Abortion has always been an iffy issue for me. There are cases of rape that I would take pity upon, and believe that abortion is a reasonable option. But also, there might be a idiotic teenager girl, who keeps repeating the process of having unprotected sex, and then getting an abortion.

I've always thought that abortion might not be murder, but it's pretty damn close. A fetus is indeed a living thing, but not quite a fully developed human (correct me if I'm wrong), so you could say that it's not human, therefore it isn't murder, or, it will be human, so therefore it is murder. Or something else entirely which has slipped my mind.

I just think that outlawing abortion will decrease all the stupid people having unprotected sex, which is a good thing. I don't think that if we outlawed abortion that it would dramatically increase population. BUT, I do believe that in cases of rape an incest, we should allow a proper abortion. It only seems right.

Yeah, and in case you don't read the rules, let's not openly express our religious beliefs here.

I'll be very succinct.

Rape: It's not the baby's fault so why punish it with murder? Let another caring family adopt the baby at least.

Accidental Pregnancy: Same as above.

Overall: I believe abortion is wrong. I am of the opinion that when the egg is fertilised it becomes a human being. To explicate this further, take for example, a gardener who plants some very rare and fragile seeds in a pot. If I walked along one day and threw the dirt out of the pot thus killing the seeds he would get angry because I have taken away the life those seeds would have had. (And to reflect the 'accidental pregnancy' point let's just say I walked past every few days, knocking over the pot with the seeds in it accidentally. There is no doubt the gardener would be very angry about this, and if I was stupid enough to keep doing it, then just like the stupid teenage girl who keeps pregnant, I am at fault here.)

Just for the record last year I was pro abortion until I actually did my homework on it .

i think its murder striaght up have the baby then put it up for adoption if u cant handle the baby at least them them live

In the case of rape, the very idea of -forcing- a rape victim to carry the burden of memory in the form of the child she carries is utter nonesence. The amount of mental grief a rape victim is liable to suffer from being forced to carry the child of her assailant could in itself be considered a cruelty worse then murder.

When it comes to defining abortion as murder, I think that is incorrect as well. I have always felt that "Murder" was defined as killing a sentient being.

Defined:
Sentience: The ability to feel or perceive subjectively.

Given that definition, it becomes necessary to determine when a fetus has the necessary brain functionality to be consitered sentient. Currently it is universally excepted that there is 0 brain activity within the first 40 days of pregnancy. Pro-Life activists will often argue that "Life" Begins as early as 40-45 days because of the presence of brain waves (Measured by EEG machines) however that is a simple myth with no actual scientific backing. (As described here: http://tigtogblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/fet...myths-and.html)


On a more personal level, I believe that abortion is almost never a good option, however I am an avid believer that it is not the kind of choice that someone else should be able to make for you - so while I would not personally advocate abortions as a form of birth control, I would also be against them being made illegal. The choice should always remain in the hands of the person who is pregnant.

As far as adoption goes, its really a non-option. Do some research regaurding how over crowded our adoption clinics are. Take the current yearly growth of children that are up for adoption, and add to that the current number of yearly abortions. The resulting number would make it easy to see why adoption is not a plausible solution to abortion.

Now I think abortion is wrong. *But in some cases like a #%^* load of pain/ death of relieving yourself of the child abortion may be the right idea.* But if you get raped then just put the baby up for adoption. Maybe it will have a good life maybe a bad, but atleast it has a chance.


*I had no idea what I was saying. Random evidence to prove my fact although I don't think it helps*

spartan summed up everyhing i've got to say perfectly.



if you get raped, how do you feel about carrying a baby for 9 months and have to give birth to it?

I always considered a murder as a one human being willingly killing another human(with the exception of Euthanasia). That being said, I do not think that a fetus or an embryo is technically a human, as it does not have all the qualities of one. It doesn't have abstract thinking, language or introspection. So, in my opinion, it is not technically murder.

Also, there's also a possibility of a spontanious abortion(miscarige) So the fetus' life could end as well. What I'm saying is that it happens, and you just need to move on. Same with induced abortion. If someone was raped, and they didn't want to be a parent, who has the right to tell them that they need to be? They can choose, it is their body.

I am against it being used as a contraceptive for irresponsible people. They should be punished with carrying the baby to term, and then could chose to put up for adoption. Even then, people who are irresponsible still decide to keep the baby, And just face the facts.

So is killing a vegetable murder?


Also, what about an abortion at say...8 months?

You did get me there with the vegetable thing. They are already born and and not in a womb, so it would be illegal to kill them.

And I don't know why somebody would carry for 8 months before they decide to get an abortion. I don't know if that is possible. But if it is, I would still think it okay for rape victims, but would wonder why they would carry this long.

At 8 months it would clearly be murder, as premature babies can be born and survive around that time period.

Abortions are only available (Legally) in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.

No, it's not. Spartan seems to have summed it up nicely. I'm a firm supporter of it being the woman's choice.

Who's to say whether they are going to love the baby or hate it?

So far this whole topic is speculation whereas my arguments are the most valid and sound.

(Don't take this as an aggravating comment it is not meant to be, as I stated earlier I used to be pro-abortion (it's the social norm apparently)) and I totally understand where you are coming from; I don't agree with it however.

I wish I could speak to all of you who are pro-abortion in person as I know that my words would carry so much more meaning than they do here.

We live in a most terrible time when we kill our own to 'save' our own.
Most pro-life people are faith believers, which sadly (in the case of Australia) is a minority these days. For the record I am agnostic so you can't say I'm a bible basher etc. I have a lot of respect for people who are religious.

If any of you are truly serious in this debate well I challenge you to read into some of the moral ethicists that deal in the area of abortion (Fr. John Fleming for example) naturally I only expect seasoned debaters such as Zhou and Ronan to do this.

Meh surprise me?

Unfortunately for your argument of speculation, you neglected to counter a large portion of my argument that was driven by fact with a provided source.

You assume that my statement concerning a rape victim not wanting to carry the child of her assailant is speculation - that is not the case - that argument comes from experience and common sense. I would like to think that we can agree that there is a possibility that a rape victim would not want to be forced to carry her assailants child. Even if that is not the majority, one instance is enough to have reason to leave that option open to rape victims.

Morals and Ethics are a matter of opinion and as such are not factual. I do not know how you can say that your argument is remotely more 'valid' or 'sound' then mine as your is strictly opinionated, essentially saying you believe it is murder because an embryo is a living human being. My argument challenges that statement, defining an embryo as non-living and non-sentient because of the lack of functional brainwave patterns.

Oh yeah, those Nazis weren't doing anything wrong by killing off over 6 million Jews in both torturous and experimental ways.

They weren't, in their opinion.
You can't say someone's opinion doesn't exist just because the majority of people are of a different one.

According to your moral relativism they weren't.

I'm still going to argue that a child should not have to suffer as a consequence to something they had nothing to do with. Obviously we have hit a turning point in this argument because I believe all fertilised eggs are human beings. I don't care if brainwaves don't register until 40 days into the pregnancy. So either one of us argues well enough to sufficiently persuade one of us to accept the argument; or this argument is done.

I must admit that abortion is leaning awfully close to the 'slippery slope'.

To all who are saying that there is no universal law: Are you saying that there is any situation where killing someone in cold blood that could be justified?

Also, Row, what are you referring to when you talk about the "slippery slope"? Please explain...I think I know what you're talking about, but I don't really know how to put into words.

well guys dont support it well have u seen the pictures of what they do to the abortion process i mean its very cruel and disgusting google pictures up ull be sadden a bit

Yes, in some cultures it could be. It all depends on how your raised. In some places, dogs are a culinary delicacy, in other places (u.s. for instance) it's considered sick and cruel. Same for cannibalism, slavery, ect. 400 years ago, white people WERE better than black people, it was the unwritten law. That was their culture then, and to them it was right (the majority, obviously everyone didn't think that way).



Have you seen what they do to cows when they slaughter them? You should google it.

According to Christian beliefs there's a difference between cows and human babies. From insemination human babies are human beings a totally different being than cows and far more important in God's eyes (as human beings are made in the image of God) therefore it can be said that killing a cow is far different than killing an unborn child.

The slippery slope is a well known legal term. It describes actions that put oneself on the slippery slope that is to say that there is no stopping it. For example, we kill unborn children now, if this continues we shall start having the uterus taken out of women and we will have babies born in medical labs, that's just an example.

I wouldn't call abortion killing someone in cold blood at all. I'm all for abortion if it's for a good reason. It's better to do an abortion than to give a child a lousy life, if you know you are unable to take care of it.

Do not forget that there is adoption and that there are many people who are willing to give this child a great life. In Australia we do not have enough babies for all of the couples that want to adopt.

Once again I must say that I find it quite amazing you are so willing to kill a baby and not even bat an eyelid; I challenge you to actually start thinking about the ramifications.

So why is a lump of tissue inside a woman's womb so important? I mean I don't see you saying anything about killing spiders, or putting down dogs or cats.

Because I believe we have something innate inside of us that is not found in any other creature on Earth. That is why I value the life of a human being.

Are you that naive that you actually believe that every child that has or will aborted, could've been put into a foster home? Research the subject a little bit more.

Note: I'm not putting down your belief's or opinions - everyone is entitled to them - I'm just stating that mass adoption doesn't work. Adoption in most cases doesn't work actually.

Getting rid of the 'baby' before it really is a baby is ok in my book, it has no clue what's going on really.

If I had a kid I would abort because I can't take care of a child in my current life situation and if I let someone adopt it I would feel like i'm giving part of ME away and I would be depressed beyond belief. Getting rid of it would depress me too but not as much as me not being able to have my child.

That's pathetic and very narrow minded. What's so special about us? Other animals can feel hate or love or pain or pleasure. Some of our close relatives like the great ape can use tools, sometimes (for example a termite stick) better than most humans ever could. We are not the only animals to manipulate our environment, understand language, feel emotions, or anything else for that matter.

No offense but we aren't as close to apes as you may believe (but that's another debate). Furthermore you say that my beliefs are pathetic yet you are prepared to kill an unborn and innocent child... sounds very contradictory to me.



You say all this yet you do not even bother to be polite and atleast give a link to a source? And you say I am naive...

Let's put ourselves in the situation of the Rwandan Genocide. The Tutsi people were being massacred by a rival tribe. The Hutus, who were doing all the killing obviously thought that what they were doing was right and acceptable, since they were brainwashed by the goverment into thinking so. So what you are implying is that it was perfectly acceptable for us "civilized" people (IE Westerners) to just stand around and accept the fact that what they are doing is perfectly fine because that is what they believe in.

Also, directed to people saying that animals are no different from humans: Animals don't kill each other, except for self defense. And they do not intentionally abort their babies.

I never heard them ask for help, so why should we get into their business? Also, from Africa's history with westerners (dividing up their continent without native's consent or political boundaries in mind, capturing and buying slaves), I think we've done enough....




Well for one, animals also kill to eat and to eliminate competition. But humans do the same. Humans are very complex, but we still follow our instincts. There is no difference between "us" and "them". Animals rape, so do humans. It's all for the same purpose, to either actually try to impregnate, or to express dominance. Humans and "animals" both kill for the same reasons. Food, dominance, self defense, accidental. All life is is a bunch of chemical reactions going on. Your just a collection of atoms making up collections of molecules, making up collections of tissues, making up collections of organs working in the right ways with each other to reproduce.



Oh yes they do. When a female rat is pregnant and another male wants to mate with her, then he releases chemical that makes the female rat abort her baby.

Would you still call it a lump of tissue after several months?



In my opinion, kill shelters are wrong. Just because your pro-life doesn't mean you support kill shelters.




What if the male just wants to mate with her? You can't really prove that it's an intentional abortion

You have no idea... my friend who lived in Rwanda saw his parents killed before his eyes and you think you can comment about this atrocity whilst you sit comfortably behind your computer screen? You think America did not get involved? They were a massive force behind the killing however you would not understand unless you were there.





I find it interesting that you seem to be so self satisfied in your knowledge. How many years of research have you done to come to these seemingly confident and immovable conclusions?

Furthermore, in your argument you use the line 'animals kill to eliminate competition'. I question, if we are just like animals as you say we are, how come we have laws against murder?\

And you say that all life is 'a bunch of chemical reactions going on'. Well I want to know why we do not all act the same if we are all just chemical reactions? What makes the chemical reactions in someone different to somebody else; is it another set of chemical reactions? An evolutionist would say that it is all just luck that we are how we are today, it is just a 'most miraculous design'. The question here is that who is the designer? Recently I attended a lecture that was given by a Doctor who received his phD from Harvard. He produced a most convincing, logical and sound argument against evolution; I shall endeavor to find some information about him and his argument for anybody who would like to read it. As I believe his argument is most pertinent for the search for knowledge and truth.

My last and perhaps most important point: For those of you who do not know, debating is not about professing your argument until the cows come home. The nature of debating to use it as a tool to find the truth in life. And as such there is a requirement that everybody who partakes in debating is open to change about their opinions, in the words of Joseph Joubert: The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress.. I also question whether anybody here has actually researched into the bio-ethical side of Abortion and has properly understood the argument from both points, I know I have and as such my debate is held back by those who have not, as I can not further the debate for truth rather I must continue to refute biased, badly crafted and most importantly ignorant arguments. Even so your opinions are still valid.

Under your moral relativism view, why stop at debating abortion? Why would we not debate whether murder itself is allowed? With this argument, you are basically stating that whoever has the most power is free to do whatever he/she pleases, and whoever gets the short end of the stick (IE unborn children) well, too bad for them. After all, it seems like it's morally OK to do that, right?

Now, I'd like you all to view abortion from a different perspective. Let us say that a teen gets in a car accident, goes to the hospital with a coma. The doctors say he will come out of the coma in a few days. But the parents want to have him killed. After all, he cannot feel anything, and has no idea what is going on, right? This is the same thing as abortion. It doesn't matter if the person has no idea what is going on. The similarities between the two is that both eventually will come to their full consciousness and be able to function normally.

I take it you are arguing against Zimy?

Me? I'm pro-life Sorry if I wasn't too clear about it before, but I tend to take a more cross-examination approach to debating.

Who can say that the child will have a lousy life? Life is what you make it, it's lousy only if you want it to be. You'd be surprised at how many people living on the streets are happier than even the richest people. And what do you mean by "a good reason"? Are you saying we should be killing anyone who has a depressing life?

From the moment of conception everything that differentiates the baby from anybody else is present, everything that makes that baby a person is there, it does not arrive 9 months later, it does not arrive when you can detect sentiency, it is there at the moment of conception.

Adoption in place of abortion is simply not a valid argument. Do a little research on how many children are being placed in adoption - and how much that number rises every year. Then add that number by the amount of yearly abortions - given that adoption clinics are already over crowded, it does not seem possible that they would be able to handle the vast amount of infants that would be brought in by eliminating abortion.

If i understand your argument right, you are claiming that the moment the egg is fertilized it contains all of the instructions necessary to create a human being, and thus is murder to eliminate it because it had potential to be a been a human life. I do not see that as a valid argument since using the same logic, a women choosing not to have intercourse during times in which she could become pregnant is also murder since the opportunity for life existed. Obviously that is illogical.

@ Arguments stating that abortion is the same as killing a person in comatose: This makes no sense at all, since a comatose person still has complex brainwave patterns, were as a fetus does not (At least not during the legal period of abortion)

@ Arguments claiming that personal experience is necessary to understand the situation: While its true that personal experience can help obtain a clearer picture, it is hardly necessary. If personal experience assured correctness - then I would be correct in saying forcing a rape victim to carry the burden of her assailants child would be traumatizing to the extent of being worse then murder, therefor abortion would be a logical option for rape victims at any time during pregnancy.

I would like to see the legal time frame for abortion reduced to 12 weeks, rather then the current time of 23-25 (Late abortion) weeks.

Please keep the debate on topic, stating that there is a spiritual difference between humans and animals is a purely religious debate and therefor does not belong here.

Learn what a valid argument is.



You seem so sure about this; please be kind enough to give me a few refutable sources.

1: Dispute my argument rather then telling me to learn what a valid argument is. I stated that yours is invalid because it is illogical. Feel free to prove that it is.


2:
Information regarding rates of foster care, and the percentage of children who actually find permanent homes before reaching adulthood.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/youth/jan-j..._care_5-19.html

Information concerning the amount of abortions happening per year in the usa. (1996 number, to show trend)
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

More information concerning the number of yearly abortions, current 2003.
http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/facts/abortionstats.html

More information on foster care statistics:
http://www.urban.org/publications/411254.html
http://www.law.capital.edu/adoption/fostering_results.htm


Statatics from the Adoption Institute, showing trends and rates of adoption.
http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/FactOverview/foster.html

Yet more information regaurding foster care and the number of children who reach adulthood with foster parents, or failed to even get that far. (Also contains stat's regaurding abuse/neglect ect)
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/sta...cs/adoption.cfm

Easy to read information regaurding the number of children placed in foster care, and how many of them still need homes.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_r...cars/trends.htm

Currently there are approx: 1.4 million yearly abortions in the US.
There are about 700-800k children awaiting a permanent family.

Lets throw another 1.4 million children into the mix, now according to all of the provided information, the number of yearly abortion is declining (And has been since 1995) - assuming the rate of declination remains the same there would be about 1.1-1.2million abortions in 2010, and somewhere around 500k in 2015, however thats specularity math.

Adoption rates are also increasing, meaning more children end up being adopted then not each year, currently only about 25% fail to be adopted (Which is pretty good when you look at how it used to be). This is were the problem becomes evident: The number of families willing to adopt is not going to increase simply because more children are placed up for adoption - now say every would-be-aborted child is placed into adoption - thats approx. 1.4 million children added to the current 700-800k children. Who exactly is going to care for them?


Care to provide sources for your arguments?


I did come across something interesting while goggling about, and i like the idea.
A women who has an abortion for non-medical reasons more then once should be forced to have a tubal litigation, or other form of permanent birth control placed upon her. This excludes victims of rape (As proven in a court of law).

I do not really like the idea of abortion as form of birth control, and thusly believe that measures should be taken if a women who has already had an abortion requires a second one.

Take a new born baby and put it in a field. Take an adult of 21 years and put it in a field.
Which has a means of survival?

That's the difference between abortion and murder.

At some point I'll find an essay I wrote on the subject and put it up here.

Can it think? Is it conscience? Could it learn language or identify shapes?



I was more arguing towards Row.



I honestly want to argue with you on this...but I can't.




I have heard of this before, but I admit I'm not the best educated in this particular subject.



Laws are just ways humans try to prevent others (that will share their genes) from being killed through a mutual contract of "you don't do this and I won't either". It is more helpful to survival to get along in the long run, than to go killing everyone you can (as there a chance of you being the one killed). Ya, I'm using the selfish gene argument, but only because it works. Human beings are complex animals no doubt, but just because you don't bother to think about WHY they actually do it doesn't mean they do. Just because you don't think "if I kill this person than theres an equal chance someone will kill me" out right, doesn't mean your not thinking it.



Umm, your really asking this? Of course everything is different. For one the subatomic world is still a complete mystery. Particles will seem to disapear out of no where and electrons seem to be in 2 places at once. This will make every atom different and every molecule different.

Also every molecule is in a different place mixing with different molecules at different times. I'm sorry but this is a stupid question. Thats like asking "well why aren't all runescape characters the same, they're all made out of pixels".




I'm open to new ideas I'd love to hear it.



I understand both sides of the argument. I've acutally been "pro-life" at one point. I respect everyone's oppinion here, but that doesn't mean I won't attack it vigorously.



Ummm no? He was once conscience, and he will be again. The fetus never had a life. It has never loved or hated or thought any deeps thoughts. It's not as if the fetus is losing anything, because it never had anything to loose. Now is now, the fetus can't loose a life it never had.




Well it's true. Power = control... I don't understand what your arguing. If you have true power then what you say will go, it doesn't matter if it's "morally" right. If your in power over a rapists fate then it doesn't matter what he/she thinks, you'll do what YOU want with them. Sorry but nature is about reproduction and the one who reproduces the most is the one with the power. Power is what matters in life sorry.



Morals are subjective, get over it. What you think is "right" is not what everyone else thinks is "right" and is not the absolute undisputed "right" of the universe.






Edit: What the hell is wrong with my quote tags?

Therefore you are validating what the Nazi's did by attempting to exterminate every Jew? Would you also suggest that we should do away with laws?

I do not agree with what the nazi's did, but they would have did it whether or not anyone else agreed with them.

Would I suggest we do away with laws? Well there are criminals, so apparently people do what they want anyways. As for actually answering the question, I'd need to explain why my answer would be so, and it's not relevant to the debate.

Matt. Your points only show me that more work needs to be done in the areas regarding adoption agencies, they still are not logical reasons why lives should be taken. There is no true difference between a fertilised egg and a grown man or woman, given time the egg will become the man or woman.

Let me put it to you this way: If our society became over populated somehow, would you agree with the culling of every second person in the population?

If you answer 'yes' than you are obviously a very distorted person.

If you answer 'no' then you are contradicting your previous statements about abortion.

The sources i provided showed that adoption agencies are not remotely capable of handling another ~1.4 million babies a year, and as such adoption can not be used as the complete alternative for abortion - nor can it justify outlawing it.

I believe there is a difference between a fertilized egg and a fully/mostly developed human being, so there is a fundamental difference in our belief systems. At that road block there's little justification to continue debating, since it won't exactly achieve much other then sore fingers as we tirelessly try to convince each other of a greater point when fundamental differences make it impossible to accept.

A Man or women will also become dead eventually.

Abortion is not being used as a means of population control. If someone actually said that here then its simply false. o.o.

Exactly.

Well in that case just go a head and remove the whole debate forum.

No, it's not. Simply because the baby isn't anything but a bunch of random embryonic cells until he's like what, 20 weeks old? anyways, something like that...

At that stage, lettuce is more complex than it. Did you ever think what goes through the mind of the lettuce leaf as it's being chopped into a salad bowl? Shame on you... and to quote Row from the first post: "Why should the lettuce be punished?"


as to the legitimacy of this debate: there isn't a single female opinion posted here, have you noticed... I think it's pretty argent of you, row, to take childbirth so lightly considering the fact that you'll never face it. Not saying that i will ever, thank god, but basically it's a traumatic experience on the body - making it purely the mother's right.

So your debating that because child birth is painful that gives the person the right to murder another human being? That is horrible to say the least.

Going to war can be painful, therefore soldiers should be able to kill whoever made them enlist/enlisted them - according to your example there, as you can see, it is flawed.

No, you completely disregarded my first comment. until the 20th week or so - it's not a baby (let a lone a human being)...