[Debate] Abortion [Morals] (45)

1 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-03 01:13 ID:EQOfxK5F

This is another topic to test the debate option of posting in 4-ch. Feel free to make your own topic of anything that you want to debate about, but please remember to use the [Debate] tag and, if you want, another tag at the end (e.g. [Morals] for what the debate is based off of).

-No flaming or trolling. Emphasis on flaming. Keep the argument down to a mild level.

-Back up what you say. I know it's hard for this, but don't just say something like "God is fake". Tell WHY you think God is fake, and use science to back it up if you have to. If you want to say "God is real", then the same goes for you. If you are going to use sources, then make sure they are credible, not just from someones blog (unless they source on that, and THAT source is credible).

-Keep this as mature as possible. This is basically like repeating the first rule, but don't let your emotions/beliefs get in the way of your argument. It makes you and your whole case look childish.

Abortion. Is it murder? Is it ethical? Should mother's have to have and care for their child no matter what? Is it circumstantial? These are a few questions to start talking about.

STARTING ARGUMENT: Abortion is OK because it is just the killing of a fetus, or the 'blueprints' of the actual child.

2 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-03 06:18 ID:yEQoL4hc

ITT people base facts on feelings rather than feelings on facts.

I'd say abortion should be illegal except for early (I can't say exactly how early) in the pregancy, or in cases of rape or threat to the mother.

I don't think it should be legal to kill a child the day of its birth, nor the day before the unborn is expected, nor the day before that, etc. So, I continue this back. I do not know enough biology to decide exactly. Toward the late pregnancy, I think the mother should be obligated to birth the child and if she doesn't wish to care for it, put it up for adoption.

3 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-04 15:29 ID:N6sSsP6j

> I don't think it should be legal to kill a child the day of its birth

As it turns out, killing a child on the day of its birth is actually a completely natural survival mechanism in humans and many other animals, and it still happens in our society.


4 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-04 18:37 ID:ogkslX61

Beware to not kill too many. No more kids = the race is gone.

5 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-04 21:07 ID:Heaven

ITITT aborn!!!

6 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-05 03:39 ID:yEQoL4hc


That's no reason at all for it to be legal.

7 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-05 04:10 ID:EQOfxK5F

Cite some actual sources to back up that article. Livejournals usually won't be right you know.

8 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-05 12:34 ID:N6sSsP6j


So you think throwing distraught mothers, who might very well be acting on instincts and not even realized what they done, in prison is a better idea? I'm not saying it should be legal either, but as the comments note, many countries have specific laws in place to relieve the mother of responsibility in these cases without directly acknowledging what is taking place.

And there is also the suggesting that by allowing easy abortions, you lessen the number of cases where the mother will kill her child after it has been born, which by any measure really is a worse situation than an abortion.


The article itself is really all about one big source, http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Nature-Maternal-Instincts-Species/dp/0345408934.

9 Name: 8 : 2007-07-05 12:35 ID:Heaven

Wow, I spell great this morning. Please disregard the horrible mangling of the English language in that preceeding post.

10 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-05 17:39 ID:yEQoL4hc

This is 6

That's not what I said, and you should quit the strawman argument habit. It should be illegal, but if theres a recognized psychological reason that someone can't help, they wouldn't be put in jail. Aside, this thread isn't about that article, but if it's true wouldn't that have more implications on child raising traditions than abortion?

Why should we consider killing a child after it's born worse? That's incredibly relevant to your opinion on the issue of abortion.

11 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-05 20:12 ID:Heaven

ITT fuckers that are better off in some other populist board.

12 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-06 03:30 ID:EQOfxK5F

itt farts

13 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-06 03:30 ID:Heaven

Forgot to sage the post, sorry.

14 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-06 14:02 ID:N6sSsP6j


It's not a strawman argument, it's Devil's Advocate. I do basically agree with you, but how do you justify making a law and not enforcing it? What purpose does the law serve in the first place, then?

And no, it doesn't have much implications on child raising, because this happens very shortly after birth, and not much thereafter. It has implications on abortion because if a woman can get an abortion easily, she doesn't need to kill her child herself after it is born.

As for why it's worse to kill a child after it has been born, that would usually boil down to the old argument that at that point, the child is an independent being, and can survive on its own. While the mother is carrying it, there's an argument to be made that it is still part of the mother's body, as it cannot exist independently.

15 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-06 18:43 ID:yEQoL4hc


To jail the ones who don't have a legitimate defense. The punishment for breaking laws isn't necessarily jail time either. It could be counseling, a fine for the cost of whatever had to be done to take care of the scene, etc. The purpose would hopefully be to deter people from killing unnecessarily.

I don't believe a child is an independent being until quite a while after birth. They're still pretty helpless for a long time.

16 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-07 00:58 ID:16b30fRL

> To jail the ones who don't have a legitimate defense.

Is "instincts made me do it" a legitimate defense or not?

> It could be counseling

Counseling isn't going to be of any help for something that already happened, and was a one-off caused by instincts older than the human race.

> I don't believe a child is an independent being until quite a while after birth. They're still pretty helpless for a long time.

Independent from their mother, at least.

17 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-07 08:07 ID:yEQoL4hc


That's all up to the courts to decide. Theoretically, at least some of those murders wouldn't be defensible. But, I think we're getting a bit off topic.

If the independence is the major issue, then what about advancements in technology making life outside the womb viable earlier before birth? If it were possible for a 4 month old fetus to survive in an artificial womb outside of the mother would that mean it should have the same rights as a born baby? It would be independent from it's biological mother.

I don't personally see much of a difference between dependency inside the womb biologically and dependency outside the womb financially, except as far as health of the mother goes (in bad cases of which, I think I've already admitted I'd think abortion would be permissable).

18 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-07 11:56 ID:16b30fRL

> If it were possible for a 4 month old fetus to survive in an artificial womb outside of the mother would that mean it should have the same rights as a born baby?

It might just, but that's not going to happen any time soon, so it's not really a concern.

19 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-12 01:20 ID:EQOfxK5F

How about this.

The woman can have an abortion if she wants because it is her child?

20 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-12 03:24 ID:yEQoL4hc


also the fathers lol

how about this

the woman can have an abortion if a team of economists and statisticians find that it is more cost efficient to abort the child than to birth it.

21 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-13 14:20 ID:N6sSsP6j


You're both failing to consider what it actually means for a child to "be someone's". >>20 seems to think it just means the child has genetic material from a person. >>19 doesn't say, but I might suggest that his argument could hold up pretty well if you considered the child as being a part of her body.

22 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-13 20:19 ID:RdyPvw6D


>part of her body.

feminist psychobabble.

I wish there were less of your kind here. It would open up the better discussions.

23 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-13 21:08 ID:yEQoL4hc

20 here, i'm not sure how you came to that conclusion from my post, since the latter part of it would fit pretty well with assuming the child "belonged to society", and i lolled after the first part.

24 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-14 15:16 ID:16b30fRL


Uh, dude? You have issues. I am speaking strictly biologically. The child is part of the mother's body until the umbilical cord is cut.


I wasn't speaking specifically about you, really. The idea that the child also belongs to the father it pretty common, so I took the facetiously presented opinion at face value for the sake of argument.

25 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-18 04:59 ID:Heaven

> psychobabble
> pseudointellectual
> junk science

What are three terms that fools use to reject arguments without discussion or debate?

26 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-24 15:46 ID:Heaven

1 psychobabble
2 pseudointellectual
3 junk science

And because of good reason.

27 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-31 08:58 ID:JslypzJ5

An interesting question I saw an article about on reddit:

If you believe abortion should be criminalized, what jail sentence do you propose for pregnant women who have or attempt to have abortions?

If you do not believe that pregnant women are complicit in the crime of abortion, only the practitioners, please explain your reasoning.

28 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-31 23:40 ID:Heaven

This isn't going to stump anyone when abolitionist would obviously choose the death penalty.

29 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-08-01 06:57 ID:yEQoL4hc


Yeah that's not a very interesting question at all.

30 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-08-06 14:37 ID:s2RchZig

I think it's a valid question. If abortion was made illegal because the fetus' are considered babies that merely haven't yet made an appearance, then women performing their own abortions could be convicted of slaughtering a baby. That is an extreme difference from being a non-crime.

31 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-08-06 15:41 ID:dJ2gee2w

Loophole: bellyflop onto pavement, causing miscarriage.

32 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-08-06 17:04 ID:yEQoL4hc


tripping is now a crime. walk right or walk behind bars. gravity jails.

33 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-08-10 06:02 ID:dJ2gee2w

I wear a tight-fitting corset and also continue my job as a theme park mascot, tempting adolescent troublemakers with my punchable belly.

34 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-08-10 19:05 ID:Heaven

Abortion is perfectly OK with me. In fact I think it should be used more often. The world's getting pretty over-populated anyway.

For example, if the mother doesn't have an abortion but doesn't want the kid and puts it up for adoption, it'll probably lead a shitty life with depression and mental problems from knowing its own parents abandoned it.

I think the chances of getting a good home are slim as well. It'd be merciful to not let it live at all.

TL;DR, I don't like babies. ┐(´ー`)┌

35 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-08-11 00:06 ID:Heaven

I disagree with >>34, but I sure do wish it was easier to do so.

36 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-09-04 17:34 ID:fbM6rOta

I believe what >>2 says is true but only upto a certain state. The fetus only starts to develop the main organs (i.e. heart) when it is 14 days old.

So therefore, i believe, that one can abort before the 14-days dead line. This is because you would only be killing a handful of cells (instead of a human being). However, after that, the fetus has developed brains... etc. therefore he or she (or if you want to call "it") has the human right to say if he or she wants to live. But since (what's the plaural of fetus?) can't talk, i believe it's wrong to take a life without the person agreeing to it.

37 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-09-30 20:07 ID:dJ2gee2w

Am I alone in not really caring about this issue, beyond entertainment value?

38 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-13 15:13 ID:CGs0am1l

I think whether abortion is okay or not all depends on what you regard as a 'human life'; is it a clump of human cells? a fully grown and birthed baby? a 14 day old fetus beginning to grow organs? a larger foetus beggining to have brain funtions? Myself, i regard it as a human life at around 3-4 months, which is when i beleive the soul takes up residence in the body.

I think it's fine for women to have abortions, as long as she is entirely certain she thinks it's ethical and what she really wants.
I thik it's important that there are strict regulations to ensure that the women in positive about wanting the abortion, and to ensure it happens early in the pregnancy.

Even if I personally thought abortion was wrong, I would still want it legal to prevent the horrors of illegal abortions- we don't wanna go back to the days of coat hangers, right?

39 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-24 15:20 ID:vlvJEBKT

If the parents are seriously considering abortion then the kid's gonna be fucked up either way. Parents who aren't willing to have a kid are stuck with one.

40 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-25 03:59 ID:dJ2gee2w

We could always go back to orphanages, chimney sweeps, and street kids with nimble fingers.

41 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-25 10:31 ID:pYiXMxHG

Good point. I reject my previous post.
Maybe they'll give them goddamn mexicans some job competition.

42 Name: Anon : 2007-10-25 14:10 ID:oGDR4JQC

Personally, I believe you are not fully human until you smile. So, you can pretty much kill kids up until their first smile.

43 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-26 02:36 ID:Heaven

Sucks to have facial paralysis...

44 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-11-05 12:21 ID:eZVmyGz8

if they dont kids, they should've think before they act. we're humans, we're not an animal... but i think its ok, as long the reason is right. i dont know what kind of reason is right, maybe financial (got 10 children already and dont want another 1) or health...

45 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-11-06 02:47 ID:Heaven

> we're humans, we're not an animal...


This thread has been closed. You cannot post in this thread any longer.