to abort or not, is a matter between you and your own conscience or your god if you fancy one, no one else... The same way I cannot legislate which god, one has a right to believe in... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1769 Pts
    @Dylan ;

    Once the baby is out of the woman's body, it is no longer a parasite, it is an independent creature. At that point, obviously, getting rid of it constitutes a murder. Any moment before that, abortion is self-defense.The exact reasons for choosing to undergo abortion do not really matter; what matters is that the person has the freedom to choose, because they own their body in its entirety and are not obliged to put up with anything that damages it, even if temporarily and reversibly. Those who oppose abortion are free to not undergo one on their own body, but they really have no say in what other people do with theirs.


    @Applesauce

    A person in coma is already a citizen with full rights. You cannot choose against their desire to terminate their life - although, I suppose, you can choose to stop using resources to maintain it, unless you have signed some sort of contract with that person stating otherwise.

    A mosquito also has feelings and feels pain, yet I do not think you will hesitate for a moment before killing one that is feeding on your blood. Something having feelings does not suddenly make that something an exempt from the general rules.
    DylanCYDdharta
  • DylanDylan 52 Pts
    @MayCaesar So now your basis for determining when it isn't okay to kill it is location? A few inches through the birth canal? There is no difference between a baby the day before birth and the day after it was born, the only thing you could consider a "difference" is that one moved a few inches through the birth canal.. It's just that one hasn't been born yet. Does that really make them any less of a person or individual that's okay to kill? I would have to strongly disagree with the notion. Also, the point is that it's not the woman's body. It's a separate autonomous human being that you shouldn't have the right to kill unless under extreme circumstances that genuinely put the mother at risk like I mentioned before that account for LESS than 1% of all abortions, it's not at all a matter of "self-defense" as you put it. The reason for having an abortion is very much so relevant in this discussion simply because it's a matter of ending someone else's life, you can't just do that on a whim because you don't feel like dealing with them just like you can't do that to anyone else. 

    @Plaffelvohfen Calling it a baby is not an appeal to emotion fallacy, it's just not using a euphemism. All I was asking was for you to pinpoint when you think it's no longer okay to kill it, and you seem to have the same opinion on that as the person above so just read what I said to him. If we can both agree that conception is what constitutes a life like you said, then that should be the end of the discussion because you can't take the life of another human being. 
  • @Dylan
    If we can both agree that conception is what constitutes a life like you said, then that should be the end of the discussion because you can't take the life of another human being. 
    That is factually false as governments take human life on a regular basis...  If you argue that there are exceptions, then I'd argue that abortion is one of those exceptions too... 

    See, I don't like abortions, I don't cheer and dance when an abortion is performed, bottom line is it's not ANYONE's choice but the pregnant woman's... It's a matter between her and her own conscience or her god if she believe in one, no one else... 
    Dylan
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • ApplesauceApplesauce 240 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    A mosquito also has feelings and feels pain, yet I do not think you will hesitate for a moment before killing one that is feeding on your blood. Something having feelings does not suddenly make that something an exempt from the general rules.

    proof that mosquito's have feelings and feels pain?
    a woman's body is designed to accommodate, protect and grow the baby, this claim it's a parasite is laughable, show me another organism that is designed to carry, create and grows it's own parasite.

    Any moment before that, abortion is self-defense.

    give me any real definition of self-defense that could apply, actual self-defense arguments use to protect one's self from death.

    because they own their body in its entirety

    show me proof that the baby is the woman's property

    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • DylanDylan 52 Pts
    @MayCaesar So now your basis for determining when it is and isn't okay to kill them is location? There is no difference between a baby the day before and after it's born, the only thing you could consider a "difference" is that one traveled a few inches through the birth canal and one didn't. Would a baby that was born prematurely be considered more of a life than a baby that was a little older but still in the womb simply because it was born first? I would have to strongly disagree with that notion. Also, I think that the reason for choosing to undergo an abortion is very much so relevant. The point is that it's a separate autonomous human being that you should not have the right to kill on a whim just because you don't feel like having to deal with them just like you can't kill anyone else period. Abortion is not at all "self-defense" as you put it, the only cases where the mothers health is genuinely at risk and they need to do it for their own self preservation account for LESS than 1% of all abortions. 

    @Plaffelvohfen Calling it a baby is not an appeal to emotion fallacy, it's just not using an euphemism. I was just simply asking you to pinpoint when you think it is no longer okay to kill the baby, and it seems that you have a similar opinion to the person above so read what I said to them. If we can agree that life begins at conception like you said, then that should be the end of the discussion because you can't take the life of another human being.   
  • DylanDylan 52 Pts
    edited May 17
    @Plaffelvohfen I think there's a difference between killing an unborn baby and someone that committed a murder, that was then was judged to be put to death because of their actions. That's an entirely different discussion. 
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1769 Pts
    @Applesauce

    What proof do you need? You are welcome to read the papers on the subject; all insects have nervous systems and experience feelings.

    The "baby" is not the woman's property, but everything that is within the woman's body is her property, just like everything that is in your body is your property. If your body is not your property, then you are a slave to the state, and this is not in the spirit of our Constitution.


    @Dylan ;

    The location is not as relevant as what the creature is doing. To me, here what is relevant is that the creature inside is feeding on the woman's body, hence, in the interest of preserving her body, she is free to do with the creature whatever she feels like. Everything else, such as whether the creature is autonomous or what reason the woman might have to get rid of it, is beside the point I am making.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • DylanDylan 52 Pts
    @MayCaesar I was quoting you, you said that "once it's outside of the body, it's not longer a parasite" that you can't kill. That means your basis for determining it is indeed location, just a few inches through the birth canal unless I misunderstood what you said. That's why I said "Would a baby that was born prematurely be considered more of a life that you can't kill than a baby that's older but still in the womb simply because it was born first? I would have to strongly disagree with that notion". Yes, the baby is still feeding on the mother while it's still in the womb but that doesn't make them any less of a life that you should have the right to end since the only difference between the two is literally that one of them traveled a few inches through the birth canal and one didn't. The fetus has to feed on the mother while it's still in the womb because that's their only means of getting any food or other nutrients, while if they were outside of the womb that would not be the case which is evident considering a prematurely born baby can feed outside of a womb through different means while a baby that's even older that's still inside of the womb only has the umbilical cord to give them anything.  They're still their own human being that you shouldn't be able to kill with the exception of extreme circumstances that almost never happen like I mentioned which (again) account for less than 1% of all abortions.   
    Applesauce
  • @Dylan

    That's an appeal to exception if your premise states that taking a human life is wrong... 

    This is your formal argument, correct?

    1) It is wrong to kill innocent human beings.
    2) Fetuses are innocent human beings.
    ______________________________
    3) Therefore, it is wrong to kill fetuses.

    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DylanDylan 52 Pts
    edited May 17
    @Plaffelvohfen Yes, I believe that fetuses are innocent individuals you should not have the right to kill unless absolutely necessary due to extreme abnormal cases like the mothers health being at risk which (again) accounts for less than 1% of all abortions. Do you see a problem with that? 
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 435 Pts
    I don't like the terms pro-life or pro-choice which I think just create ever more polarization. As I've said before, the idea of abortion rests on a multitude of ethical and moral dilemmas with many different individual circumstances.
    one is accurate the other is not
    Pro-life is accurate so the opposite would be Pro-death, which is what the end result goal of "choice" actually is just like the end goal of Pro-life is life.
    I disagree, the issue is simpler than people make it out to be.  They complicate it to avoid facing the reality of what it is, they are afraid to face the truth.
    I often witness two extremes of the pro-choice vs pro-life. I guess for me in a sense you could say that I am pro-choice in that I choose not outright subscribe to either dichotomous viewpoints.

    One the one hand you have those of the pro-life position framing all abortion as murder and then on the other, you have those on the pro-choice that think late-term abortion is perfectly acceptable simply because they feel like pregnancy is becoming a burden and that a baby would be an inconvenience. Between these two extremes, I think we can find rational, reasonable and civil grounds and engage in discussion the most appropriate courses of action dependent upon each individual case and their circumstances.
    DylanPlaffelvohfen

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • @Dylan

    Ok then I'll argue that the plausibility of the premises rest on an equivocation on the term ‘human being’:

    1) Human in the genetic sense = being a member of the biological species homo sapien.
    This includes not only functioning children and adults, but also includes fetuses (even very early fetuses) and living human bodies without functioning brains (e.g. those in irreversible comas).

    And,
     
    2) Human in the moral sense = being a full-fledged member of the moral community. The moral community is the set of beings with moral agency, and consists of all and only persons

    If ‘human being’ has the same sense in both premises then one of them is question-begging.  Either the argument assumes that it is wrong to kill something merely because it is homo sapien, or the argument assumes that a fetus is a member of the moral community.  Both of these claims are contentious...

    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DylanDylan 52 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen What exactly is the point you're trying to make? You know what my stance is here from my previous replies, I just think you shouldn't be able to kill another person without proper justification. In this case regarding abortion, that would mean the mothers health being at risk (god I sound like a broken record here) which only accounts for less than 1% of all abortions. 
  • John_C_87John_C_87 204 Pts
    @Dylan ;

    @Plaffelvohfen What exactly is the point you're trying to make? You know what my stance is here from my previous replies, I just think you shouldn't be able to kill another person without proper justification.

    Justification or alibi? In either case Roe Vs Wade describes Privacy lost by the admission of Pregnancy Abortion.

    You do not address the United state by it's complete state of the union made on all Female Pregnancy. Two things must take place with all pregnancy. 

    1. A woman lengthens a life, or as many eight lives in basic principle.

    2. An alien non resident of the United States crosses a border entering America. Legally or illegally. 
    In tune with impartiality a juror can never be allowed to know the nature of the illegal entry into the united states of America, Nor can they know there is a Capital punishment made by the nature of return to origin nation in deportation process.

    I agree a woman should not need bear a burden like this alone without the United States Constitutional right of all woman are created equal.

  • DylanDylan 52 Pts
    @John_C_87 In that regard, I mean justification. An example being that the mother's health is genuinely at risk because of it and can't give birth to the baby, other than that I don't see many cases where I would consider it okay to have an abortion. 
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 565 Pts
    edited May 18
    @Dylan

    My point is that it does not follow that it's wrong to kill fetuses based on those premises... 

    But ok, consider this other anti-abortion argument: 

    (1) All fetuses are persons.
    (2) Every person has a right to life.
    (3) Therefore, every fetus has a right to life.
    (4) Therefore, abortion is wrong.

    For argument sake and against my own beliefs, I'll assume that 1 and 2 are true and I'll argue that (4) does not follow from (3).  From the fact that something has “a right to life” it does not follow that it is wrong to kill it.  This much is easy to see, since most of us agree that it is not wrong to kill in self-defense.

    This suggests that (4) needs to be qualified “except to save the life of the mother”. But the gap between (3) and (4) is much wider than this.  Along these lines, there is the notion of bodily autonomy, and that this might outweigh the fetuses right to life.  (Notice that this does not assume that the fetus is literally part of the mother’s body). 

    True, anti-abortionist can simply respond that the right to life is the strongest and most fundamental right there is, and so outweighs the mother’s right to decide what happens to her body.

    But here I won't even argue that the mother’s right over her own body outweighs the fetuses right to life. I'll argue that many opponents of abortion have (incorrectly) assumed that it is always and everywhere wrong to kill innocent people, and once understood correctly, it will be seen that (4) does not follow from (3).

    I'll use Judith Jarvis Thomson argument from analogy (This is an argument of the form “Action X has properties A, B, and C. Action Y has properties A and B.Therefore, Action Y has property C.” In the case of the ethics property C is often “is morally permissible.” If you object to the conclusion of an argument from analogy, you must show how the cases are relevantly different. It is not OK to say “one case is unrealistic” unless you explain how this is relevant to the morality of the case.)

    So,  suppose that the society of music lovers has kidnapped you and connected you via IV to a sick violinist. The violinist took no part in your kidnapping, and in fact would never have approved of it. If you stay attached to the sick violinist for nine months, he will live; if you detach before nine months, he will die. Here is the argument:

    Premise: The violinist is an innocent person with a right to life. You did not consent to be hooked up to him. You could save his life by staying attached to him. If you unplug yourself from the violinist, he will die.
    Premise: (Supposition) A fetus resulting from rape is an innocent person with a right to life. You did not consent to have him/her in your body. If you have an abortion, the fetus will die.
    Premise: It is morally OK to disconnect from the violinist. 
    Conclusion 1 : So, it is morally OK to have an abortion in the case of rape.
    Conclusion 2 : So, it is sometimes morally OK to kill innocent people with a right to life. The right to life does NOT guarantee the “right not to be killed.”

    This argument is intended to show two different things: (1) that abortion is morally OK in the case of rape and (2) that the prolife argument presented above fails. 

    There is no easy way for the anti-abortion argument to be amended to account for this.  Saying that those who are products of rape have no right to life or have less of one “has a rather unpleasant sound” (meaning it is discriminatory in a bad way), not to mention it is ad hoc.

    The solution is not that certain fetuses have less of a right to life or none at all; the solution is that having a right to life simply does not entail having the right to someone else’s body.  This means that the argument is invalid; the conclusion (4) does not follow from the premises.

    So what does the right to life consist in?  One suggestion:

    (a) the right to be given at least the bare minimum one needs for continued life.
    Objection:  Sometimes the bare minimum is something you have no right to. (Violinist example).

    (b) the right not to be killed
    Objection:  Sometimes you can be killed by being deprived of something you have no right to.  (Also, there is self-defense)

    We can thus conclude that the right to life guarantees only the right not to be arbitrarily killed.   

    WHEN DOES THE RIGHT TO LIFE APPLY?

    This is an argument intended to show that the right to life does NOT guarantee the right to the resources we need to live.

    Premise 1: Even if Johnny Depp could save my life merely by touching my forehead, he would not be murdering me if he failed to do so.
    Premise 2: If it were very easy for Johnny Depp to touch my forehead, he would have some (weak) obligation to do so. If it were very difficult for him to do so (if he lived far away, for instance), he would have NO obligation to do so.
    Conclusion 1: My right to life does not mean that people are required to give me the things I need to live.
    Conclusion 2: We have SOME obligation to be “good Samaritans” and to give others the things they need to live. However, this is a fairly weak moral requirement, and failing to do so does not mean that one has committed “murder” or that one has violated an innocent’s person “right to life.”

    On the basis of these  arguments, we can conclude that the morality of abortion may vary somewhat on a case-to-case basis. For example, it would (most likely) be morally wrong to have an abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy in order to be free to travel to Europe. It would (most likely) be morally OK to have an abortion in the first trimester if the pregnancy would be very difficult (health-wise, career-wise, etc.) for the woman. In neither case, however, would having an abortion be akin to “murdering” a person. 

    We can also note two significant differences between this position and some more common pro choice positions:

    1. This position does not entail that abortion is always morally acceptable. 

    2. This position does not allow for the mother to secure the death of the fetus if there is some way to save the fetus without cost to the mother. The death of the fetus is an unintended necessary side-effect of abortion, but is not a legitimate goal of abortion. Were it possible to remove a fetus without killing it, then there would be no valid reason to kill it...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DylanDylan 52 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen ;

    I've already stated I can understand it for cases such as rape or the mother's health legitimately being at risk, but again those account for less than 1% of all abortion cases. It sounds like you would support abortion regardless of rape or any of the aforementioned things so why bring it up? It's taking an almost nonexistent marginal case to make a point and applying it to all cases, which is not the discussion I'm trying to have at the moment.

    My stance is simple. I believe life begins at conception, and because I belief a fetus is a life you should not be able to kill without proper justification such as the aforementioned cases. I don't believe you should be able to have an abortion just because you think it will be hard or you feel like you aren't ready despite deeming yourself mature enough to have sex knowing what it could lead to when there are always alternatives that don't include abortion such as adoption or giving the child to someone that may actually want them. In short: I don't think abortion should be your birth control.

  • If you are prolife conservative, you: Support the death penalty, are prowar, nosey as ****, beleive in forcing traumatized rape victims, to give birth, are opposed to healthcare rights, support torture, oppose social safety nets such as welfare, and value money over people. Congratulations, hypocrite, for NOT being CONSISTANTLY prolife. Have a very nice day.
    DylanApplesauce
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1769 Pts
    @Dylan

    Location in this case correlates with the determinant of whether killing the creature is fine or not, but it in itself is not the determinant. Whether it was born prematurely or not, again, is not relevant to my argument; what is relevant is whether the creature is actively feeding on the mother's body, or not.

    Whether this creature is deserving of life in itself or not is secondary to the freedoms of the creature it is parasiting on, which is the mother.

    I am just expressing how I see it, and explaining why my position is self-consistent. You do not have to agree with me, but you cannot deny that my position is well thought-out and lacks any obvious holes.
  • billbatardbillbatard 127 Pts
    i don't support abortion honestly , i just don't  support it being illegal, it isn't any of my business  OR YOURS!!
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • ApplesauceApplesauce 240 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    What proof do you need? You are welcome to read the papers on the subject; all insects have nervous systems and experience feelings.

    it's your claim insects have feelings, it's your burden of proof not mine to disprove, this comparison of any mammal to an insect is a fallacy at best.

    The "baby" is not the woman's property, but everything that is within the woman's body is her property, just like everything that is in your body is your property. If your body is not your property, then you are a slave to the state, and this is not in the spirit of our Constitution.

    if it's not her property than it's a separate thing?  what is it?  What is a thing that has unique human dna, human heart and brain waves?
    you can not use lethal force to protect your property so whether your body is your property or not isn't relevant in the context of someone else's life.
    how is a baby the day before the due date killed in utero?  do you know the procedure?

    if you made the argument that if the woman no longer wanted to be attached to the baby that the baby should just be taken out, that's one thing, but killing the baby first isn't necessary is it, in fact it would be removed alive and then given to someone who wants it.  justify killing the baby if you can as I don't find it necessary when the gestational age has been long enough where it could easily survive outside the womb.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • ApplesauceApplesauce 240 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

    I would say this, all murders end in death, not all deaths are murder, thus I didn't use the word murder
    all successful abortions end in death, that's all I'm saying, it's accurate and correct, just people people don't like the term because it makes them feel bad isn't relevant.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • ApplesauceApplesauce 240 Pts
    @Dylan

    John is correct and all these arguments for pro death aren't what Roe v. Wade is about.  The ruling is about privacy and not having to admit that an abortion occurred, that's all it is about.  it does not say that abortion is legal, a right or any such thing.  There are certain criteria needed to determine if a crime has been committed based on an investigation.  The ruling basically prevents an investigation and disclosure for the criteria, which isn't the same thing as saying it's legal.
    Read John_C_87  posts when he use words like admission, alibi and similar, though much is difficult to understand due to the translation into English from whatever his native language is, I believe he is correct in the interpretation of the law, case.  It's consistent with other discussions on the ruling as well.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • DeeDee 637 Pts
    edited May 18
    @Applesauce

    You say...... all successful abortions end in death, that's all I'm saying, it's accurate and correct, just people people don't like the term because it makes them feel bad isn't relevant.


    My reply .....Yes that’s true , so if you wish to be consistent and you accept that abortion is the murder of a baby do you want women who abort given life imprisonment as the murder of a baby is in most societies given the harshest prison  sentences? 


    Also do you want a woman who aborts to have any other of her other children put into care ? Again to be consistent you couldn’t have a mother who’s a child murderer look after children could you?


    Finally if a woman who is raped and is convicted of the murder of the rapists child through abortion and is charged and given serious jail time would you think it fair the rapist gets less jail time than a baby murderer?


    All these problems will now arise in the throughly backward state of Alabama 

  • ApplesauceApplesauce 240 Pts
    edited May 18
    Dee said:
    @Applesauce

    You say...... all successful abortions end in death, that's all I'm saying, it's accurate and correct, just people people don't like the term because it makes them feel bad isn't relevant.


    My reply .....Yes that’s true , so if you wish to be consistent and you accept that abortion is the murder of a baby do you want women who abort given life imprisonment as the murder of a baby is in most societies given the harshest prison  sentences? 


    Also do you want a woman who aborts to have any other of her other children put into care ? Again to be consistent you couldn’t have a mother who’s a child murderer look after children could you?


    Finally if a woman who is raped and is convicted of the murder of the rapists child through abortion and is charged and given serious jail time would you think it fair the rapist gets less jail time than a baby murderer?


    All these problems will now arise in the throughly backward state of Alabama 

    I've never addressed or commented on whether or not I believe there should be punishment.  Also I use the word IF for a reason, if it is a baby and you kill it how is it not murder?  We have to be able to agree on terms which is why these conversations end up all over the place, with misunderstandings and misinterpretations.  If you believe an intentional death can be purposefully caused any time before birth we have no common ground and there is no point in attempting to create a dialog or exchange ideas because I totally oppose that.  As I have said many times and no ever really answers or can justify, if the gestational age is such that removal from the woman would still allow it a very good chance at survival, why kill it first?

    The woman doesn't want to be pregnant, removal of the baby accomplishes that, so how do you justify killing it first, seems like an unnecessary step, a cruel and barbaric one actually.  What is the point or need to kill it first?

    From what I have heard and understand these laws do not punish the woman but rather punishes the person who actually preforms them, much like not punishing the drug user but punishing the dealer, manufacturer.

    If you believe babies are innocent, shouldn't be killed etc then how they are conceived is irrelevant as they didn't chose how they because alive
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • John_C_87John_C_87 204 Pts
    Dylan said:
    @John_C_87 In that regard, I mean justification. An example being that the mother's health is genuinely at risk because of it and can't give birth to the baby, other than that I don't see many cases where I would consider it okay to have an abortion. 
    i don't support abortion honestly , i just don't  support it being illegal, it isn't any of my business  OR YOURS!!

    It is every person's problem the moment woman had been voted into the Congressional Armed Civil Service. Congress and woman then placed all woman into a united state which set all woman as created equal before united states constitution. This also is the justification in declaration a united state on basic principle of admission is not acceptable.

    At no point have all woman been proven to in truth have complete control of pregnancy. In truth the only area woman has a majority of control is in the decision of how pregnancy might take place.


  • John_C_87John_C_87 204 Pts
    So one thing can be held clear. Female specific amputation is a republic united state which places all woman as equal by their necessity of pregnancy termination. The question of why addressed by the admission no longer needing to explain as united state. A woman by act of Congress now has a legal burden to defend the United State of Constitution on behalf of the general welfare.

    State of then union address:

    Rape is not a facture in any litigation of the accusation of murder. The use of lethal force by induction into Armed Services is set on the basic principle illegal or legal entry into the united states. These two basic separations set a legal ground that can be monitored for abuse that is clear and easier to interpret for judicial governing as a united State.
  • DylanDylan 52 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen ;

    I've already stated I can understand it for cases such as rape or the mother's health legitimately being at risk, but again those account for less than 1% of all abortion cases. It sounds like you would support abortion regardless of rape or any of the aforementioned things so why bring it up? It's taking an almost nonexistent marginal case to make a point and applying it to all cases, which is not the discussion I'm trying to have at the moment.

    My stance is simple. I believe life begins at conception, and because I belief a fetus is a life you should not be able to kill without proper justification such as the aforementioned cases. I don't believe you should be able to have an abortion just because you think it will be hard or you feel like you aren't ready despite deeming yourself mature enough to have sex knowing what it could lead to when there are always alternatives that don't include abortion such as adoption or giving the child to someone that may actually want them. In short: I don't think abortion should be your birth control. 

  • DylanDylan 52 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen ;

    I've already stated I can understand it for cases such as rape or the mother's health legitimately being at risk, but again those account for less than 1% of all abortion cases. It sounds like you would support abortion regardless of rape or any of the aforementioned things so why bring it up? It's taking an almost nonexistent marginal case to make a point and applying it to all cases, which is not the discussion I'm trying to have at the moment.

    My stance is simple. I believe life begins at conception, and because I belief a fetus is a life you should not be able to kill it without proper justification such as the aforementioned cases. I don't believe you should be able to have an abortion just because you think it will be hard or you feel like you aren't ready despite deeming yourself mature enough to have sex knowing what it could lead to when there are always alternatives that don't include abortion such as adoption or giving the child to someone that may actually want them. In short: I don't think abortion should be your birth control. 


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 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
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch