Should Abortion be a Woman’s Choice? - 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!

Should Abortion be a Woman’s Choice?
in Politics

By PaulettePaulette 2 Pts edited May 26
Abortion should be the woman's choice. I want to know different opinions
KristinEmbly
«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 1348 Pts
    In some ways yes and in other ways no. The right to do what one wants with one's own body does not extend to be able to do what one wants to do with their body at the expense of others. If that is the way human rights worked then we might as well grant female suicidal terrorists to blow themselves up in public places because after all, it is their body isn't?
    DavidKashlinskyAlofRIGlorfindeljoselo09111PlaffelvohfenSkepticalOne









  • edited May 17

    The use of fetal tissue is federally funded

    Planned Parenthood receives over a third of its money in government grants and contracts (about $528 million 

     fibroblast cells are in vaccinations and the mixing of blood or human body parts is an occult practice.

    The national institute for health and research states plainly on their site that any aborted baby is the dismemberment of a living person.

    So you're asserting murder should be a choice for a women who couldn't keep her legs closed?

    So she's not only a 

    But a murderer too

    No wonder her choices are so

    Evil she's a evil little 


    It doesn't matter what you say it's not your choice to kill a child your suppose to be the mother of. Good thing those women go to hell for a fact!

    ZeusAres42Happy_KillbotAlofRIPauletteDavidKashlinskyMateoFrayoPlaffelvohfen
  • edited May 17

    The use of fetal tissue is federally funded

    Planned Parenthood receives over a third of its money in government grants and contracts (about $528 million 

     fibroblast cells are in vaccinations and the mixing of blood or human body parts is an occult practice.

    The national institute for health and research states plainly on their site that any aborted baby is the dismemberment of a living person.

    So you're asserting murder should be a choice for a women who couldn't keep her legs closed?

    So she's not only a 


    But a murderer too

    No wonder her choices are so

    Evil she's a evil little 



    It doesn't matter what you say it's not your choice to kill a child your suppose to be the mother of. Good thing those women go to hell for a fact!

    ZeusAres42Happy_KillbotAlofRIPauletteDavidKashlinskyPlaffelvohfen
  • @Paulette

    Let me throw a little known option into the ring here-

    There are more than 2 options to the abortion debate, and in more ways than you might be aware.

    First of all, there is no reason we need to make abortion an absolute as is the current norm. We can set an arbitrary time limit on abortion, for example the first 2 trimesters abortion is acceptable and the last is not. It shouldn't be controversial for me to state this, but it seems like today we get locked into binary thinking especially on contentious issues like abortion.

    Furthermore, there is actually a secret additional option that sadly, gets almost no press despite being fairly obvious. If we can through the use of technological development mitigate or eliminate unwanted pregnancy, then we no longer need to worry about abortions because the majority if not all pregnancies will be intentional. We can achieve this goal through the development of contraceptives, and in particular a male-equivalent birth control drug. (we could feasibly have done it already if there was public support) If such a drug was on the market with 99% efficiency and saw 80% adoption rate, we would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies to just thousands per year instead of hundreds of thousands. Further down the line other technologies might become available, such as artificial wombs which would allow a child to develop without disturbing the woman's body, or without killing the baby.

    We can not be truly free until we have thrown the shackles of our biology and taken control of our very nature!
    DavidKashlinskyZeusAres42SkepticalOne
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • TKDBTKDB 599 Pts
    @Paulette

    I'm pro Adoption.

    There should be rights for the fetus, the father of the fetus, along with the pregnant mother.

    Equal and Fair representation for all three, instead of just the mother's choice only.

    Millions of fetuses are aborted each year, what does that say about humanity on a global scale? 
  • AlofRIAlofRI 631 Pts
    There is no debate here. A woman has the right to carry a fetus to the breath of life, or not. If she doesn't want to, or can't, go through 9 mo's of pregnancy, for any reason, she should not have to. Very few women will abort unless they have GOOD reason. They have the choice. Had I been aborted I would have NO recollection of it. I would NOT have even known about it, and YOU wouldn't have had to argue with me about it. 'Nuff said.
    ZeusAres42PlaffelvohfenSkepticalOne
  • DeeDee 1903 Pts
    Yes I agree
    AlofRI
  • @AlofRI. For any reason, seems ridiculous.

    If a person is shot in the head, or instantly killed they would have no recollection of it, and may not even know about it either...i hope that doesnt make it ok.




    Plaffelvohfen
  • AlofRIAlofRI 631 Pts
    If the person shot in the head was about to kill somebody else, there was a REASON to shoot him in the head, and he likely had no recollection of it, BUT, there was a REASON .... and that made it ok.

    I have never been FOR abortion without a reason. I AM for abortion WITH reason and THAT reason IS a choice BY a woman and her doctor not some other person that simply feels it's somehow wrong .... 'cause he/she read a book once.
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 1348 Pts
    @Paulette

    Let me throw a little known option into the ring here-

    There are more than 2 options to the abortion debate, and in more ways than you might be aware.

    First of all, there is no reason we need to make abortion an absolute as is the current norm. We can set an arbitrary time limit on abortion, for example the first 2 trimesters abortion is acceptable and the last is not. It shouldn't be controversial for me to state this, but it seems like today we get locked into binary thinking especially on contentious issues like abortion.


    @Happy_Killbot These are my sentiments exactly. You say binary thinking but I call it dichotomous thinking or all or nothing thinking. However, I think we're talking about the same thing here. Generally speaking, regarding several things, thinking in "absolute" or "always" terms you almost always are going run into problems.


    Furthermore, there is actually a secret additional option that sadly, gets almost no press despite being fairly obvious. If we can through the use of technological development mitigate or eliminate unwanted pregnancy, then we no longer need to worry about abortions because the majority if not all pregnancies will be intentional. We can achieve this goal through the development of contraceptives, and in particular a male-equivalent birth control drug. (we could feasibly have done it already if there was public support) If such a drug was on the market with 99% efficiency and saw 80% adoption rate, we would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies to just thousands per year instead of hundreds of thousands. Further down the line other technologies might become available, such as artificial wombs which would allow a child to develop without disturbing the woman's body, or without killing the baby.

    We can not be truly free until we have thrown the shackles of our biology and taken control of our very nature!
    This is very informative. But say if we take away this option then what would your position be?












  • @AlofRI. But you said abortion for ANY reason. So the reason could be because i feel like it.

    I was showing that your point that a fetus has no recollection of being killed is dumb, as no one else who is killed/dies does either.

    Most laws are created to protect people because of feelings that something is immoral.  Murder, slavery, theft, ect.  They are their because society believes them to be immoral.


    AlofRIPlaffelvohfen
  • piloteerpiloteer 738 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    More than half of late term abortions are done because medical necessity. Unfortunately, it usually isn't apparent that there is any medical conditions that puts the mother or child in danger until well into the second trimester. This problem is further exacerbated by the fact that the vast majority of those who find out they are in danger if they proceed with the pregnancy are told they must wait to terminate the pregnancy because they'll also be in danger if they abortions it to soon. This is true for partial birth abortions as well.

    I'm a hyper-progressive, so I absolutely love your idea of a technological advancement that eliminates the need for abortions and the back and forth debate of it. But until that time arrives, you're plain and simply wrong about setting limits on abortions because most of the women who do it would be put in serious danger.    
    AlofRIZeusAres42
  • piloteerpiloteer 738 Pts
    @AlofRI. But you said abortion for ANY reason. So the reason could be because i feel like it.

    I was showing that your point that a fetus has no recollection of being killed is dumb, as no one else who is killed/dies does either.

    Most laws are created to protect people because of feelings that something is immoral.  Murder, slavery, theft, ect.  They are their because society believes them to be immoral.


    So then, I guess we just need to change social attitudes about abortion so it will become socially acceptable. Problem solved.  
    AlofRIZeusAres42
  • @ZeusAres42 ;

    Other than this my official position is that I really don't care either way, because you are basically asking what should we do until the problem is actually solved. The best answer I can give to that is wait for the problem to be solved. The system we have right now is basically a lottery system, albeit based on where you live rather than totally random so you can technically stack the odds.

    While I would love to agree with ideas about bodily autonomy I can't because these ideas are literally false in so far as the ability to have bodily autonomy would preclude the necessity for abortion by never allowing unwanted pregnancy in the first place. While I would love to agree with ideas about the right to life, I can't because again these ideas are literally false for more or less the same reason. We do not have the ability to choose life.

    That's how it is. Both options suck so flip a coin for all I care there is no right or wrong answer here.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @piloteer
    I'm a hyper-progressive, so I absolutely love your idea of a technological advancement that eliminates the need for abortions and the back and forth debate of it. But until that time arrives, you're plain and simply wrong about setting limits on abortions because most of the women who do it would be put in serious danger.    
    That isn't what I am saying though. What I am saying is there are more than 2 options and the 3rd trimester abortion ban is simply another option. Making provisions for the mother's health is another factor. Making provisions for the socioeconomic status of the mother is another factor. Making provisions for if the mother drinks/smokes/does drugs/ has genetic diseases is another factor. What color shirt the mother wears into the abortion clinic is another factor. You can pick and choose whatever you like all I'm saying is to reduce it to a binary choice, either you are pro-life or pro-choice is not only arrogant but absolutely insane.
    ZeusAres42
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 1348 Pts
    @ZeusAres42 ;

    Other than this my official position is that I really don't care either way, because you are basically asking what should we do until the problem is actually solved. The best answer I can give to that is wait for the problem to be solved. The system we have right now is basically a lottery system, albeit based on where you live rather than totally random so you can technically stack the odds.

    While I would love to agree with ideas about bodily autonomy I can't because these ideas are literally false in so far as the ability to have bodily autonomy would preclude the necessity for abortion by never allowing unwanted pregnancy in the first place. While I would love to agree with ideas about the right to life, I can't because again these ideas are literally false for more or less the same reason. We do not have the ability to choose life.

    That's how it is. Both options suck so flip a coin for all I care there is no right or wrong answer here.


    Fair enough. I guess we could say then that you are pro-choice in the sense that you choose not to adhere to either the pro-choice or pro-life side of the argument.









  • piloteerpiloteer 738 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    Arrogant yes, and I'm just fine with that. Insane, I fail to see how my reasoning even approaches anything that resembles insanity. I understand it comes down to individual principles that makes us arrive at our individual opinions on the matter. I'd say being uninformed about all the perspectives and simply falling into line with an opinion about abortion that is solely based on political or religious ideologies is insanity (not saying you do though). 
  • @piloteer "you're plain and simply wrong about setting limits on abortions because most of the women who do it would be put in serious danger." 
    Almost no one argues that women cant get abortions if their health is in danger.

    Half the population does think its socially acceptable.  I was merely pointing out that its dumb to say, you shouldnt get rid of womens choice because you think it is immoral...as a society we make those decisions all the time.  Generally it comes down to you have the freedom to do what to want unless it directly harms someone else...in this instance i think the fetus is directly harmed and had no choice, while women did.
  • John_C_87John_C_87 301 Pts
    Abortion is the choice of the person, or persons making admission and forfeiting privacy.
  • John_C_87John_C_87 301 Pts
    @Paulette ;
    Opinion or fact?
    Do you want to know different opinions or gather all-facts?
  • piloteerpiloteer 738 Pts
    edited May 17
    @MichaelElpers

    Well, I guess am clearly arguing that putting limits on late term abortions is dangerous for most of the women who get them because it's plain and simply true. Whether almost nobody makes that argument is of no value to me. My concern are the facts. And luckily for me, that argument can serve as an informed reasoning as to why it is actually immoral to put limits on abortions. It seems that you and I are in agreement that it is a subjective moral issue, and the only measure of closure we can have on this is an appeal to reasoning in the hope that we can convince others. Your reasoning actually fits in better with my point of view, because if we do not want to cause harm to others, it would be a bad idea to put limits on abortions which in turn will cause harm and even needless deaths because of the risks limits will definitely cause.    
  • @piloteer. You put the argument out there like people are trying to limit late term abortions when the health of the mother is in danger, but no one really is, so i dont really see what your arguing for.
    piloteer
  • piloteerpiloteer 738 Pts
    @MichaelElpers

    So, exactly how is it do you propose we determine whether a woman should have a right to choose what happens in her body?
  • @piloteer. I propose that because women know how to keep themselves from becoming pregnant, we let them choose what risks they want to take, when theyve created a human dependent, they have a responsibility to take care of said dependent ( the father as well).
    Plaffelvohfen
  • piloteerpiloteer 738 Pts
    @MichaelElpers

    How has that been working thus far?
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • AlofRIAlofRI 631 Pts
    @piloteer "you're plain and simply wrong about setting limits on abortions because most of the women who do it would be put in serious danger." 
    Almost no one argues that women cant get abortions if their health is in danger.

    Half the population does think its socially acceptable.  I was merely pointing out that its dumb to say, you shouldnt get rid of womens choice because you think it is immoral...as a society we make those decisions all the time.  Generally it comes down to you have the freedom to do what to want unless it directly harms someone else...in this instance i think the fetus is directly harmed and had no choice, while women did.
    "Almost no one argues ........" ........ If you consider most of the conservative Senate and Congress, "almost no one", and add to them "almost every Evangelical", you are correct, almost.
    PlaffelvohfenpiloteerSkepticalOne
  • John_C_87John_C_87 301 Pts
    @MichaelElpers ;
    Half the population does think its socially acceptable.  I was merely pointing out that its dumb to say, you shouldn't get rid of woman's choice because you think it is immoral...

    It's not dumb to say the problem is not over the removal of choice in connection to immorality, the lie is well placed, and when in legislation it is perjury. A Malpractice of law that creates all women equal by use of guilt by use of legislation which is hard to understand lie can not be corrected indefinitely by written law. The solution to the legal precedent is not making a determination on the accusation of murder it is to stop the intrusive act of presumption of guilt. Abortion states all-woman officially stop pregnancy and not a basic form of immigration when there are no facts to support this idea as a united state with all-woman.


  • JesusJesus 66 Pts
    @Paulette

    No, the woman shouldn't be able to choose to abort, I mean, murder, a human just because it is inside of her. Even from the end of the second week, things like the spine and nerves have started to form. When is it right to kill someone? Never. It isn't right whether its the first week or the last. Furthermore, just because a human is inside your body doesn't mean you get to choose what to do with it. That's literally just like slavery; you're on my land, so I get to decide whether you're person or property; I get to decide if you get fed or not and whether you live or die. 
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • @Jesus
    When is it right to kill someone? Never.
    So killing Nazis wasn't okay? 
    That's literally just like slavery; you're on my land, so I get to decide whether you're person or property; I get to decide if you get fed or not and whether you live or die. 
    So if I come into your house and sit down and start eating your food, then refuse to leave for 9 months you wouldn't ask me to leave?
    AlofRIpiloteer
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • JesusJesus 66 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    I'm kinda new to this, can ya tell me how to do that quote thing?

    "So killing Nazis wasn't okay?"

    Well, Nazis did bad stuff. Babies are literally the most innocent human beings. 


    "So if I come into your house and sit down and start eating your food, then refuse to leave for 9 months you wouldn't ask me to leave?"

    Yes, but getting pregnant means that you thought of the consequences and agreed for it to happen. No, I won't ask you to leave if I INVITED you into my house. Sure, I'll let you eat my snacks and sure, I'll let you sleep over. Furthermore, the vast majority of abortions are not because of rape but because of financial or family problems. 
  • @Jesus
    Well, Nazis did bad stuff. Babies are literally the most innocent human beings. 
    What about occupying the mother's body against her will? Is that a crime?
    Yes, but getting pregnant means that you thought of the consequences and agreed for it to happen.
    This isn't always true however, such as in the case of rape or a lack of education.
     No, I won't ask you to leave if I INVITED you into my house. Sure, I'll let you eat my snacks and sure, I'll let you sleep over. Furthermore, the vast majority of abortions are not because of rape but because of financial or family problems. 
    Suppose someone enters your house on accident, say you were drunk and forgot to lock the door, and someone just waltzed right in? If someone was robbed because they forgot to lock their door, would you argue that the thief should walk free because the homeowner forgot to secure their possessions?

    P.S. To do the quotes, either press the button bellow someone's post labeled " Quote, or under the Paragraph drop down (6th button from the left) select quote to open a quote block, which can be populated with copy/paste.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @AlofRI. Most evangelicals do not believe if a woman will die or be severly harmed by a pregnancy, that they are forced to die.  That's a lie.
  • JesusJesus 66 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    Sorry bro, but I don't get how to get out of the quote. After i use the paragraph drop down and select quote and write in it, I can't go back to writing normal text. Maybe my last few brain cells aren't working or something but I can't get out can you help.
    Anyway

    "What about occupying the mother's body against her will? Is that a crime?"

    It isn't. The baby didn't just go like: Okay guess it's time to invade this random woman's body. The baby literally did nothing, so no, it's not a crime. 

    "This isn't always true however, such as in the case of rape or a lack of education."

    Again, the vast majority of abortions are not because of rape. As for lack of education, that still is the woman's fault for not at least asking around about the consequences of motherhood. 


    "Suppose someone enters your house on accident, say you were drunk and forgot to lock the door, and someone just waltzed right in? If someone was robbed because they forgot to lock their door, would you argue that the thief should walk free because the homeowner forgot to secure their possessions?"

    This analogy is not the best. But, I think you're basically saying that women in an intoxicated state don't make the right decisions. However, just because the woman got herself intoxicated and fcked doesn't allow her to just turn around and kill a human because of her mistake. Also, the fault would be on the guy who did it because consent doesn't apply when you're intoxicated. 


  • @Jesus
    It isn't. The baby didn't just go like: Okay guess it's time to invade this random woman's body. The baby literally did nothing, so no, it's not a crime. 
    Are there circumstances where a lack of action can be considered criminal? Suppose there is a button, and if you do not push it at least once every hour someone will die. Are you obligated to push the button?
    Again, the vast majority of abortions are not because of rape. As for lack of education, that still is the woman's fault for not at least asking around about the consequences of motherhood. 
    Vast majority or not does not alleviate the fact that a woman can still get pregnant via rape. Unless you add a specific clause which allows exceptions in the case of rape, there will still be people for which this applies.

    The woman only has at most, half of the blame for pregnancy. How can you say that it is the woman's fault?

    Unless the couple actively wanted to get pregnant, does it even make sense to put blame on anyone? Say, they were using a condom and it broke. No one is really at fault here, so how can we say that anyone should be blamed?
    This analogy is not the best. But, I think you're basically saying that women in an intoxicated state don't make the right decisions. However, just because the woman got herself intoxicated and fcked doesn't allow her to just turn around and kill a human because of her mistake. Also, the fault would be on the guy who did it because consent doesn't apply when you're intoxicated. 
    In all states, if someone enters your house and refuses to leave when asked you can call the cops and they will be forcibly removed, but for some reason there is a double standard when it comes to a woman's body. If being intoxicated negates consent and we can't really claim that it was was the woman's fault, then in this case wouldn't the suggestion I made above, that the unwanted fetus is essentially an invader in the mother's body, stand to reason?

    Just for the record, my official stance on abortion is that technological development will enable greater freedoms which will disassociate sex and childbirth, which will allow people to take control of their lives. In particular, this would include a male-equivalent birth control and artificial womb technology both of which are in development and can effectively solve the problem by making the need for abortions extremely rare.

    I don't know how to help you with the quote box, I'm not sure what is going wrong.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • JesusJesus 66 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot
    Man this is actually kinda fun, thanks for debating with me
    Anyway

    "Are there circumstances where a lack of action can be considered criminal? Suppose there is a button, and if you do not push it at least once every hour someone will die. Are you obligated to push the button?"

    Nope. You don't need to press that button under any circumstance (that is, for a citizen). Especially since babies aren't capable of things like this, they can't be held responsible.


    "Vast majority or not does not alleviate the fact that a woman can still get pregnant via rape. Unless you add a specific clause which allows exceptions in the case of rape, there will still be people for which this applies.

    The problem I'm having is that the bulk of your argument, which is mostly comprised of situations like rape, only applies to about 1% of the abortions performed. 

     
    "The woman only has at most, half of the blame for pregnancy. How can you say that it is the woman's fault?"

    She doesn't have only half of the blame if she willingly gets into pregnancy not knowing the consequences, especially if she then wants to fix her problem by murdering a baby. 


    "Unless the couple actively wanted to get pregnant, does it even make sense to put blame on anyone? Say, they were using a condom and it broke. No one is really at fault here, so how can we say that anyone should be blamed?"

    Wait, this is contradicting. First you say a couple wants to get pregnant, and then you say their using a condom.
    However, it's fine by me if a couple actively wanted to get pregnant. What's not fine is if the woman then wants to kill the baby after getting pregnant.
    As for condoms; again, it counts for such a little percentage but makes up the bulk of your argument. Furthermore, we can just ensure the quality of condoms by forcing companies to make sure that they won't break during sex. If you tamper with the condom before use and that is why it broke, that's your fault for not using a condom correctly. 


    "In all states, if someone enters your house and refuses to leave when asked you can call the cops and they will be forcibly removed, but for some reason there is a double standard when it comes to a woman's body. If being intoxicated negates consent and we can't really claim that it was was the woman's fault, then in this case wouldn't the suggestion I made above, that the unwanted fetus is essentially an invader in the mother's body, stand to reason?"

    If she was intoxicated but the guy decides to go for it anyway, then its the guy's fault. He will be the one to take responsibility for all that ensues.


    A final note to think about: If a woman can't kill the rapist who is guilty, why should it be that she can murder her child who is innocent?

  • @Jesus
    Nope. You don't need to press that button under any circumstance (that is, for a citizen). Especially since babies aren't capable of things like this, they can't be held responsible.
    So what if, through no fault of your own, you violate the law. Let's say that on accident, some expensive jewelry or something falls into your pocket and you leave the store, effectively stealing. Is this a crime?
    The problem I'm having is that the bulk of your argument, which is mostly comprised of situations like rape, only applies to about 1% of the abortions performed. 
    The problem I have with this is that even if it is only 0.00001% that means it is still a case we have to consider.
    She doesn't have only half of the blame if she willingly gets into pregnancy not knowing the consequences, especially if she then wants to fix her problem by murdering a baby. 
    Could you elaborate on what your reasoning here is? It seems to me that in order for a woman to get pregnant there needs to be a sperm donor, So I can't understand why we should not consider this a 50/50 split at best.
    Wait, this is contradicting. First you say a couple wants to get pregnant, and then you say their using a condom.
    However, it's fine by me if a couple actively wanted to get pregnant. What's not fine is if the woman then wants to kill the baby after getting pregnant.
    As for condoms; again, it counts for such a little percentage but makes up the bulk of your argument. Furthermore, we can just ensure the quality of condoms by forcing companies to make sure that they won't break during sex. If you tamper with the condom before use and that is why it broke, that's your fault for not using a condom correctly. 
    Just to clarify these would be different examples. So in the first they are actively trying to have a baby and in the second I am assuming that they do not want children, so they might use a condom to prevent this. Even if we can make a perfect condom, things can still go wrong potentially. The question I am asking here, which in combination with the other's is if intention is required for something to be considered criminal? Does it make sense for the state to control anyone's body on the grounds that they are in a situation they never wanted to be in?
    If she was intoxicated but the guy decides to go for it anyway, then its the guy's fault. He will be the one to take responsibility for all that ensues.
    But why should the state then have access to the woman's body based on someone else's transgressions?
    A final note to think about: If a woman can't kill the rapist who is guilty, why should it be that she can murder her child who is innocent?
    I don't know which country you live in, but in the US self-defense laws allow her to kill the rapist. There was a very recent case where a young woman's father beat a man to death when he caught him forcing himself on her. Personally, I 100% support this.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • JesusJesus 66 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    "So what if, through no fault of your own, you violate the law. Let's say that on accident, some expensive jewelry or something falls into your pocket and you leave the store, effectively stealing. Is this a crime?"

    Again, you're bringing up examples that almost never happen. As far as I can research, it never has. However, stealing is intentionally taking something from someone else without their consent. Highlight intentional. 


    "The problem I have with this is that even if it is only 0.00001% that means it is still a case we have to consider."

    The point I'm making is that the majority of your argument only works for that 0.00000001% of people. You have yet to consider the rest of the 99.9999% of abortions that happen. Furthermore, adopting a child is a real thing. Don't just kill it. Just because its inconvenient doesn't mean you can kill it.


    "Could you elaborate on what your reasoning here is? It seems to me that in order for a woman to get pregnant there needs to be a sperm donor, So I can't understand why we should not consider this a 50/50 split at best."

    Basically what I'm saying is that if a woman gives consent to a guy and they have sex, and then after the woman is like actually no I'm aborting this baby then yes, it is mostly the woman's fault, maybe even 100% of it is. 


    "Just to clarify these would be different examples. So in the first they are actively trying to have a baby and in the second I am assuming that they do not want children, so they might use a condom to prevent this. Even if we can make a perfect condom, things can still go wrong potentially. The question I am asking here, which in combination with the other's is if intention is required for something to be considered criminal? Does it make sense for the state to control anyone's body on the grounds that they are in a situation they never wanted to be in?"

    Okay I get it. For the first example, if she WANTS to have a baby and then she aborts it, that's a no. 
    For the second example, perfect means it won't go wrong. Furthermore, if you tamper the condom before using it, that is your fault because products are made for specific reasons, and shouldn't be damaged before use. 
    For your other part:  If someone willingly has sex and then they decide after to murder the baby, that's criminal in my eyes. If you're in a bad situation, all damage done to you is because of the person causing the situation, so it's all their fault. It's like if there's a person with a gun and he kills a bystander, it's the shooter's fault and not the fault of the bystander because he happened to be there and didn't run fast enough.


    "But why should the state then have access to the woman's body based on someone else's transgressions?"

    Don't really get the state part. How does the state have access to a woman's body exactly?


    "I don't know which country you live in, but in the US self-defense laws allow her to kill the rapist. There was a very recent case where a young woman's father beat a man to death when he caught him forcing himself on her. Personally, I 100% support this."

    Yikes alright Americans. In Canada we can't kill in self defense unfortunately.

  • @Jesus
    Don't really get the state part. How does the state have access to a woman's body exactly?
    I want to cover this first because it is important to this discussion.

    The state having access to the woman's body is what abortion restriction is. To put this abstractly, everyone's body is a resource like time, money, or manufacturing or iron. A woman's body is a special resource in that it is required to produce new people. One way we could think about the abortion debate is to ask: Who should be the owner of the woman's bodily resource?

    In this context:
    Pro-choice would be to say that the body belongs to the individual and the state has no business interfering.
    Pro-life supports that in order to protect unborn children the body must belong to the state.

    By declaring abortion illegal, you are in essence denying women access to their own bodies by mandating restrictions on what they are allowed to do with it, in this case have an abortion. I know this is abstract, but this is in essence what the debate is actually about.
    Basically what I'm saying is that if a woman gives consent to a guy and they have sex, and then after the woman is like actually no I'm aborting this baby then yes, it is mostly the woman's fault, maybe even 100% of it is.
    How is that fair though? The man doesn't have to make any changes or major sacrifices in order to get a woman pregnant, while the woman has to make major changes to have the baby. If you want to say this is all the woman's fault, then why shouldn't we castrate all men?
    For your other part:  If someone willingly has sex and then they decide after to murder the baby, that's criminal in my eyes. If you're in a bad situation, all damage done to you is because of the person causing the situation, so it's all their fault. It's like if there's a person with a gun and he kills a bystander, it's the shooter's fault and not the fault of the bystander because he happened to be there and didn't run fast enough.
    I don't think that's a good analogy, and abortion isn't murdering a baby, it is killing a fetus that has no sentience or paperwork. In the eyes of the state, a fetus isn't a person until born because there is no documentation which declares the unborn to even exist.

    Why should the state be allowed to mandate what happens to anyone's body in any circumstance, including to save the life of someone who technically doesn't exist?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • JesusJesus 66 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    "In this context:
    Pro-choice would be to say that the body belongs to the individual and the state has no business interfering.
    Pro-life supports that in order to protect unborn children the body must belong to the state.
    By declaring abortion illegal, you are in essence denying women access to their own bodies by mandating restrictions on what they are allowed to do with it, in this case have an abortion. I know this is abstract, but this is in essence what the debate is actually about."

    Following the logic of pro-choice, that means that I can murder someone and not be penalized because, as you say, the body doesn't belong to the state. Is that what you're getting at?


    "How is that fair though? The man doesn't have to make any changes or major sacrifices in order to get a woman pregnant, while the woman has to make major changes to have the baby. If you want to say this is all the woman's fault, then why shouldn't we castrate all men?"

    Why is it fair you ask? Let's play this scenario out. One night, a couple is getting all turned up and the woman says she wants to have sex. The guy's like "are you sure?" and discusses all the consequences. The woman consents with a firm "yes", and they do it. But then a few weeks later when she's pregnant, she suddenly changes her mind and decides "actually let's not have the baby". Sure. A guy didn't sacrifice anything, but since the woman consented and then changed her mind, all the consequences should go to her, not the guy, since the man couldn't change her mind. It's like signing a contract with another company, breaking the contract resulting in a loss of money, and then forcing the other company to pay for half of the money lost. It just doesn't make sense. 


    "I don't think that's a good analogy, and abortion isn't murdering a baby, it is killing a fetus that has no sentience or paperwork. In the eyes of the state, a fetus isn't a person until born because there is no documentation which declares the unborn to even exist."

    A few things to discuss here. 

    If it's okay to kill something that isn't sentient, do people in comas count? Are we just allowed to kill people in comas? Furthermore, a fetus is certainly a potential sentient being that can contribute a lot to society. 
    Also, depending on the state, you can abort at up to 24 weeks. By that time, it is certainly lot a fetus anymore. 
    Furthermore, when is it even okay to kill a fetus? Week 4, where the heart begins to beat? How about week 5, when the brain enlarges and nerves start to form? Better yet, how about week 24, where all major organs are formed and nerves are highly developed and sensitive? 
  • @Jesus
    Following the logic of pro-choice, that means that I can murder someone and not be penalized because, as you say, the body doesn't belong to the state. Is that what you're getting at?
    That wouldn't follow because the person doing the killing doesn't own the person they are killing.
    Why is it fair you ask? Let's play this scenario out. One night, a couple is getting all turned up and the woman says she wants to have sex. The guy's like "are you sure?" and discusses all the consequences. The woman consents with a firm "yes", and they do it. But then a few weeks later when she's pregnant, she suddenly changes her mind and decides "actually let's not have the baby". Sure. A guy didn't sacrifice anything, but since the woman consented and then changed her mind, all the consequences should go to her, not the guy, since the man couldn't change her mind. It's like signing a contract with another company, breaking the contract resulting in a loss of money, and then forcing the other company to pay for half of the money lost. It just doesn't make sense. 
    Grossly unrealistic scenario aside, when they decided to have sex they did not consent to having a baby. this still doesn't explain why it should be her fault.

    Just to clarify here, I am not asking why the abortion should be considered her fault, but why the pregnancy should be considered her fault since she only did half the work in that regard.
    A few things to discuss here. 

    If it's okay to kill something that isn't sentient, do people in comas count? Are we just allowed to kill people in comas? Furthermore, a fetus is certainly a potential sentient being that can contribute a lot to society. 
    Also, depending on the state, you can abort at up to 24 weeks. By that time, it is certainly lot a fetus anymore. 
    Furthermore, when is it even okay to kill a fetus? Week 4, where the heart begins to beat? How about week 5, when the brain enlarges and nerves start to form? Better yet, how about week 24, where all major organs are formed and nerves are highly developed and sensitive? 
    In the case of a coma, I would say that it depends on what is in the person's will prior to this happening and that creates an inequality between abortion and this analogy. In the absence of a will, this decision goes to the next of kin, so if they make the choice then yes I would support that, because you are not depriving the person in the coma of anything by killing them but you are saving them from more suffering.

    I would say that the 24 week cutoff is a reasonable compromise, but to be perfectly honest I don't really care because the way I see it only by freeing ourselves from the shackles of biology can we truly solve this problem. The time limit is late enough that a woman should have been able to get an abortion early if she chooses to without actually causing any suffering. That being said until there is a birth certificate a fetus is for all intents and purposes, non-existent.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • JesusJesus 66 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    "That wouldn't follow because the person doing the killing doesn't own the person they are killing."

    Yes. When you don't own a person, you can't kill it. When you own a fetus, you also can't kill it.


    "Grossly unrealistic scenario aside, when they decided to have sex they did not consent to having a baby. this still doesn't explain why it should be her fault.
    Just to clarify here, I am not asking why the abortion should be considered her fault, but why the pregnancy should be considered her fault since she only did half the work in that regard."

    In my grossly unrealistic scenario that was written to point everything out, I wrote "and discusses all the consequences". Maybe, I don't know, but pregnancy is probably a pretty big factor related to sex. 
    To answer your question, abortion is considered her fault because she was the one who consented and then changed her mind. When you consent, you are consenting to sex and all the consequences of it. Pregnancy is one of them. If you go back on that consensus, it's your fault and your fault only. Going back to the company example. If you make a deal with a company and then break it, you pay the loss for both yourself and the other company that suffered because you broke the deal. The other company doesn't help you pay back the debt that you caused yourself.


    "In the case of a coma, I would say that it depends on what is in the person's will prior to this happening and that creates an inequality between abortion and this analogy. In the absence of a will, this decision goes to the next of kin, so if they make the choice then yes I would support that, because you are not depriving the person in the coma of anything by killing them but you are saving them from more suffering."

    If the patient isn't dead, then the absence of a will doesn't matter. Would you kill a coma patient after 4 weeks knowing that he will probably wake up in another week? No, because it is a potential sentient being. Whether or not the patient suffers is completely up to them, not you. You are depriving them of potential life that they can still enjoy, or just live through, and that, in essence, is murder. 


    "I would say that the 24 week cutoff is a reasonable compromise, but to be perfectly honest I don't really care because the way I see it only by freeing ourselves from the shackles of biology can we truly solve this problem. The time limit is late enough that a woman should have been able to get an abortion early if she chooses to without actually causing any suffering. That being said until there is a birth certificate a fetus is for all intents and purposes, non-existent."

    A 24 week cutoff makes you a murderer. That's really it. At that point, you're killing a human being. Also, abortions can be done as early as 4 weeks. Guess what happens to the baby at 4 weeks? Some nerves have already developed, so yes, it will cause suffering. I'm going to go back to the slavery example. You're basically saying that since this thing inside me is affecting me, I get to decide what it's fate is. Now let's see the pro-slavery argument. You're on my land, and you're affecting the things on my land. Guess what? I get to decide whether you are person or property. I get to decide whether you get fed and whether you live or die. Oh. Maybe I can end it's suffering by shooting him in the head. That ought do it. 

    What you're saying by now is completely despicable. Come on man.
  • @Jesus
    Yes. When you don't own a person, you can't kill it. When you own a fetus, you also can't kill it.
    So who does own the fetus then? Since the fetus isn't a person because there are no records of their existence, they technically can't be owned by themselves because they don't exist yet. Why should the state protect people that don't exist?
    In my grossly unrealistic scenario that was written to point everything out, I wrote "and discusses all the consequences". Maybe, I don't know, but pregnancy is probably a pretty big factor related to sex. 
    To answer your question, abortion is considered her fault because she was the one who consented and then changed her mind. When you consent, you are consenting to sex and all the consequences of it. Pregnancy is one of them. If you go back on that consensus, it's your fault and your fault only. Going back to the company example. If you make a deal with a company and then break it, you pay the loss for both yourself and the other company that suffered because you broke the deal. The other company doesn't help you pay back the debt that you caused yourself.
    I have never once discussed pregnancy as a possibility in any of the times I have had sex. First off it would kill the mood, second it's not like as adults we don't know that is a possibility.
    When you have sex, you are not consenting to pregnancy. You consent to pregnancy when you decide you want to get pregnant.
    If the patient isn't dead, then the absence of a will doesn't matter. Would you kill a coma patient after 4 weeks knowing that he will probably wake up in another week? No, because it is a potential sentient being. Whether or not the patient suffers is completely up to them, not you. You are depriving them of potential life that they can still enjoy, or just live through, and that, in essence, is murder. 
    I don't know if you are familiar with the anti-natalist philosophy, but there is a critical difference between someone in a coma and someone who has never been born, in the sense that someone who has not yet existed isn't losing anything by never existing. I don't really want to get into this here, but I will say that the arguments are solid and conclude that it is unethical to bring new beings into existence. This argument does not apply to beings which have already existed specifically for the reason you state that you are depriving them of potential life.
    A 24 week cutoff makes you a murderer. That's really it. At that point, you're killing a human being. Also, abortions can be done as early as 4 weeks. Guess what happens to the baby at 4 weeks? Some nerves have already developed, so yes, it will cause suffering. I'm going to go back to the slavery example. You're basically saying that since this thing inside me is affecting me, I get to decide what it's fate is. Now let's see the pro-slavery argument. You're on my land, and you're affecting the things on my land. Guess what? I get to decide whether you are person or property. I get to decide whether you get fed and whether you live or die. Oh. Maybe I can end it's suffering by shooting him in the head. That ought do it. 
    Developed nerves do not suffering make. There also needs to be some way to process that suffering into some form of conscious experience in order for us to say that there is suffering here.

    In libertarian/minarchist theory, your example of what "if you are on my land I get to decide what happens" is basically how things work, with the caveat that you can't do anything that infringes on another's rights so slavery doesn't apply. Let's say for example, that you are on someone else's land and if you leave you will die for whatever reason. The owner of that land still gets to decide what happens on their property so kicking them out is still perfectly within their rights to do.
    What you're saying by now is completely despicable. Come on man.
    I think it's despicable to allow the state access to anyone's body for any reason. Consider this, if the state is allowed to use a woman's body to save someones life, then should it be acceptable to forcibly take someone's organs to save the lives of others? If we accept that the state can make abortion illegal and therefore give the state access to a woman's body, why shouldn't it be acceptable to take someone's organs for the same reason?
    SkepticalOne
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • JesusJesus 66 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    "So who does own the fetus then? Since the fetus isn't a person because there are no records of their existence, they technically can't be owned by themselves because they don't exist yet. Why should the state protect people that don't exist?"

    They do exist, they just will become "people" very soon. Say you really like butterflies. Then, you would protect pupa until they sprout into something bigger; butterflies. That's why the state protects them.


    "I have never once discussed pregnancy as a possibility in any of the times I have had sex. First off it would kill the mood, second it's not like as adults we don't know that is a possibility.
    When you have sex, you are not consenting to pregnancy. You consent to pregnancy when you decide you want to get pregnant."

    Whether or not it comes up as a topic doesn't change the fact that whether it is recreational sex or sex with the intention of becoming pregnant, the chance of becoming pregnant is real. The fact that you know you might get pregnant but still go ahead with it means that you are prepared to deal with the consequences of your actions. Say that you're mischievous kid in school and you are about to break some rule, you know there's a possibility that you will get caught and punished, and there's also a possibility you will get let off the hook. If you proceed to break the rule, you are essentially acknowledging the fact that you may get in trouble, so it's not reasonable to say that you shouldn't get in trouble for breaking the rule. 


    "I don't know if you are familiar with the anti-natalist philosophy, but there is a critical difference between someone in a coma and someone who has never been born, in the sense that someone who has not yet existed isn't losing anything by never existing. I don't really want to get into this here, but I will say that the arguments are solid and conclude that it is unethical to bring new beings into existence. This argument does not apply to beings which have already existed specifically for the reason you state that you are depriving them of potential life." 

    I'd argue that fetus' and babies inside a womb certainly have potential life, just like people in comas. As for the anti-natalist philosophy, I researched it and essentially it means that reproduction is morally bad. If that's the case, we would have died a real long time ago. 
    Also, how are people who haven't existed yet not losing something by not existing? They are losing existence itself


    "Developed nerves do not suffering make. There also needs to be some way to process that suffering into some form of conscious experience in order for us to say that there is suffering here."

    Maureen Condic, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah, and his research shows that by 28 days (surprise, 4 weeks), a primitive brain and nervous system are already built, so they are able to feel pain. 


    "In libertarian/minarchist theory, your example of what "if you are on my land I get to decide what happens" is basically how things work, with the caveat that you can't do anything that infringes on another's rights so slavery doesn't apply. Let's say for example, that you are on someone else's land and if you leave you will die for whatever reason. The owner of that land still gets to decide what happens on their property so kicking them out is still perfectly within their rights to do."

    The big issue is the dying part, right? First, the owner knows full well that the person will die if he tells him to leave. Second, why, exactly, does he die? There really is no real-life scenario where that actually even happens (except slavery and abortion X.X). The idea of this scenario never happens, it won't be a good analogy. 


    "I think it's despicable to allow the state access to anyone's body for any reason. Consider this, if the state is allowed to use a woman's body to save someones life, then should it be acceptable to forcibly take someone's organs to save the lives of others? If we accept that the state can make abortion illegal and therefore give the state access to a woman's body, why shouldn't it be acceptable to take someone's organs for the same reason?"

    I agree, it shouldn't be acceptable to take someone else's organs, because they would die. I agree, it's not right to sacrifice one person for another. However, if you just don't perform abortion, both get to live. How cool is that? 


  • @Jesus
    They do exist, they just will become "people" very soon. Say you really like butterflies. Then, you would protect pupa until they sprout into something bigger; butterflies. That's why the state protects them.
    Is a miscarriage first degree murder then?
    Whether or not it comes up as a topic doesn't change the fact that whether it is recreational sex or sex with the intention of becoming pregnant, the chance of becoming pregnant is real. The fact that you know you might get pregnant but still go ahead with it means that you are prepared to deal with the consequences of your actions. Say that you're mischievous kid in school and you are about to break some rule, you know there's a possibility that you will get caught and punished, and there's also a possibility you will get let off the hook. If you proceed to break the rule, you are essentially acknowledging the fact that you may get in trouble, so it's not reasonable to say that you shouldn't get in trouble for breaking the rule. 
    If you use protection the chance of a pregnancy occurring is very low to the point of being negligible.

    Suppose you drive a car. When you get into a car there is a risk that you might hit someone and injure or kill them. This happens with regular frequency. Does this mean that when you get into a car that you are consenting to hitting people?
    I'd argue that fetus' and babies inside a womb certainly have potential life, just like people in comas. As for the anti-natalist philosophy, I researched it and essentially it means that reproduction is morally bad. If that's the case, we would have died a real long time ago. 
    Also, how are people who haven't existed yet not losing something by not existing? They are losing existence itself
    I really don't want to get into this, one because I don't fully understand or agree with the philosophy myself for pragmatic reasons same as you, but basically the argument is that there is an asymmetry between good and bad experiences. Someone is not being deprived of anything by not experiencing anything good, but they are being deprived of any suffering which they can not consent to. Anything bad that happens to anyone is basically their parents fault for having been born because the person didn't agree to it.
    Maureen Condic, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah, and his research shows that by 28 days (surprise, 4 weeks), a primitive brain and nervous system are already built, so they are able to feel pain. 
    Again, having nerves does not equal pain experience because there needs to be a conscious mind to process that stimulus which doesn't develop until much later. Nerves transmit signals but until an actual brain is developed there can be no experience.

    Furthermore, there is a deeper philosophical problem around the subjective experience of a fetus. How do we know if a fetus is feeling anything? The simple answer is we can not know that.
    The big issue is the dying part, right? First, the owner knows full well that the person will die if he tells him to leave. Second, why, exactly, does he die? There really is no real-life scenario where that actually even happens (except slavery and abortion X.X). The idea of this scenario never happens, it won't be a good analogy. 
    For the real life scenario, let's say the land is fenced off but exists in a jungle full of tigers. Plausible enough no? So if someone enters the safety of the fenced in land and the owner asks them to leave, knowing that if they stay they will have to take from him, is he in his rights to send him off into the jungle where he will likely be mauled to death? Libertarian theory would argue that yes, this is in his rights because the land owner should not be responsible for the other's well being, that is the other person's problem.
    I agree, it shouldn't be acceptable to take someone else's organs, because they would die. I agree, it's not right to sacrifice one person for another. However, if you just don't perform abortion, both get to live. How cool is that? 
    Not in all circumstances. Sometimes abortions are necessary for the mother's life or well being but all accept the most patriarchal theocracies accept this.
    There are a lot of organs that can be taken without killing the individual, such as kidneys, bone marrow, blood, parts of the liver, or even a lung. Let's just assume live donations only on these organs. Is it acceptable for the state to take these organs at will and make the individual pay for the surgery? (since the mother has to pay to feed the growing fetus at the very least)
    Dee
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 1903 Pts
    edited May 19
    @Jesus ;

    Also, how are people who haven't existed yet not losing something by not existing? They are losing existence itself

    They’re not, your statement makes no sense you cannot lose something you never had.

    For your argument to be in anyway consistent you would have to be against contraception , sperm is living and has potential to become , that potential is being denied , how is that ok and Abortion is not? 


    ZeusAres42
  • John_C_87John_C_87 301 Pts

    For your argument to be in any way consistent you would have to be against contraception, sperm is living and has potential to become, that potential is being denied, how is that ok, and Abortion is not?

    For any legal argument to be consistent not just this staged acting out of the debate in any nation.

    Sperm/embryo is live and has the potential to be saved, that death is an abortion but is called something else by means of instruction. What is not being told is that a baby born by an unwed couple is potential illegal immigration, besides a possible murder, and in fact is a criminal invasion of privacy using a complex intellectual fraud. As the smarter understanding of more, and more complex principles had been developed as the alibi to use of lethal force by both women and medical testing. With a shared goal of inequality between these groups and basic principles of justice withing law. The common law developed a civil union as the parents of a child had been uncovered by the legal investigation the difference being that a couple does not have to say the law describes the union made based on genetic relationships to male and female. No matter what, even in the event that a religious marriage had taken place before.

    Malpractice of law had been fueled by medical malpractice in the area of scientific research all for gain in money. I would laugh but the serious nature of this joke of superior intelligence in socialistic idealism has created a major catastrophic outcome. Female-specific amputations are not legally an abortion and where the average person can answer questions between FSA and PA simply, others must follow a now very complex script of instructed controversy.

    Right, Jesus?

    Right, Dee?

    Right, Happy_Killbot?

    Can any of you go off script and legally address if Female-specific amputation is pregnancy abortion and what differences take place between them?

    The speculated wrong is criminal fraud and could have been created by using an accusation of murder. The fraud was not designed against the legal system of many nations but developed over centuries against one or several of the bigger Churches in the world, by its more intelligent followers and larger contributors.

  • AlofRIAlofRI 631 Pts
    @AlofRI. Most evangelicals do not believe if a woman will die or be severly harmed by a pregnancy, that they are forced to die.  That's a lie.
    That MAY be. It's hard to get a number on that. However, given a chance to vote on a bill that would outlaw abortion completely, or a bill that would allow a woman the CHOICE to HAVE an abortion if she and her doctor felt it MIGHT endanger her life, well, I'm quite sure which bill would pass with the evangelical vote.
  • JesusJesus 66 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    "Is a miscarriage first degree murder then?"

    Unless it's because of the woman's body becoming worse by itself, I guess it is. 



    "If you use protection the chance of a pregnancy occurring is very low to the point of being negligible.
    Suppose you drive a car. When you get into a car there is a risk that you might hit someone and injure or kill them. This happens with regular frequency. Does this mean that when you get into a car that you are consenting to hitting people?"

    I agree, if you use protection the chance of pregnancy is very low. Yet, 43% of abortions are from accidental pregnancies. This means that either the condom sucks or you aren't doing something right.
    No, when you drive a car you aren't consenting to hitting people. You are acknowledging the existence of the chance of being hit and hitting others. You get into the car knowing full well that both may happen. Even though the chance is low, once you do hit someone, you take responsibility for it. 


    "I really don't want to get into this, one because I don't fully understand or agree with the philosophy myself for pragmatic reasons same as you, but basically the argument is that there is an asymmetry between good and bad experiences. Someone is not being deprived of anything by not experiencing anything good, but they are being deprived of any suffering which they can not consent to. Anything bad that happens to anyone is basically their parents fault for having been born because the person didn't agree to it." 

    Through this philosophy, that means that if you are the happiest person in the world, and then got one second of pain or bad experience, you were better of not existing in the first place. However, there's another flaw with this argument. When you say that non existence is good from the point of view of potential people who might have suffered, that doesn't make sense. You can't compare yourself to be better off or worse off than someone if you have never existed, because not existing is not a state anyone can be in. In the scenario that you were never born, you won't be better off (because you didn't suffer) because you won't be anything. 


    "Again, having nerves does not equal pain experience because there needs to be a conscious mind to process that stimulus which doesn't develop until much later. Nerves transmit signals but until an actual brain is developed there can be no experience.
    Furthermore, there is a deeper philosophical problem around the subjective experience of a fetus. How do we know if a fetus is feeling anything? The simple answer is we can not know that."

    So now you're saying we don't know, meaning that you agree with killing something that you don't even know is experiencing agony or not. 


    "For the real life scenario, let's say the land is fenced off but exists in a jungle full of tigers. Plausible enough no? So if someone enters the safety of the fenced in land and the owner asks them to leave, knowing that if they stay they will have to take from him, is he in his rights to send him off into the jungle where he will likely be mauled to death? Libertarian theory would argue that yes, this is in his rights because the land owner should not be responsible for the other's well being, that is the other person's problem."

    Then how the hell did he get there in the first place if he had to go through some jungle full of tigers. It's also pretty immoral. In that situation, would you really send someone off, knowing full well they wouldn't live to see the next sunrise? No. Either you would help them through(because you have adapted to this place) or find another way to help him out. It's completely immoral to do stuff like that. Just because a law allows you to do something doesn't mean the law is necessarily good. There have been loads of laws in the past that are now considered really immoral and bad.


    "Not in all circumstances. Sometimes abortions are necessary for the mother's life or well being but all accept the most patriarchal theocracies accept this.
    There are a lot of organs that can be taken without killing the individual, such as kidneys, bone marrow, blood, parts of the liver, or even a lung. Let's just assume live donations only on these organs. Is it acceptable for the state to take these organs at will and make the individual pay for the surgery? (since the mother has to pay to feed the growing fetus at the very least)"

    I think there's a big difference between donating your organs to help people and forcing sacrificing someone so you can survive because of your mistake. However, maybe we can compromise and say that if the mother's life is in danger, she can choose to perform abortion. This is because the fetus or baby is endangering the mother's life, so the mother has the option and the right to say screw you to the baby. 
  • JesusJesus 66 Pts
    @John_C_87

    Can you dumb it down for me a bit...
    As a 13 year old I find it hard to understand lol
  • JesusJesus 66 Pts
    @John_C_87

    Can you dumb it down for me a bit...
    As a 13 year old I find it hard to understand lol
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