Best Pro-Life argument and best Pro-Choice argument? (crime rate, workers, foreign)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That recognition you're talking about is merely the instinctive opposition to suffering. Without feelings of suffering...there is no opposition to death...aside from perhaps mindless reflex.
Patently untrue. The primary function is the preservation of the existence of the species as is evidenced by the subliminal urge to procreate.
As humans with advanced scientific knowledge, we have the ability to satisfy that urge without a pregnancy occurring as a result. Birth control is predominantly effective, easily obtained, very inexpensive, and even free for no/low-income individuals via the 4,000+ taxpayer-funded Title X Family Planning Clinics located throughout the US.
So... WHY are 95% of all unintended pregnancies the result of VOLUNTARY participation in unprotected sex? There's an extreme disconnect between what is wanted and what is being done to achieve that outcome. Are 680,000 (abortions per year in the US) women per year really that stupid?
Patently untrue. The primary function is the preservation of the existence of the species as is evidenced by the subliminal urge to procreate.
Which has nothing to do with what benefits anyone. Also, you haven't attempted to explain why I was wrong about the issue I was talking about, except to say that I was "patently untrue." With that in mind, I don't even understand your disagreements enough to explain why I think I'm right and you're not...so....
Quote:
As humans with advanced scientific knowledge, we have the ability to satisfy that urge without a pregnancy occurring as a result. Birth control is predominantly effective, easily obtained, very inexpensive, and even free for no/low-income individuals via the 4,000+ taxpayer-funded Title X Family Planning Clinics located throughout the US.
yes.
Quote:
So... WHY are 95% of all unintended pregnancies the result of VOLUNTARY participation in unprotected sex? There's an extreme disconnect between what is wanted and what is being done to achieve that outcome. Are 680,000 (abortions per year in the US) women per year really that stupid?
You cay say, "Don't have reckless unprotected sex unless you've gotten your tubes tied," while being pro-choice. Also, a lot of them are probably thinking, "If I get an early abortion, it won't cause harm," which they appear to be correct about.
That said, I'd argue that the best solution to that is probably to make abortion easily available...although in my opinion not cheaper than contraception...so people get them early enough that they don't involve negatives. I don't want to encourage the usage of it as contraception...basically.
Which has nothing to do with what benefits anyone.
Clearly untrue. All species benefit from having a population of greater than one.
Quote:
You cay say, "Don't have reckless unprotected sex unless you've gotten your tubes tied," while being pro-choice. Also, a lot of them are probably thinking, "If I get an early abortion, it won't cause harm," which they appear to be correct about.
100% incorrect. It harms the human life that is killed in the process.
Abortion is such a divisive issue. I'm curious what the strongest arguments are, for and against. Post away!
As a devout Christian who is moderate politically, these are the best arguments in my opinion:
For: It's freedom, we live in a country where people should be allowed to do what they want to do with their bodies and unborn kids. Would this be allowable in China, or North Korea, unless the government chooses? I doubt it.
Against: More and more science is showing babies are alive, have a heart beat and brain function into the first weeks after conception. This is a person. Not a lamp shade. Its morally wrong to kill a innocent child.
Clearly untrue. All species benefit from having a population of greater than one.
Which doesn't have anything to do with this discussion, because there are no species in danger of having only one organism left...especially not humans. Again, I have no idea what thought process you have in mind here.
Quote:
100% incorrect. It harms the human life that is killed in the process.
No...death is not inherently a negative thing. Death is simply transferring from being to unbeing. If you'd like, I could discuss that in a great deal more detail.
So you mourned the loss you personally experienced, as in the experience you had anticipated would provide you with some personal benefit, or some personal sense of accomplishment, or some personal form of pleasure. I get it. And that’s altogether reasonable, if also a bit self centered. Truth is, it’s probably more common than most people might believe, that people seek to have children from a perspective of their own ego, as an extension of themselves, rather than the desire to simply embrace a new life created, and the rewards of the bond between parent and child. We are drowning in a tidal wave of narcissism these days.
But just for the record, we aren’t really debating the issue of 11 week old fetuses … we’re talking about post 24 week, late term abortions, and it’s a bit of a different matter:
But here is a 12 week old “fetusâ€, with defined legs and arms, hands, fingers, head, mouth, nose and eyes, and a detectable heart beat.
Next, we see just weeks later, a well formed, unmistakably human baby
This is a baby at 20 weeks gestation….. it’s not a “fetusâ€, nor a clump of “materialâ€. It’s a human baby, sucking his thumb.
Again, this issue isn’t about early stage abortions … it’s about late stage abortions. The other disconnect we have here is the legitimacy of declaring one’s right of choice to kill …. of when it is ok to kill another human being out of personal choice. Who grants such a right, and when does that right cease to exist? Is it 20 weeks, 24 weeks, 32 weeks? Or does this right exist right up to the moment the baby begins it’s exit from the womb? What about two weeks after the baby is out of the womb? Is there that big a difference between a baby inside the womb 36 weeks old, compared to a 38 week old outside the womb? Does two weeks make all the difference in the world? Or is that just another lame rationalization?
Clearly, the image above at 12 weeks is not a freaking avocado! It’s not a trout. Nor is it an armadillo…. it is in fact a human baby … it is a human, and can be nothing else other than a human baby. The difference between 12 weeks and 20 weeks is just a measure of time, but does not change the fundamental reality that what is a clearly human baby at 20 weeks, was just as clearly a human baby at 12 weeks, unless of course you can explain to us how it could have experienced some metamorphosis and become something else?
How big of you to concede the legitimacy of rigorous debate when contemplating killing children, yet at the same time suggest such debate ACTUALLY be a matter decided between the woman and her doctor? What kind of rigor exists in that debate? Good lord.
By the way, replacing the term baby with the term fetus does not alter the fact that it’s a baby. It’s just a term utilized by death zealots who would prefer to dehumanize the baby, so as to make it more palatable to kill it. Nevertheless, it’s a choice being made to kill a baby … one’s own baby, at that. And while the rest of the natural world sees the ferociousness most females exhibit in protecting their offspring, it seems that human females are unique in their choices to kill their offspring as a matter of personal convenience.
What does that say about some human females? It says a lot, and none of it is very flattering.
What? No we aren’t.
And again, I’ll give you the same answer as I have the other posters who keep repeating this lie - nowhere did I say the zygote/embryo/foetus is not human. I’m well aware it’s not a cucumber. I’ve had a baby.
You don’t comprehend anything I’ve said so there’s no point going round the mulberry bush with you.
And again, I’ll give you the same answer as I have the other posters who keep repeating this lie - nowhere did I say the zygote/embryo/foetus is not human. I’m well aware it’s not a cucumber. I’ve had a baby.
You don’t comprehend anything I’ve said so there’s no point going round the mulberry bush with you.
Exactly. This thread is not only about late-term abortions, although that has come up in the conversation. An embryo is a life, even if it's not yet a baby. I would prefer that no one have an abortion. If they do, I would prefer that it's done in the first trimester. I'm aware that the world is not going to operate via Mightyqueen's preferences, though, and that life is not black/white, right/wrong, good/evil.
But as has been said time and again, women have been aborting their pregnancies since our ancestors lived in caves. They used plants with poisonous properties, they used pointy sticks or otherwise injured themselves. Or they had unqualified and unscrupulous persons help them abort in unsanitary ways that result in infection or bleeding to death. Until we come up with some realistic way of never having any unwanted pregnancies occur--which is not realistic, but FEWER could be--and a way to keep women from terminating pregnancies, then a civilized country has to keep it legal and safe for a woman to abort, because they are going to do it whether it is legal or not. Not wanting to bear a child should not be punishable by the potential death of a woman.
Exactly. This thread is not only about late-term abortions, although that has come up in the conversation. An embryo is a life, even if it's not yet a baby. I would prefer that no one have an abortion. If they do, I would prefer that it's done in the first trimester. I'm aware that the world is not going to operate via Mightyqueen's preferences, though, and that life is not black/white, right/wrong, good/evil.
But as has been said time and again, women have been aborting their pregnancies since our ancestors lived in caves. They used plants with poisonous properties, they used pointy sticks or otherwise injured themselves. Or they had unqualified and unscrupulous persons help them abort in unsanitary ways that result in infection or bleeding to death. Until we come up with some realistic way of never having any unwanted pregnancies occur--which is not realistic, but FEWER could be--and a way to keep women from terminating pregnancies, then a civilized country has to keep it legal and safe for a woman to abort, because they are going to do it whether it is legal or not. Not wanting to bear a child should not be punishable by the potential death of a woman.
And here's where I'll disagree with you...and noting that I think you're one of the more intelligent posters here, I think I might be able to have an intelligent discussion about this with you.
There are times when I'd prefer someone have an abortion than have a child. Actually, given that about 2/3 of abortions happen within the first 8 weeks...if someone wants an abortion during those time, I would vastly prefer that they have one over having a child and giving it up for adoption or raising a child they don't want to have.
I understand that makes people uncomfortable, and I wouldn't mention that sort of thing if we had some sort of firm protection of abortion nationwide...but given that we have a democracy, I don't think I have a choice but to try to push as many people to see the world the way it really is (at least as I see it).
If someone has a fetus with sickle cell anemia...I don't want the parent to be pressured into anything (I am very pro-choice) but the fact is, so far as I can tell...the simple math is that sickle cell anemia leads to prolonged pain, whereas an abortion leads to, at maximum, temporary pain. Furthermore, every time someone gets an abortion that's early...I have no idea how any fetus would feel pain during the first 8 weeks...and probably much later...meaning that such an ending of life has no negative consequence to the fetus, most likely, and can be only be neutral, or benefit it.
Yeah, embryos and fetuses are living things, and in the later stages they're really not hugely different from babies...but I do think my fellow pro-choicers need to go on the offensive a bit more. We need to emphasize that this is more than just an issue of whether or not it's about a woman's right to have control over her body, or a fetus's right to life. The aspect aspect of this discussion that nobody talks about because it makes people deeply uncomfortable is a fetus's right to not live...and talking about that, I think, is the only surefire way to turn this discussion into something that inevitably leads to the pro-choice arguments almost always being right. Otherwise, if we just do what most people do and weigh the rights of the unborn to life against the right of a woman over her own body, which is the more right just kind of depends on one's subjective opinions.
If I start talking about a fetus's right to not live...I can argue about how I see abortion as typically simultaneously protecting the fetus, as well as the woman's rights over their own body. I can therefore win arguments a heck of a lot more easily than most pro-choicers who stick to the more polite "my body, my choice" sorts of talking points.
I think we need to get society to understand that life is not inherently a positive thing, and death is not inherently a negative thing...and if you disagree with that, which it sounds like you might because you want a general reduction of them...I think I might need to be talking to you just as much as I need to be talking with the other people I've been talking to. That makes people uncomfortable...but I don't think I have a choice anymore, given what happened in Texas, and what can happen elsewhere.
But as has been said time and again, women have been aborting their pregnancies since our ancestors lived in caves.
I wonder if instead of the US spending $1 trillion a year on murdering innocent people, if we directed a nice chunk of that to helping pregnant women and new mothers with options to keep their babies if we could help reduce a large amount of those abortions.
Abortion is such a divisive issue. I'm curious what the strongest arguments are, for and against. Post away!
We call a microbe on Mars life.
We call an unborn baby a cluster of cells.
There's your arguement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
