Forums → WEPR → is abortion ok?
| 867 | 278341 |
Is abortion ok? I donât think so. The babies that these people are killing is wrong, some people say that itâs not a person that itâs a bag of cells or a fetus and not really human being I have to disagree
Please debate
- 867 Replies
Allow me to reak this down into its component parts:
I mean that, killing a baby (or fetus, it's STILL a living breathing human)...
If that is what you believe, I suggest you read up on fetal development and nutrition.
... to save a woman from pain is the same as killing you to take your kidney to save myself from pain
Not the same:
- One kidney donation is not inevitably fatal.
- I am conscious and/or have a fully functional nervous system (otherwise, I would be clinically dead and would not care a fig about kidneys).
- Finding a kidney donor is very different from finding a surrogate mother.
- If i'm not mistaken, neither of my kidneys were developed by your body or at your expense.
The same:
- Someone is in pain.
what do you mean cheese?
I mean that this analogy is just as entitled to be a part of the conversation as your organ harvester, because none of them relate in any way to the topic.
P.S. Fred bit his tongue while eating the cheese, so he's in pain too.
Are you ok? No abortion is not ok. Its unnatural. Even if you're not religious you don't see animals in the wild getting abortions..... call me stupid I don't care just my opinion.
Appeal to nature.
Just because something is natural/unnatural does not make it inherently right or wrong.
Just think about it: What if your mother decided that she did want you. Would you have supported it then? (not the previous user, everyone in general who thinks that it is ok).
Yes, I would have. Because it is her right.
Nice try at the pathos card, though.
Who kills an unborn child? I guess many people are irreclaimably evil.
*aborts a mass of cells that are nothing more than a parasite with potential for human life at the time of said abortion.
You made a hefty typo there.
So what you are saying is that the mother should have the right to kill someone to save her from pain?
There is no killing taking place.
I mean, seriously, do you guys taking the pro-life stance even -know- what abortion is? In all honesty.
And if you respond to this, try so without a straw man or generalization.
I do. But science, sadly goes either way on whether a fetus is a person. Pro-choice, even if you think it has some good points, has a ridiculous name. I mean, choice in general is generally neutral, people can make good or bad decisions. So you could be saying "Pro-good" or "Pro-evil"
but life is good.
And a good argument (although you may be able to poke holes) is an argument of universalizing an argument. What if everyone had an abortion. Where would babies come from? We would most certainly run out of viable storks very quickly.
I do. But science, sadly goes either way on whether a fetus is a person.
No, actually. Science never goes "either way", it simply isn't something that's been tested exhaustively. The law is what can go either way.
Pro-choice, even if you think it has some good points, has a ridiculous name. I mean, choice in general is generally neutral, people can make good or bad decisions. So you could be saying "Pro-good" or "Pro-evil"
but life is good.
No. These words have no rational meaning. There is no actual "good" (the noun) and there is no actual "evil". They are ficticious concepts. Their only purpose is to prevent a lengthy analysis of motive and causality.
And a good argument (although you may be able to poke holes) is an argument of universalizing an argument. What if everyone had an abortion. Where would babies come from? We would most certainly run out of viable storks very quickly.
Which is not a good use of that form of argument. This would require every mother in existence to want and have good reason to abort. Also, by taking it to this extreme, you are easily checked by the opposite: If every pregnancy had to result in at least one child, the human population would spiral out of control much more rapidly than it already is.
Pro-choice, even if you think it has some good points, has a ridiculous name. I mean, choice in general is generally neutral, people can make good or bad decisions. So you could be saying "Pro-good" or "Pro-evil"
but life is good.
This is actually an interesting point, it's a shame you have it backwards. The word "life" and prefix "ro" both have positive connotations, yet put them together and the result is anything but. In a way, it makes pro-life arguments sound inherently good, undeservingly so.
Abortion is murder. A fetus is an organism that 1. is alive; 2. contains human DNA. An organism that is alive and contains human DNA is human life. To abort a fetus is to kill it deliberately. The deliberate killing of human life is murder. Therefore, abortion is murder.
Abortion is murder. A fetus is an organism that 1. is alive; 2. contains human DNA. An organism that is alive and contains human DNA is human life. To abort a fetus is to kill it deliberately. The deliberate killing of human life is murder. Therefore, abortion is murder.
So you also agree that masturbation and females having periods is "murder"?
Abortion is murder. A fetus is an organism that 1. is alive; 2. contains human DNA. An organism that is alive and contains human DNA is human life. To abort a fetus is to kill it deliberately. The deliberate killing of human life is murder. Therefore, abortion is murder.
Cancer treatment is murder. A cancer is an organism that 1. is alive; 2. contains human DNA. An organism that is alive and contains human DNA is human life. To treat a cancer is to kill it deliberately. The deliberate killing of human life is murder. Therefore, cancer treatment is murder.
"Alive" and "human genome" are bad arguments, really. The only argument we can possibly bring is consciousness, and a foetus does not have it yet (because of lack of a nervous system to generate consciousness). Also, there's the issue with women rights. I don't think abortion is justified in any and all cases, but a woman should have the right to decide about her body and future life.
In countries where abortion is legal, the abortion rates actually go down. And it is done in a safe environment. What happens when abortion is made illegal? Abortion will still happen, but there will be a lot more complications, which will cost a lot of money for insurances etc. and of course will cost human lives unnecessarily. So be reasonable.
"Alive" and "human genome" are bad arguments, really. The only argument we can possibly bring is consciousness, and a foetus does not have it yet (because of lack of a nervous system to generate consciousness). Also, there's the issue with women rights. I don't think abortion is justified in any and all cases, but a woman should have the right to decide about her body and future life.
In countries where abortion is legal, the abortion rates actually go down. And it is done in a safe environment. What happens when abortion is made illegal? Abortion will still happen, but there will be a lot more complications, which will cost a lot of money for insurances etc. and of course will cost human lives unnecessarily. So be reasonable.
My main argument against abortion is that anyone STUPID enough to need to get one should probably be "aborted" herself. Rape babies are extraordinarily rare, so how does one "accidentally" get pregnant?
Most of these women are just too retarded to figure out a condom, let alone to abstain from sex with multiple random people whose baby they would be unwilling to bear. I really don't see why any of that should be the made into the baby's problem.
Libtards astonish the rational person by seeking to murder babies and to save the lives of condemned criminals. They release rapists from prison and then complain that abortions are needed because of rape babies. Maybe 180-degree stupidity looks exactly like intentional evil because it IS evil. (Just a thought.)
Abortion is a liberal phenomenon. As you know, liberals don't believe in things like responsibility and accountability. Abortion allows them to act irresponsibly without having to be held accountable.
Of course, the typical feminist twit will self-righteously state that it's her body and she can do whatever she likes with it. But is it? Perhaps her body belongs to God. Then again my experience with liberals shows that they're atheists who arrogantly assume their own role as "God". As such, they make up their own "morals" as they go. Only a sick, degenerate liberal can commit and/or justify the murder of an innocent life.
The lefturds only whine about "dead children" when they are killed with GUNS--which is something very hypocritical.
Most of these women are just too retarded to figure out a condom, let alone to abstain from sex with multiple random people whose baby they would be unwilling to bear. I really don't see why any of that should be the made into the baby's problem.
1. Retarded is a slur, you display your intelligence by using it in a derogatory manner.
2. Contraception fails.
3. It's not "the baby's problem" because abortion does not involve a baby.
My main argument against abortion is that anyone STUPID enough to need to get one should probably be "aborted" herself. Rape babies are extraordinarily rare, so how does one "accidentally" get pregnant?
When the contraception (the apparatus in your argument being the condom, for example) fails. Even a stable condom still has an 89% chance of working or an 11% chance to fail. This is before something unexpected happens, like the tearing of a condom, which does happen occasionally.
Most of these women are just too retarded to figure out a condom, let alone to abstain from sex with multiple random people whose baby they would be unwilling to bear. I really don't see why any of that should be the made into the baby's problem.
Let's refrain from generalizing the female gender and equating their intelligence to one deviation, shall we? We both know women have a diverse intelligence pool. The issue here is "knowledge", not "intellect".
Libtards astonish the rational person by seeking to murder babies and to save the lives of condemned criminals. They release rapists from prison and then complain that abortions are needed because of rape babies. Maybe 180-degree stupidity looks exactly like intentional evil because it IS evil. (Just a thought.)
Abortion is a liberal phenomenon. As you know, liberals don't believe in things like responsibility and accountability. Abortion allows them to act irresponsibly without having to be held accountable.
Of course, the typical feminist twit will self-righteously state that it's her body and she can do whatever she likes with it. But is it? Perhaps her body belongs to God. Then again my experience with liberals shows that they're atheists who arrogantly assume their own role as "God". As such, they make up their own "morals" as they go. Only a sick, degenerate liberal can commit and/or justify the murder of an innocent life.
The lefturds only whine about "dead children" when they are killed with GUNS--which is something very hypocritical.
Would you like a straw hat for your Strawman? I should also tag you under Ad Hominem. Refrain from using these fallacies and we will do just fine in here. To help you out in understanding, we have:
1. A completely unrelated issue being attributed to your main argument (jail releases, rapists being released, tacking these releases all under the stereotypical liberal).
2. Instead of attacking the issue at hand, you're attacking the opponent, or in this case, you're attacking the stereotype and equating them with "all or most" liberals, which is doubly wrong.
If you could perhaps learn from this to strengthen your line of reasoning better, that would be great.
1. Retarded is a slur, you display your intelligence by using it in a derogatory manner.
You said it, it's a slur, so just because i said it i display my intelligence? Doesn't make sense.
2. Contraception fails.
Not really, you see so much marketing of contraception, you think someone would really sell a product that doesn't deliver?
3. It's not "the baby's problem" because abortion does not involve a baby.
Eugenics is the answer.
Conclusion: Abortion is murder, plain and simple. It's blaming an unborn for mistakes that aren't theirs.
Not really, you see so much marketing of contraception, you think someone would really sell a product that doesn't deliver?
It is so much of a fact that contraception (like condoms) have an 11% chance of failing that they document this "fun fact" in every Biology, Microbiology, and Physiology textbook in every university in every first world country.
Conclusion: Abortion is murder, plain and simple
You do not understand the physiology of an embryo or fetus.
Your characteristics of what stands for a human life mean we can make the analogy that spermatogonia and oocytes can be considered human life, and (females) kill one every month and (males) several ten millions 5 days out of the week.
Rape babies are extraordinarily rare, so how does one "accidentally" get pregnant?
"RESULTS: The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator. Only 11.7% of these victims received immediate medical attention after the assault, and 47.1% received no medical attention related to the rape. A total 32.4% of these victims did not discover they were pregnant until they had already entered the second trimester; 32.2% opted to keep the infant whereas 50% underwent abortion and 5.9% placed the infant for adoption; an additional 11.8% had spontaneous abortion. CONCLUSIONS: Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization."
http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2896%2970141-2/abstract
Conclusion: Abortion is murder, plain and simple. It's blaming an unborn for mistakes that aren't theirs.
You seem to have ignored the arguing points against your definition of it being murder. The fetus lacks personhood, it's not viable on it's own and lacks cognitive capabilities. As such, not yet a person. Since it lacks the characteristics to be a person (namely personhood) it couldn't be regarded as murder given as Merriam Webster defines it murder "the crime of deliberately killing a person".
You must be logged in to post a reply!