Thread Tools

**dhill0413** · September 25th, 02:52 PM

My challenge: Tell me why abortion should be legal.

Opening argument, taken from some 230 year-old document:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

**kenny_1491** · September 25th, 04:10 PM

I am against it. Stem cell research is another topic that deals with abortion.

NWanner · September 25th, 04:15 PM

Population control, woman/couple unable to support child, woman was on a form of birthcontrol that failed (condom, pill, etc), woman was raped, fetus has a serious birth defect that might harm mother. Honestly I'd rather see a woman have an abortion than go on a social welfare program for the rest of the population to support mother and child. Now since you asked why it should be legal and not why anyone feels it is right/wrong, I will say that it should be legal because the woman should be free to choose what she does with her body. This is aside from the debate on whether or not the unborn fetus is considered a human life or not. Remember, just becuase you don't like or agree with it doesn't mean that someone else does not have the right to exercise their freedom of choice as long as it does not directly interfere with your rights or freedoms. This is what America was truely founded on and I think some people are too selfishly focused on their own views and beliefs to see this.

**TonyD** · September 25th, 04:50 PM

Quote:

... that they are endowed by their Creator ...

Creator: Sperm and ovum.

Quote:

... with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life ...

Rights: Life.

Are you telling me nobody dies? The sperm and ovum certainly can't ensure that everyone is going to life forever. So is the fact that people die an alienation of this right?

/devils advocate

**dhill0413** · September 25th, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWanner

Population control,

The US currently has a negative birthrate.

Quote:

woman/couple unable to support child

Then why are people allowed to take loans and use credit when they are unable to support monthly payments?

Quote:

, woman was on a form of birthcontrol that failed (condom, pill, etc),

It is known that the only 100% effective birth control is abstinence. By using contraceptives, a person accepts the minute chance that it may not work. ( different depending on religion, some religions are completely against birth control as well)

Quote:

woman was raped,

Why punish an unborn child for the crime of another? Can you tell how and where your friend were conceived? You could be a rape baby and no one would know the difference.

Quote:

fetus has a serious birth defect that might harm mother.

From what I understand, emergency measures are taken when a mother is in immediate risk of death. Make every possible effort to preserve the life of both mother and child. Are there cases where the choice comes down to "The mother lives OR the baby lives"? What I understand is that is usually predetermined by the medical issue at hand.

Quote:

Honestly I'd rather see a woman have an abortion than go on a social welfare program for the rest of the population to support mother and child.

A social conscience should provide for compassion regarding these circumstances. The value of life is higher than the nominal costs of supporting truly disadvantaged mothers.(we need more oversight on our welfare program, but you can't generalize welfare recipients).

Quote:

Now since you asked why it should be legal and not why anyone feels it is right/wrong, I will say that it should be legal because the woman should be free to choose what she does with her body. This is aside from the debate on whether or not the unborn fetus is considered a human life or not.

Nay. That is a completely different person inside of her. That child should be granted the same rights as a child 6 months older than it.

Quote:

Remember, just becuase you don't like or agree with it doesn't mean that someone else does not have the right to exercise their freedom of choice as long as it does not directly interfere with your rights or freedoms.

By that logic we should not interfere in Uganda, Darfur, or any other genocidal occurrence in the world. The US should have stayed isolationist instead of getting involved in BOTH world wars.

Preservation of life extends beyond each person's tiny microcosm. By your logic we should have no social responsibility, as long as you're free to do what you want.

Quote:

This is what America was truely founded on and I think some people are too selfishly focused on their own views and beliefs to see this.

It is the exact opposite of selfish. We care so much about the life and potential of an unborn baby that we want that child to have the chance to grow, thrive, experience everything that life has to offer. Some of life is tragic, some is magic, but every unborn child has the right to experience it for themselves.

**dhill0413** · September 25th, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyD

Creator: Sperm and ovum.

Rights: Life.

Are you telling me nobody dies? The sperm and ovum certainly can't ensure that everyone is going to life forever. So is the fact that people die an alienation of this right?

/devils advocate

A natural death isn't an alienation of this life. I can get into natural law if you'd like, but suffice to say that this right extends to a naturally lived life up until a natural death.

**ComradeMolyneux** · September 25th, 08:15 PM

I'll debate this, but I'm going to frame it slightly differently.

Are we better off or worse off with abortion being legal/illegal?

The way I see it, we're better off with abortion being legal because when it's legal, we can regulate it and we can make sure it's safe for the woman. By making it illegal, you're essentially saying that if you do not want to have the child, or if having the child will damage yourself in some way/shape/form, that you must either go to some other country where it's legal to have it done (At some cost to said person) and then when it's performed, you're not really sure about the standards, cleanliness or certification of the physician. In a worst case type scenario, you're basically telling women to go roll the dice with a black market abortion, where issues with certification and cleanliness should definitely come up.

11scotch · September 25th, 08:36 PM

Look All I know is that even though people have birth defects or a virus that carried over i.e. down syndrome, HIV, Those humongous ears, they are still happy to be alive and prospering. I think that's what counts. You cant tell me that it is impossible to prosper if your poor because I know a lot of successful people were poor.

**dhill0413** · September 25th, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComradeMolyneux

I'll debate this, but I'm going to frame it slightly differently.

Are we better off or worse off with abortion being legal/illegal?

The way I see it, we're better off with abortion being legal because when it's legal, we can regulate it and we can make sure it's safe for the woman. By making it illegal, you're essentially saying that if you do not want to have the child, or if having the child will damage yourself in some way/shape/form, that you must either go to some other country where it's legal to have it done (At some cost to said person) and then when it's performed, you're not really sure about the standards, cleanliness or certification of the physician. In a worst case type scenario, you're basically telling women to go roll the dice with a black market abortion, where issues with certification and cleanliness should definitely come up.

I've heard this argument before. The same argument is made for the legalizing of any number of drugs. We don't legalize substances just because the alternative is that people seek out unregulated and illegal drugs. Fundamentally I believe a human life should never be taken, and that life begins at conception, not 9 months later at birth. That being said, it shouldn't be legal to end that life just because people may or may not find other methods, safe or unsafe, to do so.

**ComradeMolyneux** · September 25th, 11:14 PM

I'm fine with legalizing drugs too. Who am I, or how self-important must I think I am, to say that I have the right from banning you to do something.

I also think a human life should never be taken (Unless said person is a bigot like that **** NYY)(Just joshin' NYY) however, I claim that when 'Life' begins is something that isn't possible to calculate, and thus should be thrown out of the argument of abortion all together.

(It's funny to think that while 'Life' is something that isn't possible to calculate, that we can say that a fetus is a parasite, "a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species in which one, the parasite, benefits from a prolonged, close association with the other, the host, which is harmed")

**Jinjiro** · September 25th, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComradeMolyneux

I also think a human life should never be taken (Unless said person is a bigot like that **** NYY)(Just joshin' NYY) however, I claim that when 'Life' begins is something that isn't possible to calculate, and thus should be thrown out of the argument of abortion all together.

(It's funny to think that while 'Life' is something that isn't possible to calculate, that we can say that a fetus is a parasite, "a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species in which one, the parasite, benefits from a prolonged, close association with the other, the host, which is harmed")

If when life begins cannot be calculated and should be thrown out, then murder should not be illegal. Who's to say we are alive?

Also, I would argue (as I have before) that it is not a parasitic relationship, as the host is not harmed. And for those who bring up the argument that the baby would not be able to survive without the mother, what about those in a coma? Are they not alive? Or the elderly who need lots of care, medical equipment, etc. Are they too 'parasites' who aren't alive?

Finally, for those who don't believe that life begins at conception, what about other microscopic or single-celled organisms. Aren't they alive?

-Jin

**ComradeMolyneux** · September 26th, 01:57 AM

You're confusing the questions when does life begin and what is alive.

A person who was murdered, they were alive. When did that person's life start? I don't know.

Do we know if a fetus is alive? No. Is it alive when it exits the womb? Maybe. Is it alive during some period of gestation when it could survive outside of the parasitic cell of the mother's womb? Maybe. Is it alive at conception? Maybe.

People who are murdered, alive. Fetus that's aborted, who knows.

Secondly, the host is harmed, the parasitic fetus is leeching off minerals, vitamins, etc. from the host. That which the fetus consumes cannot also be used by the mother.

As for this people in a coma hoohy... "an animal or plant that lives on or in another animal or plant of a different type and feeds from it" Cambridge online dictionary. Do people in comas fulfill that definition? no. Do fetus'? yes.

Finally, a cell becomes a cell only after it has divided and is separate from the old cell. So would you like to say that a person is a person only after they have separated from the old person? I bet you wouldn't...

**dhill0413** · September 26th, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComradeMolyneux

You're confusing the questions when does life begin and what is alive.

A person who was murdered, they were alive. When did that person's life start? I don't know. do we know if a fetus is alive? No. Is it alive when it exits the womb? Maybe. Is it alive during some period of gestation when it could survive outside of the parasitic cell of the mother's womb? Maybe. Is it alive at conception? Maybe.

People who are murdered, alive. Fetus that's aborted, who knows.

Life:
the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

Fetuses metabolize. Their condition prepares them for reproduction and adaptation...pre-pubescent children do not reproduce but are alive, so please don't use that argument.

Quote:

Secondly, the host is harmed, the parasitic fetus is leeching off minerals, vitamins, etc. from the host. That which the fetus consumes cannot also be used by the mother.

Spawn from previous life are not considered parasites. Parasites benefit themselves, and not the host. Human fetuses benefit the host by their continuation of the species' life and the passing down of it's DNA. Just like in nature.

Quote:

As for this people in a coma hoohy... "an animal or plant that lives on or in another animal or plant of a different type and feeds from it" Cambridge online dictionary. Do people in comas fulfill that definition? no. Do fetus'? yes.

Not sure what this pertains to, so I wont touch it

Quote:

Finally, a cell becomes a cell only after it has divided and is separate from the old cell. So would you like to say that a person is a person only after they have separated from the old person? I bet you wouldn't...

The fetus is a separate set of cells. It lives and grows dependent on it's host, but it is separate cells.

**2 legit** · September 26th, 02:44 AM

is it just me or do we have alot of new posters that only post in politcal debate threads......shame on the trollers. And I am against abortion.

**dhill0413** · September 26th, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2 legit

is it just me or do we have alot of new posters that only post in politcal debate threads......shame on the trollers. And I am against abortion.

i'm not a new poster

11scotch · September 26th, 09:07 PM

I'm not a new poster either (backs out of thread quietly)

**kenny_1491** · September 26th, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 11scotch

I'm not a new poster either (backs out of thread quietly)

Good iedea. Seriously though I hate to threadjack but it has some similarities how you guys feel on stem cell research?

**hurdlebeast** · September 26th, 10:22 PM

Her body, her choice. Simple as that.

as for the whole life debate: technically, viruses are considered alive when they do not share most if not all of the qualifiers that we associate with something that is alive. so it's not a clear definition, to be honest.