This is a very complicated question. With a lot different people thinking different. What I think is: It is ok. No life is "destroyed" by abortion. If you say by abortion you take away a persons chance to live, you could also say this each time you do not try to have unsafe sex with someone. It takes away the chance of a persons life, doesn't it? Discuss that
Pro-abortion. I'm afraid I'm going to have to use the rape argument. If a woman is raped, and becomes pregnant, should she be forced to give birth to a child which she did not want, and which she only had because of a terrible scaring experience? I say no. She would have to live with a physical reminder of her hurt, not to mention that she would not want the child, and the child would likely have a bad life because of it. This might not seem to extend to other people, but the same basic idea applys. If people don't want a baby, or can't afford to care for a baby (like, really drastically can not afford), they shouldn't be forced to have a baby.
Half + Half here. If a woman is raped, undoubtedly she must be allowed an abortion. If a responsible couple has a condom break, and can't afford to give a good life to a baby, they should be allowed an abortion. Just giving a child up for adoption is heartbreaking. If an irresponsible couple is using it as a method of "birth control," make them have the baby (eventually) and then have social services take it away. They wouldn't be fit parents. People will argue "If your religion is against abortion, fine. Just don't have one, lawl" but I understand- their religion says murder is bad. Do you want to live in a society where murder is allowed, but you don't get killed?
Think about it this way, how far back do you remember? I don't remember a thing before 2. I'm saying this because if i was aborted, i definitely wouldn't feel it or know about it. It's a morbid statement yes, but just throwing it out there. If you feel that aborting a child is the best choice then go for it. In certain positions it's a reasonable option. Like stated in earlier posts. Would you want to see a child grow up in a bad environment where parents can't care for him? It's also enough to eff up a kid from putting him up for adoption.
Sarah Palin Sarah Palin disagrees with you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEN-c0zRH1c&NR=1 By the way, I am pro choice. A woman should be able to decide whether or not she wants to bring a life into this world. I think it is funny how Palin keeps using the phrase "I would choose life". When what she is proposing would take any choice away from the woman or family and put the government in charge of their bodies.
First, I'd like to cover a few reasons that a woman might consider abortion. I'll try to counter each one. I'm sure that I'll miss out on a few incentives for abortion, but I'll definitely cover those which are common. Note: I feel that abortion is wrong. I learned from Rusty that it's always best to put your agenda on the table before others have a chance to misinterpret it. That said, I'll begin. My overall thesis behind the morality or immorality of abortion is as follows: Most view "murder" as directly killing another individual. That is, John has shot Bill. John has poisoned Bill. Were your (hypothetical) abortion not present, another life would (at a high percentage) be in existence. Your choice prevents another life from existence, and disregards that life's right to choice. I prefer not to call an unborn baby a "child." Saying that opens my opposition up to debate that it has not yet developed into a true human. It may not yet be a child, but it will be someday, and you preventing that from happening is just as immoral as shooting or poisoning someone. 1. The Condom Broke/Birth Control Failed Well, this is an obvious risk when having sex. Some, like myself, choose not to have sex until marriage, so that I may insure that the person I might be having kids with is someone I've accepted that I want to have kids with. The fact that you're now stuck with a child and someone you probably had no intentions of fathering him/her is irrelevant. You were irresponsible with your body. If you're already married and this is the case, then you're simply ignorant. It's no odd event for condoms to break or for your Advil to null the effects of birth control. Sure, the box says 99%, but it seems awfully convenient, and in the manufacturer's best interest, that it says that. You should have been prepared for this to happen. You should've thought of the consequences, and not had to rely on modern technology to bail you out. 2. I was raped. This is truly the most difficult circumstance to explain my theory to. My view generally suggests that the mother and father are all but responsible, if they're relying on simply not having to live with their decisions. In this case, it wasn't the mother's decision at all. In fact, she's suffered enough already. I still do not believe she should be allowed an abortion. I think her case should be handled with the utmost concern, but there should also be those in place to help keep the female sane. I'm sure the easiest option is abortion, and I'm also sure that there are many other (at the time) more important things going on in the female's mind. However, she is now one with a child. It might not be part of her life plan. It might not be convenient, but she's now responsible for another human life. Just as another deals with what life throws at them, this girl should. It is undoubtedly a difficult experience, and I'm not as heartless as I sound. I can't imagine the pain she goes through, but I can guarantee that she still wants to exist. Why should this life not have the same option?? 3. I Changed My Mind. It must be nice. I hope you enjoy having a mind to change, because you're about to take someone else's ability to choose. Even if you don't want the baby for yourself, give him/her up for adoption. Don't take his/her right to live. 4. My/Their Home Is Unfit For A Child, And Adoption Is Just Torture. Well, I'd like to note the terrible situations which resulted in triumph. Ever seen the movie Antwone Fisher? This is just the first example I thought of. He was born into the worst of homes, and then thrown into others which made his first look like the Willy Wonka Factory. Look at how he triumphed. Depriving a child of the right to exist vs. Giving the child the option to triumph.
Bathroom Floor First, please change your font. It is incredibly distracting. There is some common ground that I think everyone can agree on. Nobody wants to kill babies. That being said it's all about where you draw the line of existence. Christianity says that it is absolutely wrong to even use birth control, as sex should only be used as a means of reproduction. I think that is very out of touch. I don't know if you subscribe to that, but I am guessing you do based on your biblical ramblings on other sections of this forum. Masturbation is also forbidden in Christianity. Some people may even draw their line at masturbation: "It is murder to let your seed fall onto the bathroom floor with no chance of becoming an adorable baby." You seem to draw your line at the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg and the cells begin to divide. You would have a woman who was violently raped carry a constant, traumatic reminder for nine months and then suffer through the process of giving the baby away to adoption. The Supreme Court and I believe that the line should be set a bit further along in the pregnancy. Late term abortions are, and I believe should be, illegal. Keep in mind that most abortions in the United States remove a "life form" the size of a lima bean. Once again, we all set the line in a different place. I would also argue that your heavy religious overtones are the foundation of your position. I hope we can both agree that religion has no place in this debate. That brings me to my bottom line: I don't think that the government, or religious lobbyists influencing the government, should have any control over our reproductive process. It seems like an invasion of personal freedom in the largest way.
Thanks for the font suggestion, but I'll pass. You practice what seasoned debaters know as "Diversionary Tactics." Please see Heeyah^^^ Heeyah^^^ Also, note that parts I BOLD are where your general quality as a debater falls apart. And Heeyah^^^ Also, please quote wherever the hell you're finding this stuff. I want references! As I said before, stop freaking guessing stuff. It leaves me nothing to actually counter. How can I consider your ideals on existence argument-worthy when you've no hint of life to any of your points? I also said that I consider all scientists' and over-analyzers' theories of when the "cell" becomes a human irrelevant. It is preventing a life from existence, and none of your subtle diversions or stuff you learned from your Junior year of Anatomy can avoid that. RELEVENCE? I CAN'T FIND IT! And nowhere did I mention God or Christianity. My opinions are based on what I believe. Are you asking me to temporarily change what I believe for a debate? I follow Christianity because it makes sense. This quoted sentence is asking me to not say what I feel because it concurs with one religion's thesis. PALEEZ. OH GAWD. YOU MEAN LIKE "NOT BEING ABLE TO LIVE" INVASION OF PERSONAL FREEDOM?!?!
Every time I see an abortion discussion I always notice one thing. It mainly comes down to that person's stance on whether or not a fetus is considered a living thing. Now, there are different meanings of living. The one that I choose to go by in this scenario is that when a baby leaves the womb, it begins it's life. Hell, I actually think that babies still are not living. In a way, I actually don't have a problem with infanticide. Now before you get your panties in a bunch, I am aware that this is highly immoral. I simply don't care. I believe that morals today are holding people back from doing things that would benefit the human race. I believe that because life itself is worth very little in the grand scheme of thing, that ending a life to benefit others is perfectly fine. Now when I apply this to abortion, not allowing a baby to be born can greatly benefit the mother, father, and many other people involved. Also, because the baby is not yet born, it simply...doesn't matter in my eyes. Life begins when you leave the womb in my opinion, and if aborting the child is at all beneficial then go for it. I'm not saying that it's a good thing or a necessary thing, but I do support the idea of having a choice. I don't care what you think, don't bother arguing me. It won't go anywhere and I believe that unborn life is worth absolutely nothing.
@Dented Spoiler Why is it every time someone trys to debate with you, it ultimately comes down to you talking about how other people "don't know how to debate properly" and the tactics that they are using. If he assumes something, correct him; inform him of your opinion, but don't just go off about how his points cannot be right because he "isn't debating properly". And most of all, if he isn't debating properly, it should make it easier for you. You shouldn't just stand there and talk about how they can't debate, and ignore anything that they bring up when the stuff they bring up should be easy for you to counter if they lack debating skills. Every time you do this it just makes you look like you're using "what seasoned debaters know as "Diversionary Tactics." "
You didn't address a single one of his points. That is his point in saying that you are not debating properly. You can't have a good debate if you don't debate properly. You can have the best points in the world, but if you don't know how to debate it's worthless.
Personally, i think it's the woman's choice, after all it is her body. Here are a few reasons why it is bad, it kills "it", well i guess that's all. Reasons why it is good, could have a shitty life. In the future, there will be too many people, causing starvation. Some people can't handle raising a child. Also, stem cell research , but I don't know too much abou that.
@Sharpestt Spoiler Sharpestt, it wasn't directed at you, it was in spoiler text because it did not specifically pertain to the discussion, but i just wanted to bring it up. I didn't address his points because that wasn't why I was posting. If someone is not debating properly, it should make it easier for him to disprove their points. Disproving them by saying that someone isn't debating properly leads no where. If he wants to say they aren't debating properly, why not just message them... EDIT: Actually, I'm doing this in PM's after this. I think that the choice should not be just of the woman, but the partner who wants the child (unless its the rapist) should get the child, even if that means the woman has to carry a baby she doesn't want. If one partner wants the child, the partner should get the child.
Are you afraid to have a discussion? It's a forum, the idea is for everyone to contribute. You shouldn't have to put anything in a spoiler box or a PM unless it's personal, and this is an open debate. The way you debate is part of the debate. There isn't any reason to hide what you're saying. He did, somewhat, counter your points, but the points you made were scarce and not very solid, so of course he couldn't address your actual argument very much. All he is saying is that they way you convey your point is very important in a discussion. It influences how the other person responds. When you brought up his font for no reason, that's not debating properly as it is completely irrelevant. So instead of attacking the way he debates, actually discuss what is being debated. Also, this isn't a personal matter. You need not put this in a PM or spoiler box. Relax, man.
Debating Debating Dented, you should start a debate thread on how to debate properly. My suggestion in addition to changing the impossible to read font, is to go back to my post and address the substance of the post rather than the tactics. If you believe differently than I do tell me why. If I have assumed something that is incorrect about your views please correct me. Otherwise, The Storm is absolutely right in pointing out the hypocritical nature of claiming "Diversionary Tactics".
If I may, sir. The main point that Storm made was that Drum is heavily influenced by religion and that this is a bad thing. Drum did not mention religion at all, and even so the main disagreement is simply a matter of opinion. Note how people in this thread are saying "I think". It's all opinion, and the focus of Storm's argument is that Drum has a different opinion. Drum responded to the main argument concerning religion as well as told him that the way he are trying to debate simply does not work.
Precisely. I addressed the way you debate because you left me with nothing else to debate. I come to this section because of the title. Seriously, how many times have I criticized Nitrous in our debate going on in the "Is God the Devil?" thread??? I've not done it once. That's because he's given me material to argue with. I don't care that he has a different opinion because I'm learning as the debate goes on. Here, I'm not pushing an agenda. I'm stating that abortion prevents a life from existence. You, the government, and the places that allow it are all honky dory, but this thread exists so that I may debate my point. What you posted was aimed more at my Christian views and my posts in other threads, neither of which are relevant to this debate. As I said, you left me with nothing else to debate. I addressed your faulty assumptions. I don't need to repeat them. I addressed any form of point you tried to make. I countered each response effectively and within the guidelines set forth. You can continue whining about my font, or you can give me one damn good reason that any person should be allowed to prevent a life from existence. Don't give me the anatomy BS. I know it just as well as you. Eventually, that little green pea-sized cell will become a person. The last time one person was able to control the destiny of another, we kinda had this huge ass war thing (I know it wasn't because of slavery, don't be a **** and argue that, please). As per your font complaint, I called the
I know, but it was in spoilers because I feel it is off on a side tangent, more about tactics of debating and how people should debate with people new to the concept, than really related to the "Abortion - Right or Wrong?" topic. Underlined: I agree with, but I feel that he should go along with what you tell me to do in the Bold text. He criticized the way people debates, and has done this more than once, and it gets to me. I feel "instead of attacking the way [people] debate," he should "actually discuss what is being debated." That wasn't me... And for the reccord - peoples beleifs are the basis of all debates. Religion should not come into the debate in a huge way, but saying something along the lines of "my religion states X, so i believe X" is fine. Just no rebuttals along the lines of "your religion is stoopid then". =P Do it. It'd be fun, but then again there's not much to debate that hasn't really been said here in the ABORTION thread. =P heh heh. My thoughts exactly. =P
To be honest, I worded the part of my last post that this is responding to terribly. I couldn't find the right way to say it. The point I was trying to make was that he addressed the other person's points AND criticized the way he was debating. Sorry. I didn't bother to go back and look and I thought it was you. : P Beliefs are the basis of all debates, and whoever it was that replied to him used the argument "The fact that your beliefs influences your decision is wrong", and we know that's just...dumb to say. (I obviously paraphrased that part. Don't look for that exact quote)