Please seperate them in to for/against & back up why each one is valid.
For:
-Spares child a life of living unloved. If the kid is unloved & is basically unwanted from conception, the kids is more likely than not going to grown up "wrong".
-Woman's right to choose (I don't believe in this, might someone else be able to back it up)?
Against:
-The child has no chance to explore its full potential. How do you know if the kid is going to become some bum on the street or the next Einstein if you deprive life from them?
Stuff like that. Any points you might be able to shoot out helps. Thanks
EDIT:
Don't debate here, this topic is for the purpose of gathering all for/against points.
Against: A fetus is a human being, and killing another human is fundamentally wrong.
For: A fetus is not a human being, and killing a bunch of cells is not wrong
That's the fundamental problem, I think. Nobody can answer that question.
It's wrong to kill babies. It's also wrong to deprive women of their freedom of choice over their own bodies and subject themselves to a painful pregnancy for any reason but the welfare of others. If you take the middle ground of these two, it's to acknowledge that one or both of these injustices happen. Abortion's the greatest debate in history because, either to a religious person, or a secular person, life is nonetheless sacred. You can't redefine life through existential debate because, well, that's denying your own existence and your right to life.
To allow abortion in certain cases and deny it in others is to acknowledge abortion as the slaughter of the innocent and as a woman's right. Then, in the cases where it's denied, you are forcing a woman into having her life changed by an unwanted child for no reason but your bossy own, and when abortion's granted you are killing a human that has done nothing to deserve it.
In the US today, abortion is legal, but when you accidentally terminate a wanted pregnancy through negligent driving it's considered manslaughter. This inconsistency leads to only one conclusion: a fetus is human if and only if its mother wants it. Am I only human because my mother and others continue to love me?
There is no middle ground when you are talking about life; it didn't work for Plato, and it didn't work for Descartes.
Quote from: Topaz on April 19, 2006, 07:32:49 PM
You can't redefine life through existential debate because, well, that's denying your own existence and your right to life.
I disagree. I think an existentialist would say "I'm alive." I don't think an existentialist makes any claim to a right to be alive, just that he
exists. I don't think that the life of another matters substantively to an existentialist, and it's dubious to me whether an existentialist's own life matters.
Against: hitler was born
For: the fact that hitlers mom was talked out of having an abortion
Quote from: GameSnake on April 19, 2006, 08:10:48 PM
Against: hitler was born
For: the fact that hitlers mom was talked out of having an abortion
That doesn't make sense to me. :\
Against - The long-term psychological effects are often negative for the mother; they will often feel guilt for the destruction of a potential life.
Quote from: Sidoh on April 19, 2006, 09:10:08 PM
Quote from: GameSnake on April 19, 2006, 08:10:48 PM
Against: hitler was born
For: the fact that hitlers mom was talked out of having an abortion
That doesn't make sense to me. :\
Against - The long-term psychological effects are often negative for the mother; they will often feel guilt for the destruction of a potential life.
Ok let me re phrase that: hitler's mom opted out of having an abortion because her doctor talked her out of it.
Just a simple statement really.
Quote from: GameSnake on April 19, 2006, 09:22:33 PM
Just a simple statement really.
How is hitler being born an even informally acceptable argument against abortion?
Quote from: CrAz3D on April 19, 2006, 06:49:09 PM
-Woman's right to choose (I don't believe in this, might someone else be able to back it up)?
Hey, by the way:
When debating this topic, try to be more tactful then this. Now, I realize you may have a girlfriend or whatnot, but you're still pretty much saying you are against women's rights. That's not a far step away from saying women are not equal, which would get you verbally murdered by some organizations.
Quote from: GameSnake on April 19, 2006, 09:22:33 PM
Quote from: Sidoh on April 19, 2006, 09:10:08 PM
Quote from: GameSnake on April 19, 2006, 08:10:48 PM
Against: hitler was born
For: the fact that hitlers mom was talked out of having an abortion
That doesn't make sense to me. :\
Against - The long-term psychological effects are often negative for the mother; they will often feel guilt for the destruction of a potential life.
Ok let me re phrase that: hitler's mom opted out of having an abortion because her doctor talked her out of it.
Just a simple statement really.
Do you have any credible evidence that this was so? I don't know how far abortion technology advanced to that era, and it smells like bullshit anyway. How can you blame a mother for bringing a charismatic, ambitious, and potentially murderous child into the world? You're disgusting.
Quote from: Topaz on April 19, 2006, 10:45:15 PM
Quote from: GameSnake on April 19, 2006, 09:22:33 PM
Quote from: Sidoh on April 19, 2006, 09:10:08 PM
Quote from: GameSnake on April 19, 2006, 08:10:48 PM
Against: hitler was born
For: the fact that hitlers mom was talked out of having an abortion
That doesn't make sense to me. :\
Against - The long-term psychological effects are often negative for the mother; they will often feel guilt for the destruction of a potential life.
Ok let me re phrase that: hitler's mom opted out of having an abortion because her doctor talked her out of it.
Just a simple statement really.
Do you have any credible evidence that this was so? I don't know how far abortion technology advanced to that era, and it smells like bullshit anyway. How can you blame a mother for bringing a charismatic, ambitious, and potentially murderous child into the world? You're disgusting.
I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he's inferring that Hitler's views were slightly skewed because he wasn't loved as a child.
Seriously, what the fuck?
I still think it's completely immoral to make any sort of judgement regarding the result of the baby. If you've done studying on genetics, you'll probably have heard the phrase "nature over nurture," meaning that the genetic structure of a human being determines more of their personality than the way they are treated or raised. It is unarguable that the parenting techniques have inherent impact on the result of the child, but it is wrong to conclude how the child will morph into an adult.
:o ::) :P
Since people can't read....please stop debating. I'm just trying to collect points so we can address everything at one time.
Also, Quik, I didn't say I was against women's rights, I said I was against "women's right to choose", HUGE difference.
SO far I've collected these points (from here & vL forums)
FOR Abortion:
-Spares child of being unloved/unwanted
-Woman's right to choose
-Fetus can't think/reason/function as we can...it only has potential to become one of 'us'
-It doesn't matter
AGAINST Abortion:
-Child can't fufil potential
-Morality of killing
-Psychological effects of mother
Anyone else have anything they'd like to add before it does go to a debate?
..We are x86 forums.
Quote from: deadly7 on April 19, 2006, 11:54:24 PM
..We are x86 forums.
ooops, I just copied/pasted from my vL post, forgot to change that
Quote from: Topaz on April 19, 2006, 10:45:15 PM
Quote from: GameSnake on April 19, 2006, 09:22:33 PM
Quote from: Sidoh on April 19, 2006, 09:10:08 PM
Quote from: GameSnake on April 19, 2006, 08:10:48 PM
Against: hitler was born
For: the fact that hitlers mom was talked out of having an abortion
That doesn't make sense to me. :\
Against - The long-term psychological effects are often negative for the mother; they will often feel guilt for the destruction of a potential life.
Ok let me re phrase that: hitler's mom opted out of having an abortion because her doctor talked her out of it.
Just a simple statement really.
Do you have any credible evidence that this was so? I don't know how far abortion technology advanced to that era, and it smells like bullshit anyway. How can you blame a mother for bringing a charismatic, ambitious, and potentially murderous child into the world? You're disgusting.
(http://www.cryptoptic.com/junk/SSA.jpg)
For abortion: Rape, underage sex, that junk. ( I think there should be a way that if you get an abortion like, twice you get your ovaries cut out.) I'm just for killing babies. Or, going the Modest Proposal way, and keeping them alive, then eating them. Also, there's that whole over population thing.
Against abortion: Lots or people like Veil, maybe they'll like baby people, too!
If the person has no knowledge of ever being alive, does it really matter?
Newby(I think) made that point here, or at vL already.
Quote from: GameSnake on April 20, 2006, 12:21:51 AM
If the person has no knowledge of ever being alive, does it really matter?
So you're telling me infanticide is ok, right?
Quote from: GameSnake on April 20, 2006, 12:21:51 AM
If the person has no knowledge of ever being alive, does it really matter?
Yes. That's where the argument of an metaphysical existance (a soul) comes into play.
Quote from: Topaz on April 20, 2006, 12:28:59 AM
Quote from: GameSnake on April 20, 2006, 12:21:51 AM
If the person has no knowledge of ever being alive, does it really matter?
So you're telling me infanticide is ok, right?
Yes I am. Have a problem? Did I offend you?
Quote from: Newby on April 20, 2006, 12:30:43 AM
Quote from: Topaz on April 20, 2006, 12:28:59 AM
Quote from: GameSnake on April 20, 2006, 12:21:51 AM
If the person has no knowledge of ever being alive, does it really matter?
So you're telling me infanticide is ok, right?
Yes I am. Have a problem? Did I offend you?
Learn your manners, scum. I wasn't talking to you.
Quote from: Sidoh on April 20, 2006, 12:29:16 AM
Quote from: GameSnake on April 20, 2006, 12:21:51 AM
If the person has no knowledge of ever being alive, does it really matter?
Yes. That's where the argument of an metaphysical existance (a soul) comes into play.
A soul is still just an argument, not a proven fact, so that doesnt really do it for me.
Quote from: CrAz3D on April 19, 2006, 11:45:53 PM
Also, Quik, I didn't say I was against women's rights, I said I was against "women's right to choose", HUGE difference.
Trying to get you to be VERY careful how you phrase things when arguing successfully on some subjects, where people may be more vocal.
Sorry Crazed, I don't like running debates like that. I'm going to counter points as I see them. If it's too irritating, we can split the posts. Aside from that, Gamesnake's point is rather invalid to begin with.
Quote from: GameSnake on April 20, 2006, 01:14:12 AM
A soul is still just an argument, not a proven fact, so that doesnt really do it for me.
Nonetheless, the argument exists (and there is logical proof for its existence). It is definitely strong enough to effectively counter your argument, especially when you claim that it is unquestionably true as you have. Aside from that point, you're destroying a potential life; that is unarguable. Just because the thing you're killing is incapable of storing memories of pre-sequential events does not mean that it will be able to. The potential for memory is a physical change in the infant's neural tissue. Memory is a physical phenomena, so why can't mere existence vindicate the right to live? I'm sure you'll agree with me that the embryo is definitely a bundle of baryonic matter.
Quote from: Super_X on April 20, 2006, 12:01:21 AM
(http://www.cryptoptic.com/junk/SSA.jpg)
For abortion: Rape, underage sex, that junk.
I don't think a secular society can legitimately ban rape pregnancy abortions. Having said so, I think it's still not positive.
Underage sex: if kids are young enough to understand how it works, they understand what happens. Parents who don't control that should be responsible for any outcomes.
Quote from: Topaz on April 20, 2006, 12:33:11 AM
Quote from: Newby on April 20, 2006, 12:30:43 AM
Quote from: Topaz on April 20, 2006, 12:28:59 AM
Quote from: GameSnake on April 20, 2006, 12:21:51 AM
If the person has no knowledge of ever being alive, does it really matter?
So you're telling me infanticide is ok, right?
Yes I am. Have a problem? Did I offend you?
Scum? Watch it.
Learn your manners, scum. I wasn't talking to you.
Quote from: Sidoh on April 20, 2006, 01:46:53 AM
Sorry Crazed, I don't like running debates like that. I'm going to counter points as I see them. If it's too irritating, we can split the posts. Aside from that, Gamesnake's point is rather invalid to begin with.
Yeah, I've given up now.
Debate ON
Quote from: GameSnake on April 20, 2006, 12:21:51 AM
If the person has no knowledge of ever being alive, does it really matter?
I say we kill ever retarded person then. They don't have a clue as to what is going on, they're just a massive burden on society.
Some old people could go too,.
Quote from: CrAz3D on April 20, 2006, 10:15:31 AM
I say we kill ever retarded person then. They don't have a clue as to what is going on, they're just a massive burden on society.
This is a good point. We don't hold qualms about
intelligent life, it's
human life that we believe has innate value.
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=5627.msg66007#msg66007 date=1145555062]
Quote from: CrAz3D on April 20, 2006, 10:15:31 AM
I say we kill ever retarded person then. They don't have a clue as to what is going on, they're just a massive burden on society.
This is a good point. We don't hold qualms about intelligent life, it's human life that we believe has innate value.
Word.
Now, since we value human life why wouldn't we value almost certain human life?
That little blob of cells is going to develope unless some unforseen circumstance comes into play, it WILL become human. Just because there is a CHANCE we might get in a car accident doesn't mean we don't drive cars. (that seems like a weird analogy, someone make a better one up if you can)
Quote from: CrAz3D on April 20, 2006, 05:22:11 PM
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=5627.msg66007#msg66007 date=1145555062]
Quote from: CrAz3D on April 20, 2006, 10:15:31 AM
I say we kill ever retarded person then. They don't have a clue as to what is going on, they're just a massive burden on society.
This is a good point. We don't hold qualms about intelligent life, it's human life that we believe has innate value.
Word.
Now, since we value human life why wouldn't we value almost certain human life?
That little blob of cells is going to develope unless some unforseen circumstance comes into play, it WILL become human. Just because there is a CHANCE we might get in a car accident doesn't mean we don't drive cars. (that seems like a weird analogy, someone make a better one up if you can)
Wow. Are we just going to assume that human life has innate value then as an axiom, and argue from that point? That seems pretty primitive to me. If you're going to have a logical argument about this, better somehow demonstrate why human life is so much more important than other life. This is absolutely
not a given nor is it a logical conclusion.
Human life is more important to us because that is how we view it.
We are the smartest, most capable creatures on earth, we dominate every other creature.
I believe it has been scientifically proven that we have the most complex brain, we obviously have the most complex thought processes
I think that seems like a good reason why to value human life so much
Quote from: CrAz3D on April 21, 2006, 12:30:06 AM
Human life is more important to us because that is how we view it.
Yes, and I could say human life isn't important because that is how I view it. An unsupported
personal viewpoint is not logical support for a claim.
Quote from: CrAz3D on April 21, 2006, 12:30:06 AM
We are the smartest, most capable creatures on earth
I thought Myndfyre established that this debate should not seriously consider intelligence, (probably because arguing that humans are different because they are intelligent does not bode well for the anti-abortion stance when comparing fertilized eggs, and even many humans, to certain animals). I'm also pretty sure that you conspicuously agreed with him.
Besides, what are we most capable of?
Quote from: CrAz3D on April 21, 2006, 12:30:06 AM
we dominate every other creature.
That seems more despicable to me than valuable. Why should this mean that human life is more valuable than other life? You would then agree that all predators are more valuable than their prey, because they can "dominate them." For example, a mite is more valuable than a bee, because mites can dominate populations of bees; yet, the survival of many species (including ourselves) is closely linked to bees practicing pollination.
Quote from: CrAz3D on April 21, 2006, 12:30:06 AM
I believe it has been scientifically proven that we have the most complex brain, we obviously have the most complex thought processes
Are you again arguing intelligence? I guarantee that it hasn't be scientifically proven that we have the most complex brain. Likewise, it is not obvious that we have the most complex thought processes.
Quote from: CrAz3D on April 21, 2006, 12:30:06 AM
I think that seems like a good reason why to value human life so much
I don't think any of the reasons you have listed are very good. It mostly seems like you're saying
"we're better because we say we are." That just doesn't cut it in logical debate.
I see alot of (scientific & non) articles on Google that say we have the most complex brain.
We hold our selves in higer priority because we are generally selfish beings. We generally take advantage of what we can to better ourselves.
In our domination we know what is best for us, that is why we do not utterly destroy all of living creatures so we have more space, we realize we need them.
Why shouldn't we consider ourselves to be the best and most important?