Woah... here you go a bit far, Imperator. Comparing babies to people or animals in zoos is a bit extreme.

Firstly, we do kill animals, albeit for other purposes (mostly meat), so it's not really a good example. Secondly, why would anyone kill animals in the zoos or people dependant on their government? I gave you reasons for which abortion would influence positively (or rather not influence negatively the child and/or his mother). Would you randomly go and start killing people in their houses for no reason? If someone does that, it's probably caused by mental issues. Thirdly, how can you compare a child to a grown person? People are able to survive without the help of the government. Might not be an easy life, but it's possible to survive. A newborn child (and a fetus as well, of course) wouldn't stand any chance without his mother (or any other female of his species, but that would imply the child was successfully born). Which leads us to my fourth point, which is the following : if a child (or especially, a fetus) is completely dependant on his mother, it would imply that his mother would have to dedicate a significant part of her life to him, therefore I find it natural that she has to agree to bear a child and then make him survive.

Though honestly, in such a debate there is no "good" or "bad" arguments. All arguments are good from a point of view and bad from another one. It has always been that way and it probably will stay so... ^^

I understand rape, but I still think you should put it up for adoption. but if you aren't ready to have a baby, don't go around making them.

The key point in determining if a living form should be given "rights", is on determining if this living form is a sentient form of life.

This is an argument that's impossible to win. It revolves around the discerning of the moment of when the baby counts as "alive" or "sentient." Since this itself is a matter of opinion, as we have no solid definition for this, it's really unwinnable unless you can convince everyone to see things your way.

Personally, I think that once the Brain is fully formed, then you shouldn't do anything. But before that, it doesn't really count as killing a person.

Why would you start this again?

This is how it should be done:
If you want your unborn kid dead, That's cool.
If you want to die,That's cool.
If you own it kill it.
Your pet included.

This is an argument that's impossible to win. It revolves around the discerning of the moment of when the baby counts as "alive" or "sentient."

Actually no. You don't need to know where to draw the line in order to know that there is a line.
If you acknowledge that a fertilized egg cell is not sentient, and you acknowledge that a newborn baby is sentient, then you also acknowledge than the line between "to be or not to be" exists. And the debate is now much more rational and answers can be studied scientifically.

I have a quick question. What's the argument against adoption?

I understand that a mother for various reason may not want the child, but what is wrong with having that child become a ward of the state until such time it A) becomes independent or B) is adopted. I think instead of wasting half a trillion on defense spending we could invest in more adoption facilities, greater advertisement for adoption, and better standards of living/education for those in the adoption system.

The question is not whether women should control their bodies, its why don't we want these fetuses to have a chance at life when it is easily possible for the state or government to facilitate it?

Also we should mention another double standard having to do with abortion: Republicans say no to abortion, then say no to greater federal funding for adoption facilities because of their political philosophy on smaller government. It can't happen both ways. I think (and this is coming from a pro-life conservative) that we should increase government spending to help increase adoptions while imposing stricter regulations on abortions and stricter requirements for being eligible to have an abortion.

Edited 2/12/2016 22:41:46

when it becomes a human is the debate issue here

Because of the controversial nature of the debate, using precise terminology is very important. Because fertilized human eggs are genetically human (species Homo sapiens), they are all 'human'. The correct term to use for this debate is 'person', not 'human'. So, I would rephrase your statement as:

when it becomes a person is the debate issue here

For the anti-abortionists, the reason 'human' is not the correct term is because every cell of a human's body is 'human'. You kill far more human cells when you scratch your nose than when a woman gets an early abortion. But your nose skin cells are not persons. They have no minds, no feelings of their own, etc. You're not committing mass murder when you scratch your nose. (Now at least you can get to sleep tonight.)

You see all these animal rights people going nuts about how animals have intrinsic rights(Case in point, Cecil the f*cking Lion), and then at the same time saying that because a "fetus" is not human it has no value and no rights.

Even animal rights wouldn't come into play here because it's legal to kill animals if done in a humane fashion, i.e. with no unnecessary suffering. The argument is that there is a certain point before which a fetus is not fully developed enough to suffer. Where this point is, is somewhat debatable, but a fertilized egg is certainly not.

I feel like it should be the doctor's choice whether or not to do abortions.

I feel like it should be the doctor's choice whether or not to do abortions.

This could create serious bioethical problems. With preimplantation genetic diagnosis technology, mothers can actually get the genetic profile of their child before they decide whether to have an abortion or not. What if they discover their child is a female and they are strictly interested in having a male. What if they go to the doctor asking for an abortion and he accepts...that doctor is engaging in not only eugenics but also blatant gender discrimination. The ability of parents to choose "who" is their child is a slippery slope. Soon even normalish defects will be considered outside the range of parental desire and will be selected against via selective abortion. We have to be careful. We can't let doctors choose willy nilly.

Edited 2/12/2016 23:08:43

Feline Juggernaut, your stupidity is almost, almost, enough to convince me abortion is ok.

But its not.

Jai, that is where things are headed anyway.

I don't feel like the underlining issue in this debate is when does life begin. Both side get stuck up on this issue when there is nothing to discuss life begins at contraception.

This is another common imprecise use of terminology. Using the phrase 'when does life begin' leads to confusion because the two sides of the argument are not using the same meaning of the word 'life'.

Technically, there is no point at which anything involved in the process is *not* alive. The spermatozoa are alive as they swim along. The egg is alive at it travels from the ovaries to the uterus. The fertilized egg is alive, being the combination of two separate living cells. Etc. At no point did any 'life begin'. All parts were always alive, and remain alive all the way through in the case of a healthy birth.

So, clearly, the word 'life' there is being used to mean something *other* than 'biologically alive'.

Again, the more correct term would be 'person'.

The real argument being; is it alright to kill baby's (fetuses but whatever). And if it is alright why is it?

This is where the language turns highly rhetorical, as you are applying the highly emotional word 'baby' very broadly to include, apparently, a single cell with no brain, no mind, no emotions of its own, etc. Again, why aren't you concerned about all the babies you kill when you scratch your nose? Because you don't *really* think of single human cells as being actual babies; that's just your rhetoric.

And this is where the debate spins out of control if people aren't willing to stick to precise terminology to prevent these endless circular arguments.

But, in the interests of simply answering your question, I would answer: It's alright to kill a fetus before it develops to the point of becoming a person. Unfortunately, I doubt you'll be satisfied with that answer, because it refuses to adopt your rhetorical spin on things. I don't consider fetuses to be what we normally call babies (though I do understand that many people do make this equivalence; I think it's mistaken).

I have a quick question. What's the argument against adoption?

I understand that a mother for various reason may not want the child, but what is wrong with having that child become a ward of the state until such time it A) becomes independent or B) is adopted. I think instead of wasting half a trillion on defense spending we could invest in more adoption facilities, greater advertisement for adoption, and better standards of living/education for those in the adoption system.

The question is not whether women should control their bodies, its why don't we want these fetuses to have a chance at life when it is easily possible for the state or government to facilitate it?

Actually, it *is* about whether women should have control over their bodies.

Pregnancy alone (not even mentioning giving birth yet) carries costs and risks; forcing a woman to maintain a pregnancy is forcing her to undergo those costs and risks. If a fetus is not a person yet, and thus has no legal rights, then the woman should have no legal responsibility to maintain a pregnancy at that point. In other words, until there is a second person involved, the only person whose body is in question is the woman. And she has the right to decide what happens to her body. If she chooses to have a non-person fetus removed from it, to avoid those costs and risks, that's her choice, and, as this requires a medical procedure, then that procedure should be legally available to her so that she can make that choice herself.

Edited 2/12/2016 23:47:50

well everyone does inpure evil.

carries costs and risks; forcing a woman to maintain a pregnancy is forcing her to undergo those costs and risks.

But almost all Conservatives hold exceptions in the case of the mother's life, rape, and incest (or a combination of those 3). So excluding these cases what's the argument against adoption? I agree with the costs of carrying to term a child (greater food requirements, testing, hospitalization, etc). But again if we redirect resources from wasteful discretionary spending at the federal government level, we can sufficiently subsidize or cover these sources of expenses so there can be no excuse for a pregnant women to carry to term a child and give it up for adoption. The government and the community has to exhaust every other option before we agree to let an abortion happen. We must make every attempt to save and let the fetus live, before it is dismissed. These children are our future, and we are destroying our own talent in the selfish attempt to preserve some vague and concept of "privacy" and "reproductive choice".

Why would you insist on developping a human in an artificial womb, in order to produce a human being at all cost? What good would it do to bring a child in the world with no parents, just for the sake of continuing the developpement of a foetus to completion? And if artificial womb are ever a thing, then all we would need to produce humans are eggs and sperms, do the fecundation in-vitro, and then put it in the artificial womb. No need to remove a foetus surgically from a woman womb, putting her in danger.

Moral argument do work, when the morals they are based on comes from reason and logic and history, rather than a shady religious source.

Slavery was not outlawed first by moral arguments..it was through making slave-trading unprofitable and letting free labor be more profitable than slave labor through development

got any source on that? i'm highly skeptical

Humanity is statistically evil, just like integers are statistically unlikely to be prime

This statement doesn't mean anything

Fair point wtc word choice is fairly important.

Nose cells won't develop into there own life form that why Idk about then.

As for terminating a fetus I suppose there are many situations where it does prove useful but I would rather it is not done willynilly