Which side makes a better case?
avatar
21 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • a month ago

    If something should be illegal should be the reason of abortions right..? So I guess you will have to make unwanted pregnancies illegal? Which means you will have to make uncontrollable sperm spreading illegal?
    This is assuming that you consider all human beings worthy - female, male and fetus of course.

    • a month ago

      @gigi I’m not quite following. Was this addressed to me or Joe? I talked about how sperm has no moral value, and neither does the fetus until the point of consciousness. Does that answer your point?

    • a month ago

      @sharkb8 Sorry Daniel I was probably sidetracking from the actual points in your debate cause I just think that focusing on the fetus status shouldn’t be the centre of the abortion debate.. i.e. trying to prioritise rights among human beings even if we accept that fetus is an actual person. If someone cares about a fetus, mother and father should focus on prevention and/ or consistency of the logic that there are times that the human right of controlling your own body is only selectively applicable (e.g. only for mothers to be, rather than for any human being whose life depends on someone in general)..I’ve been waiting to see someone debating these for a while hence i threw my comments here hahahhaha

    • a month ago

      @gigi I think you have to focus on the fetus though, because that's the entire point of the pro-life side. If the fetus is a human person, then killing that fetus is never an appropriate option, in the same way that killing a 6 month old infant is not an appropriate option.

      The pro-life side points out that the fetus is alive, has it's own individualism, DNA, and humanity. The fetus is not the Mother's body. It is a separate being within the Mother's body. That's where the points I presented come into play though.

    • a month ago

      @sharkb8 @sharkb8 I agree on all the above hence I already assumed that fetus is a seperate human being so that I can show that even in this case the consistency of logic doesn’t stand.. i.e. the mother actually doesn’t kill the fetus, just refuses to surrender her body (and her right to control her body and life) so that the fetus is saved. Which is definitely not what happens when the life of someone (a live human being) depends solely on someone else; this someone else has no obligation to give any part of his body e.g. blood to save the person in danger. So why should a mother to be, be an exception?

  • a month ago

    Daniel, I disagree with the apportionment of value to life, because I do not think that any human has the standing to establish value on any life except their own. However with regard to the pro choice, argument, I am persuaded by the idea that the mother has standing when the baby to be is in her womb because it is her body and if she has to choose whether to live or to die or whatever her choice is is with regard to abortion it is only hers and the baby to be, and that has to be decided only by the people who have standing, so it is possible that the father has a say so as well. The key distinction is the fact that the fetus may not be a person before viability, and thus the mother has to weight on that and make the decision, with the father and in the best interest of life.

    For example, if her life, the baby to be, and the fathers life are going to be ruined, then she has to consider that, but on the other side of the spectrum, a preference is not the same because, she might prefer not to have the child for not reason, and that is devaluing that potential baby to be's life.

    Since the mother has standing, the baby and the father, all that any other third party can do is to persuade the mother not to do it, but it is her choice as long as it is justified within her right to life, and all that it encompasses, as long as she does not abuse her right and preference I think would be an unjustified abuse.

    Therefore, justified abortion before the point of viability should be legal, because of the woman's right to choose, or the lack of a third party's right to force a choice.

    • a month ago

      @edwin So who should make this decision about the female? Given that every man has a different opinion of what should be legal and what not?
      Also, do you follow the same logic for all human beings?
      E.g. a. A baby needs marrow bone transplant otherwise they will die..(actual human being not just fetus) The father/ mother decides that they don’t want to do this even though there is absolutely no risk and easy procedure (much easier than pregnancy ). Should mother/ father’s decision be illegal given that their baby’s life depends on them only? (As per the fetus and the mother).The moment you suggest that you can have a say on someone else’s life and body then you should also give up your rights to your own body and life for the sake of all the babies out there who need your help to survive. Actual babies not cells trying to become a baby.

    • a month ago

      @edwin You have to establish value to life. If a foreign nation invades you, do you have a right to kill their soldiers in self defense? If a cop is being charged by a criminal, do they have a right to shoot the target? If a person is at the end of their life and can only survive with machine assistance, is it acceptable to remove that machine and let them die in peace? Is the death penalty acceptable? Is sperm deserving of legal protection? Do animals deserve the same protections we afford to humans?

      All of those questions and more are dependent on what/where we draw the line on protecting human persons. The same is true for the fetus.

      Also it is scientifically inaccurate to say that the fetus is part of the Mother's body. It's not. The fetus is it's own distinct being with individual DNA, it's own fingerprints, and it's own life. Pro-lifers are entirely correct to point all of that out. However, that isn't the end of the discussion, because then you also have to determine at what point we afford the status of personhood to the fetus.

      But regardless, your conclusion is the same as mine, that abortion should be legal before the point of viability.

    • a month ago

      @gigi the female should make the decision as long as the fetus, but it must be justified, so saying that the fetus has no consciousness before the point of viability should a factor that weights on the sufficiency of having an abortion and not a necessary element.

      Gigi, in the example you made, their decision should not be illegal but would be considered abuse or neglect. Illegal would be that they cannot make that decision or that they would go to jail if they made that decision. Here, they can make that decision, and since the baby is already not a fetus, then a third party like social service has a say so and can intervene, providing that transplant for the baby, and getting custody of the baby if the parents act inconsistently with their parent's rights as in taking care of the baby afterward.

      The reason why it is different when the baby is in the womb is that the mother's body, mind, health, and everything is compromised as well. So if the fetus has no consciousness before 24 weeks and there is a justifiable reason by the mother all those factors should be considered, and then the only person that can make that decision or can have a say so is the mother.

    • a month ago

      @sharkb8 Daniel, yes we have the same conclusion but different reasoning, and I think it matters and this is why.

      If the value of a preference is assigned to a fetus then that would mean that the mother can make the decision of abortion for any reason before the 24th week. So a real concern of a mother that can die would be treated in the same way than a mother who has had multiple abortion for no reason just before the 24th week. This would give the fetus no value as to life.

      So if you see that an abortion can be done as long as is before the 24 weeks you are seeing that as a necessary element, but I think it should not be seen that way but rather as a factor, because if a mother is over the 24 weeks and then it is determine that she would die if she does not have an abortion and if it is illegal she would have to either risk it or have the abortion and go to jail, I do not no think this is good.

      Additionally, giving the fetus the same value as sperm and as an egg, is diminishing the value of the fetus and hence life, because an egg and sperm should not be taken lightly since these live organisms can bring about life with consciousness and person-hood, and a fetus is more than that it is life being formed, so I do not think that the processes of life should be taken lightly in any situation.

      Therefore, viability should be a factor and not a requirement of abortion

    • a month ago

      @edwin Shouldn’t be a consistent logic here? I.e. when a human being’s life (fetus, adult, infant etc) depends 100% on another individual, this individual is obliged by the law (like making abortions illegal) to help this individual by giving up their right to self-determination and control of their own body. So if a mother should be obliged by the law to keep a baby (for whatever reason since the justification can be subjective and can be denied) and give up her body and life for the sake of another human being then you and me should also be obliged to give our blood/ bone marrow and any other parts of our body and life (without putting ourselves at major risk) to the human beings out there who their lives depend on it, right?

    • a month ago

      @gigi yes, but that would be inconsistent because, the other human beings out there are outside of our foresight, while the baby is directly foreseen by the mother. In other words, yes there are many people that would depend on our blood etc, but for one we probably do not know, and two we did not cause them or their problem, but more importantly, there must be freedom to decide what to do with one's body, (blood, etc), except when that freedom is abused, not only by when denying the opportunity of life to a conscious being for an unjustified reason, but when that conscious being depends directly by no one else except the ones that caused him or her to be in the first place.

      So Gig, all I am saying is that there is a big difference between a preference, and a justified reason, and this difference should matter when it comes to the life of a being.

    • a month ago

      @edwin That’s a fair point actually i.e. if we argue that mother and father are responsible for this new life, then that’s why they have this obligation. But then again the question arise...About consistency of logic. For example who is responsible for all the foster kids who end up on the streets because of unwanted pregnancies/ not easy access to contraception and sex education/ fathers who abandon children with zero implications etc. At the very least, we should understand the frustration and unfairness that females feel when a bunch of men make these decisions for their bodies and lives but these same men don’t care at all about where these children will end up and if, these same mothers ask for financial support to raise the children that these men obliged them to have then oufffffff damn these mothers who want to live on benefits!
      On your preference point I find it a bit vague and subjective. I don’t think there is any person in the world who would prefer to have an abortion. It’s a horrible experience and if you feel bad killing foetuses, the mother to be who do it on their body feel 100 times worse. The reason for abortions is not preference is unwanted pregnancies...and the reasons could be soo many! Who will decide what is a worthy reason and how?

    • a month ago

      @gigi Thanks, yes about the question of who is responsible for all the abandoned children. Well, I think a third party can be responsible like the government, adoptive parent, foster parents, etc. The reason is that if the father and the mother who have the right to be with the child but also the obligation to take care of them, do not do it, then a third party must intervene for the sake of life, and also because like you said usually the third party created a law so that the mother cannot have an abortion, therefore, that third party has involvement in the child's new life, and thus must be responsible.

      With regard to the idea that you do not think that any person in the world would prefer an abortion, it is a noble thought and quite beautiful, but unfortunately there are people out there who have abortions many times, like in third world countries, or in many places, there are women, who are addicts and prefer not to seek treatment and not having the babies, or there are women who are very young and prefer to have unprotected sex and also an abortion, yes I think this is not the nature of women, because the nature of women are to be nurturing, and compassionate more than men, but there are cases where this rule does not apply, and I think that for those case is that abortion should be illegal.

      On one side of the spectrum it is unjust that a woman has learned that if she goes on with the pregnancy she would die, and if she has the abortion she would go to jail. The other extreme would be for a rich young lady that is having her third abortion for no reason whatsoever, but just because she does not want to have the baby, and does not tell no body.

      So then I think a court should decide based on the facts and apply the law so that a worthy reason like a health concern, or the like would allow for abortion in only those cases.

    • a month ago

      @edwin I guess what I am trying to say is that it’s a bit unfair in a situation like this only for one party to share all the responsibilities.. And hypocritical to pretend to care about human life when in this debate, the value of the female’s life is really not in the equation. She has all the responsibilities, but no rights; not compared to males but nor to fetuses. So if the logic of valuing human life equally is consistent then we shouldn’t talk about abortions disregarding completely the female’s self-determination. In my opinion, if we actually cared about every human life, we would focus the debate on prevention..But no one talks about it.. And if you start suggesting sex ed, free contraception methods, semi-permanent male contraception methods (much safer than what females have to use) etc., people think you are crazy. The same people who don’t want to kill a fetus..
      Not sure if you have further insights on this, but the vast majority of females out there does not want or like abortions; they do it of course for one million reasons but this doesn’t mean they like it,. As you said, they have to do it cause they are in Africa, no education, a few men to rape them who have no clue of what a condom is and how to use it, etc. They do it because they are addicts, which mean that they are sick and let other men taking advantage of them etc. It’s not because of preference or choice.. Of course there is also a lot of examples of stupid behaviors of females but I don’t think it’s representative. At the end of the day unless a man parks his sperm where he shouldn’t be, I doubt we would have any abortions..

  • a month ago

    So I would agree with Joe, that abortion is probably wrong because of the negative effects and because at the end of the day is ending life, but it is not worse or better than forcing someone to do something against their will only because and when of unjustified reasons.

    • a month ago

      Abortion is only a gentle euphemism..it's straight up baby murder. The fetus is pulled out limb by limb.. see the issue here is that no one is forcing a woman to get pregnant or to copulate irresponsibly that's all you.. that's not a pizza that's being baked. Even if it weren't a human until these ridiculous claims of "until it's born" or whatever.. it eventually becomes life. Abortion is anti life. Anti everything. Abortionists are blessed they weren't torn apart and then incinerated during their mothers third trimester

      • a month ago

        @ferdinand_ascenso Why don’t you go ahead and do a vasectomy? No matter how many times a woman plays with herself, she cannot get pregnant. Only if a man decides to leave his sperm where he shouldn’t, she will. In fact a woman can max have one baby per year. While a man can have hundreds. Women contraception is actually pretty intense in terms of what it does to the body and hormones while male contraception is simple, reversible, and with zero risks. So if you care about babies, then maybe think again about the responsibility of men who think that their pleasure and body is above everything.

      • a month ago

        @ferdinand_ascenso you're entitled to your opinion, but it's pretty clearly biased. You didn't comment on anything that was said in the debate, but perhaps you should watch it.

      • a month ago

        @sharkb8 can't disagree with you on that. I did make the mistake of not watching it completely. I only posted my opinion on the matter. Good looking out.