EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Your opinion on abortion ?

< Return to subforum
Page: 12345Most Recent
RXR.
By RXR. | Apr 17 2015 2:57 AM
Serious topic here. I wanna here your thoughts.
R.I.P RXR
2015-2015
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Apr 17 2015 7:16 AM
RXR.: Should be a choice up until the lifeform is 8 weeks old. Abortion clinics should have educational information on-hand regarding both the reasons for an abortion and the potential consequences.
admin
By admin | Apr 17 2015 1:09 PM
RXR.: I'm all pro-choice. I have more compassion for the cows and chickens I eat than I do for aborted foetuses. Sorry if that makes me sound like a monster. I agree with making mothers as informed as possible though.
Thumbs up from:
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Chuz Life
By Chuz Life | Apr 18 2015 5:07 AM
RXR.: I could write you a book with my answer to that question. The bottom line is that the vast majority of abortions are (imho) murders.

The Supreme Court needs to explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under one law but not under any others.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Apr 18 2015 5:34 AM
Chuz Life: Murder is a strong word. I do not care if it is the right word because it is still rhetoric. There are 23 million chickens who get killed in the US each year. What's the difference between a Chicken and a Chicken Embryo? Chickens can live independently of the mother, have sensory emotions, and are capable of basic thought and communication skills.

We look at an embryo and we see the outline of a human baby. It takes a lot of effort to overcome this human incognition we have that makes us see embryos as humans, but we have to remember that an embryo not a human, but a really tight grouping of tissues and reproducing cells. It is not the killing of the embryo that concerns us, but the killing of what the embryo could have been. "What could of been" is what it always will be, a useless and time consuming thought. The embryo is none the wiser.

Starting at 8 weeks an embryo begins to show the first signs of human organelles, making the embryo a fetus. I believe in the Christian bible, and my faith exists based on the truth that all humans have the holy spirit inside them. The fetus in the span of a week receives a brain, skin, heart, and all the beginnings of a proper human body. Would it be unreasonable to assume the fetus also receives the holy spirit. Was this massive transformation at 8 weeks a breath from god? I cannot answer that question, but until I can properly make that judgement, I will adhere to the words of Socrates and choose not to condemn a man because there is a chance he might be innocent, in this case, a chance a fetus may not yet have the Holy Spirit.


Blackflag
By Blackflag | Apr 18 2015 5:35 AM
P.S, Aristotle predicted that a fetus receives his spirit 11 weeks after pregnancy.
Chuz Life
By Chuz Life | Apr 18 2015 5:58 AM
Blackflag: Aristotle was ill informed. Not his fault, he did not have the technology or the subsequent insight into the womb that we have available today.
The Supreme Court needs to explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under one law but not under any others.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Apr 18 2015 6:01 AM
Chuz Life: What insight do we have now that we didn't then?
Chuz Life
By Chuz Life | Apr 18 2015 6:08 AM
Blackflag: Murder is the right word to use when a person has been unjustly killed, isn't it? As far as 23 million chickens being killed? YUM! As far as what the difference is between a chicken embryo and a full grown chicken? Time. And for what it is worth, Chicken embryo's live in an egg and are not dependent on their mothers for anything more than a source of body heat.

As for your 2nd Paragraph, you are not basing your claims there on biological facts. A child in the womb EXISTS, it is the young of the parents who created them. They are a living (in this case) human organism / being. And, at least here in the U.S. our "fetal homicide" laws already recognize them as such.

As far as your last paragraph, you are entitled to your own religious beliefs, however our laws are not based upon that and neither should they be (in my opinion).
The Supreme Court needs to explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under one law but not under any others.
Chuz Life
By Chuz Life | Apr 18 2015 6:09 AM
Blackflag: Microscopes, 3d ultrasounds, and our understanding of DNA.
The Supreme Court needs to explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under one law but not under any others.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Apr 18 2015 4:55 PM
Murder is the right word to use when a person has been unjustly killed, isn't it? As far as 23 million chickens being killed? YUM! As far as what the difference is between a chicken embryo and a full grown chicken? Time. And for what it is worth, Chicken embryo's live in an egg and are not dependent on their mothers for anything more than a source of body heat.

Missing the point by just a little. Murder is being used in a context situated for rhetoric. Proving abortion is morally wrong goes beyond crying out "murder" and "human being."

A child in the womb EXISTS, it is the young of the parents who created them. They are a living (in this case) human organism / being.
An embryo is a child? Fine. An embryo is a human being? Fine.
Is an embryo capable of thought, feelings, and all that other bullshit I am capable of? No, an embryo is not.

If I murder an embryo by supporting another persons abortion, I would feel as much remorse as I would stepping on an ant. An embryo might have human DNA. The real question is why we would tell our children that accidentally stepping on an ant is harmless, at the same time telling them aborting an equally mindless embryo is murder. How are ants and embryo's different again? Oh right, we didn't give birth to ants.

As far as your last paragraph, you are entitled to your own religious beliefs, however our laws are not based upon that and neither should they be (in my opinion).
Why not? It seems if religion is the most important thing in life, it would be the model for all our laws. Isn't that the reason for wanting to ban abortions? The anti-abortion activists always bring up the holy spirit argument, which is exactly what I just did. Do you have a non-religious argument for banning the "murder" of creatures without feelings, instincts, or thought?
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Apr 18 2015 4:57 PM
Microscopes, 3d ultrasounds, and our understanding of DNA
How did these new technologies prove Aristotle and John the Baptist's teachings on the human spirit false?
Chuz Life
By Chuz Life | Apr 19 2015 5:58 AM
Blackflag: Murder is being used in a context situated for rhetoric. Proving abortion is morally wrong goes beyond crying out "murder" and "human being."

When I claim that abortions are murders, it is not a claim being made on the basis of morality. It is a claim based on the contradiction between already established laws against murder and the exceptions they make to allow for women to kill their own prenatal children.

An embryo is a child? Fine. An embryo is a human being? Fine. Is an embryo capable of thought, feelings, and all that other bullshit I am capable of? No, an embryo is not.

Are any of those traits or characteristics legally required for personhood?

If I murder an embryo by supporting another persons abortion, I would feel as much remorse as I would stepping on an ant.

The debate is not about your lack of empathy for the children who are being killed with abortions. Is it?

An embryo might have human DNA.

It's a VERY safe bet that a human being in the embryonic stage of their life will have human DNA.

The real question is why we would tell our children that accidentally stepping on an ant is harmless, at the same time telling them aborting an equally mindless embryo is murder.

I don't know why you think children can not appreciate the fact that human beings (in any stage of development) have protected rights and ants do not. There are many children who understand and appreciate that fact all on their own.

https://youtu.be/mnOzFmNac0E

How are ants and embryo's different again? Oh right, we didn't give birth to ants.

Lia explains some of that in her video.

It seems if religion is the most important thing in life, it would be the model for all our laws.

Our Constitution forbids our government from mandating religious views. Religion may inspire some thoughts and ideas that lead to our laws. However, if they do not have a secular basis and if they are only based on religion, they would be themselves unconstitutional.

Isn't that the reason for wanting to ban abortions?

Maybe it is for some. Not for me.

I don't need "God" in my life to know that an abortion kills a child, denies to them their personhood, rights, etc. There are many atheists who agree with me on that. Albany Rose is a great example; https://youtu.be/9RW7LHuT_QM

The anti-abortion activists always bring up the holy spirit argument, which is exactly what I just did. Do you have a non-religious argument for banning the "murder" of creatures without feelings, instincts, or thought?

You know (or should know) that I do.

http://www.debate.org/debates/The-U.S.-Constitutionality-of-Legalized-Abortions-on-Demand/1/










The Supreme Court needs to explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under one law but not under any others.
Chuz Life
By Chuz Life | Apr 19 2015 5:59 AM
Blackflag: I never claimed that they were proven false. Did I?

I only claimed that Aristotle was ill informed.
The Supreme Court needs to explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under one law but not under any others.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Apr 19 2015 8:05 AM
When I claim that abortions are murders, it is not a claim being made on the basis of morality. It is a claim based on the contradiction between already established laws against murder and the exceptions they make to allow for women to kill their own prenatal children.

I don't know why you think children can not appreciate the fact that human beings (in any stage of development) have protected rights and ants do not. There are many children who understand and appreciate that fact all on their own.

Our Constitution forbids our government from mandating religious views. Religion may inspire some thoughts and ideas that lead to our laws. However, if they do not have a secular basis and if they are only based on religion, they would be themselves unconstitutional.
You know (or should know) that I do.
http://www.debate.org/debates/The-U.S.-Constitutionality-of-Legalized-Abortions-on-Demand/1/

Every argument for banning abortion you make seems to be based of the idea that the law says it is not allowed. Debating is usually about those who want to change the status quo going up against those who want to keep it the same. With that said, proving a point goes beyond saying it is already illegal. The question is whether the law, or the constitution in this case case, needs to be changed. Logically it should be.

I don't need "God" in my life to know that an abortion kills a child, denies to them their personhood, rights, etc.
If what I wrote above made any sense, you would understand that I need more information to understand your position than "it violates their rights." Why should an embryo have rights. By the same logic you would support giving other inanimate things rights as well? Maybe a rock?
Chuz Life
By Chuz Life | Apr 19 2015 9:36 AM
Blackflag: Every argument for banning abortion you make seems to be based of the idea that the law says it is not allowed.

If you believe that, then you are not completely understanding where my arguments are coming from. Our laws are in conflict with one another. We have laws that both recognize children in the womb as persons (by making it a crime of murder to criminally kill one) and we have laws which say it's not a crime at all for their mothers to kill them.

Debating is usually about those who want to change the status quo going up against those who want to keep it the same.

Correct. And I am trying to change the status quo on legalized abortion.

With that said, proving a point goes beyond saying it is already illegal.

That depends on what specifically is being debated.

The question is whether the law, or the constitution in this case case, needs to be changed.

I don't see where the law needs to be changed for abortion to be banned. As the Supreme Court said when they were deciding Roe. . . all it takes is for a State to establish the fact that a child in the womb is a person and then for that law to be adjudicated.

Logically it should be.

I agree.

Why should an (human) embryo have rights.

Let me try to explain why I don't feel the need to argue the "should" or "should not" aspects of the issue. Our Constitution clearly says that "all" persons have an equal right to the protections of our laws. So, if a child in the womb is a "person" it is automatically entitled to the same basic rights and the same protections of our laws that we are all Constitutionally entitled to. Unless the Constitution is changed to remove those equal protections, I don't feel the need to debate about whether or not they "should" apply to children in the womb.

By the same logic you would support giving other inanimate things rights as well? Maybe a rock?

If you believe that a child in the womb is inanimate and no more alive than a rock is. . . maybe we should start with some basic biology instead of some of these more complex details.




The Supreme Court needs to explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under one law but not under any others.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Apr 19 2015 9:52 AM
Chuz Life: If you believe that a child in the womb is inanimate and no more alive than a rock is. . . maybe we should start with some basic biology instead of some of these more complex details.

No, an embryo is alive, just inanimate. It is a bundle of cells reproducing to forum tissue. At that exact stage in time it is no more special than a rock IMO. When an embryo becomes a fetus and starts growing human organs, then I believe killing the "child" would be wrong because it is now more like us, a living animate thing.

I've never seen an embryo as a lifeform. It is more like a series of chemical reactions occurring inside a husk that will one day produce a unified living thing. There is no real association between the internal functions until an embryo reaches fetal stage.

Let me try to explain why I don't feel the need to argue the "should" or "should not" aspects of the issue. Our Constitution clearly says that "all" persons have an equal right to the protections of our laws. So, if a child in the womb is a "person" it is automatically entitled to the same basic rights and the same protections of our laws that we are all Constitutionally entitled to. Unless the Constitution is changed to remove those equal protections, I don't feel the need to debate about whether or not they "should" apply to children in the womb.

Okay, fair enough. If the US constitution did not exist, like how some countries do not have constitutions at all, would you still defend the argument that abortions should be illegal?
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Apr 19 2015 9:54 AM
I never claimed that they were proven false. Did I?

I only claimed that Aristotle was ill informed

I think Aristotle was eerily well informed. Even at his time with a lack of medical technologies, he still was able to predict that there were some serious changes in the embryo between 9-11 weeks.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Apr 19 2015 9:58 AM
@Chuz Life - We should totally debate this
Chuz Life
By Chuz Life | Apr 19 2015 9:58 AM
Blackflag: I think Aristotle was eerily well informed. Even at his time with a lack of medical technologies, he still was able to predict that there were some serious changes in the embryo between 9-11 weeks.

No matter how otherwise intuitive Aristotle might have been. We can not know for certain that his views would have been completely UN-affected by the knowledge and by the technical advances that has been developed since the time of his efforts.
The Supreme Court needs to explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under one law but not under any others.
Page: 12345Most Recent