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.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14796.msg150792#msg150792 date=1145399216]
-Woman's right to choose (I don't believe in this, might someone else be able to back it up)?
[/quote]

It's the woman's body and thus I believe it is their decision to determine whether they want to go through pregnancy or to end it.

Obviously this conflict on abortion comes down to moral legality, whether or not it is right or wrong to terminate an unborn child.  My opinion is that since the unborn child is not developed and is not aware of its being, it does not constitute being a human victim of murder by law.  I think though, that it is a good idea to ban abortion after the first trimester, but before it is okay, just based on development of the fetus and how much of an actual human being it is.

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=14796.msg150799#msg150799 date=1145407723]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14796.msg150792#msg150792 date=1145399216]
-Woman's right to choose (I don't believe in this, might someone else be able to back it up)?
[/quote]

It's the woman's body and thus I believe it is their decision to determine whether they want to go through pregnancy or to end it.

Obviously this conflict on abortion comes down to moral legality, whether or not it is right or wrong to terminate an unborn child.  My opinion is that since the unborn child is not developed and is not aware of its being, it does not constitute being a human victim of murder by law.  I think though, that it is a good idea to ban abortion after the first trimester, but before it is okay, just based on development of the fetus and how much of an actual human being it is.
[/quote]
So because the thing (I will now refer to the pre-born kid as a thing) cannot be aware of itself it can be aborted?
k

Any others?

Edit of anti-death sentence:

What if Jesus were aborted?

[quote author=J link=topic=14796.msg150801#msg150801 date=1145408177]
Edit of anti-death sentence:

What if Jesus were aborted?
[/quote]
Joe, I swear, how does that have anything to do with a political debate in a secular society?  That isn't even close!

I'm just looking for points for both sides right now so I can argue with my friend (& maybe y'all a bit later)

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=14796.msg150799#msg150799 date=1145407723]
It's the woman's body and thus I believe it is their decision to determine whether they want to go through pregnancy or to end it.

Obviously this conflict on abortion comes down to moral legality, whether or not it is right or wrong to terminate an unborn child.  My opinion is that since the unborn child is not developed and is not aware of its being, it does not constitute being a human victim of murder by law.  I think though, that it is a good idea to ban abortion after the first trimester, but before it is okay, just based on development of the fetus and how much of an actual human being it is.
[/quote]

I completely agree.

[quote author=J link=topic=14796.msg150801#msg150801 date=1145408177]
Edit of anti-death sentence:

What if Jesus were aborted?
[/quote]

What If's and Religious arguments will only get one so far in a discussion such as this.

I think abortion should be legal, because it's not for other people to decide a family's fate.  If a mother and father decide they aren't ready for a child, or a woman who was raped definitely dosen't want a child, it's their decision.  People protesting doctors performing abortions is like protesting an office of lawers that settle legal matters in a divorce.  It's not for the people to decide what a family should or shouldn't do for themselves.  Women who don't want a baby will sometimes do worse things to prevent childbirth that are much more dangerous to herself as they (obviously) are to the baby.  Methods such as throwing ones self down the stairs or taking drugs to induce a miscarriage are much worse then a certified medical procedure.

Sure, you could argue that "Well if they didn't want a baby, they shouldn't have had sex.  Let them live with their mistake."  Truth is, sex is risk just like everything else in life.  Even condoms aren't 100% safe.  If a man with no insurance decides to go water skiing because he just can resist the rush he gets doing it, and ends up getting injured and needing an operation at the taxpayers expense, do you still have that "let him live with his mistake" attitude?  Sex isn't just about having a child.  Sex can be about anything from a one night stand on a sweet friday night to two people in a relationship showing their love for each other.  Unlike drugs or alcohol, sex is one of the few things in  life that can bring great (usually mutual) joy to somebody without the risk of hurting someone else (as far as collateral and physical damage goes, the same can't be said regarding emotions.)

I'm going to bed now, but if the debate continues, I'll post more tomorrow.

Hey now, stop debating!

Post short points. Don't go into long argumentation against other points. It'd be interesting to actually see a summary of all the points we can think up.

Some points from me:

"A foetus is not a thinking, reasoning, human being" - I.e. at the point we should be doing abortions, a foetus is still just something that might one day become one of us. And the "might", though at a different probability, is still a "might", just like for any egg or sperm. In this context, compare to amputating a limb or to killing anything else.

"Change is just change" - I.e. though we may be aborting Mozart #2, it is also possible that Mozart #2 wasn't born because of lousy music at restaurant, and the right couple not getting together and having him. Or that he was born in Africa and died from starvation at the age of 3... Basically, almost any action can lead to almost any effect, at a very low probability. This cannot be allowed to paralyze us.

Looking over various definitions of "human" and "homo sapien", I'm not so sure I can consider a fetus as human. However, I still believe that aborting this *living* creature (don't take the word creature in a bad way, we are all creatures) is immoral and it prevents them from ever having a life. Like said once before, they could become the next Einstein or some bum on the side of the street, either way they still have a purpose as a human, as do we all.

So since all humans have a purpose on this earth, why should we take away this purpose from a soon-to-be-human just because we don't want to go through a pregnancy?

I agree with Yegg. You shouldn't end a life because you woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
There are plenty of alternatives like adoption.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14796.msg150792#msg150792 date=1145399216]
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?
[/quote]

You know what: [u]life goes on[/u], whether the kid dies or not it really doesn't matter.

Personally, I'd rather be dead than not know who my real parents are.

[quote author=Newby link=topic=14796.msg150839#msg150839 date=1145482002]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14796.msg150792#msg150792 date=1145399216]
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?
[/quote]

You know what: [u]life goes on[/u], whether the kid dies or not it really doesn't matter.

Personally, I'd rather be dead than not know who my real parents are.
[/quote]
So I guess that's for abortion?
-It doesnt matter

A good question is where do you define life all define life. Is it at conception, at birth, or is it somewhere inbetween?

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=14796.msg150842#msg150842 date=1145484076]
A good question is where do you define life all define life. Is it at conception, at birth, or is it somewhere inbetween?
[/quote]

A life, when applied to that of a person, is much more then just a pulse and vital functions.  Sure you can argue that it's always murder to the end breathing and functioning of a person, but the same could be said about a cockroach or garden snake.  When you really think about it, the death of a once living thing only really seems to be murder if that thing had effected the people around it.  For example:  If you just kill a snake that lives in your yard in order to protect your pet dog or your child, nobody seems to care.  On the other hand, if your neighbor's pet snake gets out and you kill it when you see it in your yard, your neighbor may accuse you of murdering that snake.  In both situations a life was taken, but how that life affected the people closest to it is what could really specify the difference just killing and murder.

[quote author=Disco link=topic=14796.msg150846#msg150846 date=1145486505]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=14796.msg150842#msg150842 date=1145484076]
A good question is where do you define life all define life. Is it at conception, at birth, or is it somewhere inbetween?
[/quote]

A life, when applied to that of a person, is much more then just a pulse and vital functions.  Sure you can argue that it's always murder to the end breathing and functioning of a person, but the same could be said about a cockroach or garden snake.  When you really think about it, the death of a once living thing only really seems to be murder if that thing had effected the people around it.  For example:  If you just kill a snake that lives in your yard in order to protect your pet dog or your child, nobody seems to care.  On the other hand, if your neighbor's pet snake gets out and you kill it when you see it in your yard, your neighbor may accuse you of murdering that snake.  In both situations a life was taken, but how that life affected the people closest to it is what could really specify the difference just killing and murder.
[/quote]Sorry, I should've said it earlier, please refrain from discussing/debating issues in this thread...I just want to compile a full list of for/against points.
Sometime soon I'll start a new thread so each point can be disputed or backed up.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14796.msg150848#msg150848 date=1145486707]
Sorry, I should've said it earlier, please refrain from discussing/debating issues in this thread...I just want to compile a full list of for/against points.
Sometime soon I'll start a new thread so each point can be disputed or backed up.
[/quote]
Well I guess you could qualify that as a "for" point, but whatever, I'll stop.

SO far I've collected these points (from here & x86 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?

For abortion:

Psychological effects of mother
Highest probability best outcome
Overpopulation
Going to be done anyway
Special circumstances
Just another type of family planning

for: genetic disorder & birth defects. If it can be diagnosed in pregnancy it can save the child a very painful life and the family a lot of heart ache.
against: rape baby case where children who have been the offspring of a rape have spoken out about how glad they are that they were not aborted, maybe they were wards of the state and the mother didn't want to raise them, but they still did not choose to be born that way so why punish them.


another consideration: abourtion methods
Some of the methods used are incredible horrible. Chem abortion is the easiest way to go if it is early in the pregnancy (RU-486 is the abortion pill most commonly used tmk, works within first 5 weeks?), but it takes a while for the fetus to even die, to my knowlege the fetus suffocates because the placenta cannot form, so that would be an against point. Also the other methods can be very painful for a fetus that is in the later trymesters that is able to feel pain. Not only that but if their are complicated in the abortion you cant very well go after the planned parent hood clinic, you basically sign any rights you have away before getting to procedure done, you have no leg to stand on visa vi mal practice.

Birth defects fall under special circumstances, no?

Adron, regarding "Going to be done anyway", what do you mean?  Like even if it is illegal people will still do it?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14796.msg150935#msg150935 date=1145568810]
Birth defects fall under special circumstances, no?

Adron, regarding "Going to be done anyway", what do you mean?  Like even if it is illegal people will still do it?
[/quote] special circumstances should be broken up though. Because there are some special cicumstances, such as maybe a minor disorder where abortion might be wrong, and maybe a major one where the kid will have a painful life that is going to last all of five years at best where abortion might be considered humain. Special circumstances is just a very broad header. Also you have other circumstances like a fallopian pregnancy where the mothers health is at risk.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=14796.msg150936#msg150936 date=1145569025]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14796.msg150935#msg150935 date=1145568810]
Birth defects fall under special circumstances, no?

Adron, regarding "Going to be done anyway", what do you mean?  Like even if it is illegal people will still do it?
[/quote] special circumstances should be broken up though. Because there are some special cicumstances, such as maybe a minor disorder where abortion might be wrong, and maybe a major one where the kid will have a painful life that is going to last all of five years at best where abortion might be considered humain. Special circumstances is just a very broad header. Also you have other circumstances like a fallopian pregnancy where the mothers health is at risk.
[/quote]k, sounds good.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14796.msg150935#msg150935 date=1145568810]
Adron, regarding "Going to be done anyway", what do you mean?  Like even if it is illegal people will still do it?
[/quote]

It's the whole illegal abortion clinic problem - making abortions illegal will still have a number of women attempting abortions. And such unchecked clinics cause deaths and injuries.

For abortion:
Rape victims who become pregnant
Accidental babies (i.e. condom breaks, etc)

On another note:
Probably like my second post ever in this forum

[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=14796.msg151027#msg151027 date=1145682929]
For abortion:
Rape victims who become pregnant
Accidental babies (i.e. condom breaks, etc)

On another note:
Probably like my second post ever in this forum
[/quote]
Yeah but banning abortions with the exclusion of rape victims (which makes sense to me) defeats that point for "for abortion".  Accidental babies are a risk you take when having sex; if you don't want the risk, don't engage in the risky behavior.

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14796.msg151046#msg151046 date=1145731990]
Accidental babies are a risk you take when having sex; if you don't want the risk, don't engage in the risky behavior.
[/quote]

Yeah, and abortion is convenient birth control; if you don't want to limit births, ban all forms of preventatives and make sex mandatory for all fertile citizens... ;)

A child is a miracle, the creation of life is something that is a gift from a power higher than us, period. I don't believe a human should take another human's life - and yes, that includes capital punishment. I don't care to hear "Oh but technically, its not a human", blah blah! It is, in my book, and the "Good Book" as well.  Look, adoption is the perfect solution to this "problem" a woman might be having. How about this: PREVENTION. It's called a condom, a man or a woman can wear one, or both! Sounds fun! We even have pills now-a-day, to prevent.

The only thing the woman is 'out' is the fact that 9 months out of her pathetic measly life will be to take care of the miracle inside of her. Doesn't sound so bad huh?

Or another solution, that is contradictory, but I think it's rather funny and would detour women from having abortions: the only option is to give the woman lethal injection, I mean atleast she gets to kill the baby right? I think it's fair, eh?

[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=14796.msg151027#msg151027 date=1145682929]
Accidental babies (i.e. condom breaks, etc)
[/quote] That is why there is such a thing as emergency contraceptive, aka the morning after pill. Taken within 72 hours it can reduce the chance of pregnancy by about 90%.
[quote author=Adron link=topic=14796.msg151068#msg151068 date=1145755904]
[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14796.msg151046#msg151046 date=1145731990]
Accidental babies are a risk you take when having sex; if you don't want the risk, don't engage in the risky behavior.
[/quote]

Yeah, and abortion is convenient birth control; if you don't want to limit births, ban all forms of preventatives and make sex mandatory for all fertile citizens... ;)
[/quote] 400 bucks for the operation and risk of complications is not what I'd call conveiniant. Also, the abortion pill rocks your system a lot more than regular birth control or even the morning after pill. I'd say being smart to begin with and using contraceptive would be the conveiniant way to go. Kids these days are stupid when it comes ot birth control. I know people who actually reguard pulling out as an affective form of birth control. I know girls who have sex regularly but do not take their birth control pills at the same time nightly, or maybe not even nightly, but still expect it to remain 99.9% affective.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=14796.msg151068#msg151068 date=1145755904]
Yeah, and abortion is convenient birth control; if you don't want to limit births, ban all forms of preventatives and make sex mandatory for all fertile citizens... ;)
[/quote]
Wait a second, who said anything about limiting births?  This debate IMO has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of either or both parents; it exclusively has to do with the right of the unborn child.  Individually, neither a sperm nor an egg has enough genetic material to constitute a human being; once combined however, it does.

As I understand it the "morning after" pill still prevents conception.  I'm not particularly clear on the details on it and may be wrong.

And I'm iffy about your description of an abortion as "convenient," even before I read quasi's reply.

The morning after pill is like a big dose of hormones that flushes you out before conception can occur pretty much. It only works within 72 hours. The abortion pill on the other hand is different, it prevents the placenta from forming so the fetus starves / suffocates. It only works within the first trimester.

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14796.msg151095#msg151095 date=1145787247]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=14796.msg151068#msg151068 date=1145755904]
Yeah, and abortion is convenient birth control; if you don't want to limit births, ban all forms of preventatives and make sex mandatory for all fertile citizens... ;)
[/quote]
Wait a second, who said anything about limiting births?  This debate IMO has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of either or both parents; it exclusively has to do with the right of the unborn child.  Individually, neither a sperm nor an egg has enough genetic material to constitute a human being; once combined however, it does.
[/quote]

IMO, the unborn child has very few rights. Just like a cat, dog, or horse has very few rights. And this debate, which hasn't started yet, is going to be a lot about viewpoints on whether life is sacred or not, and if so, which life is sacred. Some religious speakers prohibit all preventatives. That viewpoint should be taken into account, and you should be prepared to explain why certain potential is more protected than other potential. It is also a lot about obligations - what obligations a pregnant female has, and which she can be allowed to release. And if you bring up genetic material, it is also about the rights of a drop of blood, or the rights of a hair follicle.

Does a drop of blood contain enough activated DNA to cause the entire range of cells in the human body to form?  Does a hair follicle?

I'm not going to debate on the side of (for example, Catholics) which do not allow birth control.  It is not my viewpoint, and I will not defend it, and it has no bearing whatsoever on mine.  So you can debate at it all day long why it's wrong -- I really don't care.

IMO the only obligation a pregnant woman has is to carry her pregnancy to term (unless it without a doubt threatens her ability to live through the term of the pregnancy and delivery -- not her livelihood).  At that point, in Arizona, we have a law that allows mothers to drop their babies off at several "safe drop zones" including firehouses and hospitals, no questions asked.  The child is given up for adoption.

In cases of consensual sex, the woman made a choice with the understanding that there is an amount of risk involved regardless of whether she's on the pill and/or they use a condom.  A life that results from that choice should be protected, as that is one of the purposes of government -- to protect the rights of those who cannot defend their own rights. 

[quote author=Adron link=topic=14796.msg151142#msg151142 date=1145833996]
IMO, the unborn child has very few rights. Just like a cat, dog, or horse has very few rights. And this debate, which hasn't started yet, is going to be a lot about viewpoints on whether life is sacred or not, and if so, which life is sacred. Some religious speakers prohibit all preventatives. That viewpoint should be taken into account, and you should be prepared to explain why certain potential is more protected than other potential. It is also a lot about obligations - what obligations a pregnant female has, and which she can be allowed to release. And if you bring up genetic material, it is also about the rights of a drop of blood, or the rights of a hair follicle.
[/quote]
Why does the unborn child have as few rights as a dog/cat/horse?

A drop of blood is not a forming human, it does not have the same potential, blood drops & a fetus cannot be compared.

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14796.msg151148#msg151148 date=1145835217]
Does a drop of blood contain enough activated DNA to cause the entire range of cells in the human body to form?  Does a hair follicle?
[/quote]

Whether it is activated or not, it contains enough DNA. With activation, it could form a human body. Just like a foetus can form a human body under the right conditions only.


[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14796.msg151148#msg151148 date=1145835217]IMO the only obligation a pregnant woman has is to carry her pregnancy to term (unless it without a doubt threatens her ability to live through the term of the pregnancy and delivery -- not her livelihood).  At that point, in Arizona, we have a law that allows mothers to drop their babies off at several "safe drop zones" including firehouses and hospitals, no questions asked.  The child is given up for adoption.

In cases of consensual sex, the woman made a choice with the understanding that there is an amount of risk involved regardless of whether she's on the pill and/or they use a condom.  A life that results from that choice should be protected, as that is one of the purposes of government -- to protect the rights of those who cannot defend their own rights. 
[/quote]

My viewpoint is that life resulting from that choice should be given the same protection all other life is given. And that a woman can have consensual sex, knowing that should an unintended process similar to cancer or a wart be started, then that process can be aborted.

The fetus already has the right conditions, the blood is just sitting there idle until something intervenes

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14796.msg151157#msg151157 date=1145839388]
The fetus already has the right conditions, the blood is just sitting there idle until something intervenes
[/quote]

See, change is just change. And there are no static "right conditions" - a fetus requires constant nurturing or it will die. Stopping everything around the fetus right where it is, for example, no longer intervening to remove carbondioxide from its blood, would mean that it does not develop into a human being.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=14796.msg151159#msg151159 date=1145841777]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14796.msg151157#msg151157 date=1145839388]
The fetus already has the right conditions, the blood is just sitting there idle until something intervenes
[/quote]

See, change is just change. And there are no static "right conditions" - a fetus requires constant nurturing or it will die. Stopping everything around the fetus right where it is, for example, no longer intervening to remove carbondioxide from its blood, would mean that it does not develop into a human being.
[/quote]
Wouldn't "intervention" be interrupting a smething that is already going on?  Since the fetus is already developing, intervention would be something like abortion/c-section, no?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14796.msg151160#msg151160 date=1145842238]
Wouldn't "intervention" be interrupting a smething that is already going on?  Since the fetus is already developing, intervention would be something like abortion/c-section, no?
[/quote]

That probably depends on how you want to view things. Intervention is not a good term to assign value to. From a different viewpoint, the fetus is about to die at each second, but saved by another heartbeat.

But that heart beat is apart of the natural process, not an outside interrupting process.

I thought I'd just dip into this thread to offer my perspective.

I am pro-choice. Personally, I rather dislike abortion. I think that the lines people draw between a foetus being or not being human are arbitrary. I do not think that abortion is equivalent to murder, but equally as much, to abort a pregnancy is not an innocuous act. A life is ended.

Nonetheless, I am firmly pro-choice, and this thread perfectly demonstrates my reasoning: abortion is a terribly complicated isssue, no matter what the pro-life lobby says. There are equally as compelling arguments for and against it. There is no clear correct path and no possibility for compromise. For that reason, I think that to legislate on the issue -- beyond setting the basic limits that currentely exist in most nations where abortion is legal -- is not appropriate. Whether or not to abort a pregnancy must be a decision for indivduals to make, according to their own conscience.

It is my hope that, one day, humanity's continually evolving sense of morality will deem abortion to be unacceptable, and that this will be reflected by people's choices. However, to force people along that path would be wrong in my view, and as such, I feel that abortion should enjoy the same status as the rest of healthcare: it should be legal, widely and easily accessible by all, and free at the point of need.