Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Show more types:
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
These active users have achieved advanced knowledge of the terminology, history, and legal implications regarding the topic of
These active users have achieved an understanding of common concepts and the history regarding the topic of
Removed by author2yrs2Y
Top Disagreement
It isn't a woman's sole choice to make as the child in her womb is a separate life, a separate person, with distinct DNA and everything. In no circumstance would we approve of killing children outside the womb, inside the womb is no different.
@9G9MS7B2yrs2Y
I agree. Biology tells us that life starts at the moment of conception so when the sperm fertilized the egg, a new human being is formed and should be protected. Exceptions to abortion are miscarriages, rape, incest, and If it endangers the life of a mother. If none of those apply there are millions of couples in the USA on waitlists to adopt a child because they’re infertile.
Life does not start at the moment of conception. Stop using the bible as your evidence. The bible is a religious book not a scientific testbook.
@9X3C4VF11mos11MO
Yes, religion should be separate from government. Religious books should absolutely not be used as evidence. I respect all religions and religious books by the way.
@solo-von-kickpaw 11mos11MO
Engaged Social Issues Engaged Abortion
is your opinion evidence half the country believes in the bible I may not but is speakes truth
@B5FVW3D 5mos5MO
No one is saying that life starts at the moment of conception. A child gets a heartbeat at 5-6 weeks in the womb. On average, women get abortions when they are 2 1/2 months along.
@B5XJJ563mos3MO
and most women get abortions before that, so why are we calling this murder? when a women is rapped I believe there should always be a option for them why is no one trying to put themselves in their shoes here?
@9TC4KHH1yr1Y
Really I’ll see you in hell! Are you kidding me? Are you that big of a fool?
@9XLCSH911mos11MO
You need to understand that the bible is not off of research, just written by people many, many, many, many years ago when this wasn't as big of a problem. People should be given a choice to stop something that they don't want to do that was an accident and could negatively affect their health or position in their life, which life is very short, they should spend it how they want to spend it. I understand that the baby doesn't get to live out their own life which is unfair, but they aren't even born yet, something could go wrong with it when it is born, or it could have… Read more
@9X44PM2Republican11mos11MO
Of course it's not life at conception to those who look at babies in the womb as property and inconvenient rather than humans.
@ClamNora2yrs2Y
This is because up to 50% of all fertilized eggs spontaneously abort, often before the woman knows she's pregnant. Is this considered a life lost?
Also, while adoption is indeed a noble path, it's important to consider the reality of the system. There are currently over 400,000 children in foster care in the USA, with a third eligible for adoption. Yet, most prospective parents prefer to adopt babies, leaving older children and teenagers in the system. This suggests that the adoption system has its challenges and isn't a simple solution to unwanted pregnancies.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on these points. Do you think defining the exact moment life begins is straightforward? And how can we improve the adoption system to better accommodate these children?
@C0mfyclouds 1yr1Y
a spontaneous abortion is another way of saying miscarriage… which is entirely different than purposefully taking the life of another human. Most miscarriages are wanted pregnancies and no one goes out of their way to induce them (hence why they are considered spontaneous) but yes this is a life lost 😔. (I mean woman who’ve had miscarriages sure believe so…) Just because someone doesn’t know they are pregnant or want to be pregnant doesn’t automatically deem that life illegitimate.
Rather than sacrifice a life (that isn’t your right to sacrifice) because a system is shot, let’s focus all this attention, as woman, on restoring this system to benefit, not only aborted potentials, but the many other children displaced for various reasons.
@9RR8Q95 1yr1Y
1 Kings 3:27
As it's clear to see, this is a deep and nuanced issue with understandably passionate opinions. I don't like the thought of abortion. All the same, even King Solomon understood that a child's best interests are put in the hands and heart of the mother. Just as the woman in the bible story chose to allow her baby to live with an adoptive parent rather than be killed, I would equally respect a mother's decision to abort a fetus prior to birth. Blessings upon all expectant mothers.
@9XM82WF11mos11MO
What about the 5-13 year olds or older who get raped? Are they just forced to carry a baby that they didn't want and possibly get scared for life? Giving birth is a scary thing and it should not be considered lightly. It is dangerous, not only for the mother, but for the baby too. What if the baby miscarries? Do we just let the mother die? What if it gets fertilized in your fallopian tube? You will die, your baby will die. There is no maybe or what if, you both will die, you might as well save yourself and try again. People who get abortions often want them for medical reasons and are so distraught that it can be hard to try again, or try at anything ever again. So no, abortion is not some evil thing that is black or white, it is a very grey thing that still needs debated.
@B3J86H6 7mos7MO
The vast majority—well over 90%—are elective, done out of convenience, lifestyle, or economic reasons. So let’s not pretend that abortion is some tragic, rare procedure reserved for desperate medical situations. It is an industry of death that operates primarily out of selfishness and irresponsibility.
Now, regarding the extreme cases you brought up:
Rape is horrific. It is a vile evil. But you do not cure one evil by committing another. Killing an innocent child because of the crimes of the father is morally repugnant. You do not execute children for the sins of their parents… Read more
@PatriotPundit10mos10MO
Engaged Social Issues Engaged Abortion
My problem with this stance is that it forgets about the life of the baby, and that it believes that suffering is an excuse for death.
@B4HPYNB6mos6MO
that is very rare most of the time it is finacial concerns that cause the baby to die not the 30 in 1000 births that kill the woman mostly due to little acess to medical recourses
@B282DLY9mos9MO
Rape should be handled with a pill. Or before 8 weeks. Later term is just irresponsible.
@9TC4KHH1yr1Y
Too late! They are so messed up that there’s no fixing them is very difficult and nobody wants to deal with this. This happens because their birth families will not let go and that is what is sad. Do not blame this on the people that want to do good, it’s not their fault the fact that their moms, single moms get paid for them, which helps support their lifestyle or pay for the children. They already have other baby daddy‘s.. They don’t give a **** about their kids. They just give a **** about what the kids can get them. My birth mom had two children already. She… Read more
@9SXH6DP1yr1Y
We have to get the kids out of foster homes and adopted much earlier. States have gotten kickbacks for numbers of kids in foster. Bionparents should get no more than 1 year to straighten up. After that rights get termed and adoption can take place. We basically have kids that are lifers in the foster system due to being slow to term parental rights.
@Bi11R1ghtsPigletGreen2yrs2Y
While it's true that a unique set of DNA is formed at conception, it's important to note that biological life and personhood are not synonymous. There are different philosophical, religious, and cultural beliefs about when personhood begins.
As for adoption, it's indeed a beautiful thing, but it's not a simple alternative to pregnancy. Pregnancy and childbirth have profound physical and psychological impacts on a woman's body, and no one should be forced to go through them unwillingly.
@C0mfyclouds 1yr1Y
but “personhood” is developed, developed overtime. It can even change. A baby doesn’t have the same rationality as an adult, does that make the baby less of a person. It does us no good when we try to prescribe personhood to individuals because once it becomes subjective, and we have seen that mistake all throughout history, we start to discriminate against race, gender, babies, heck even the disabled. Ironically Margaret Sanger (a known eugenist, racist and founder of planned parenthood) believed the very thing you said. See how that mindset (of prescribing “personhoo… Read more
@9H4DL4B2yrs2Y
I mostly agree with this position. However, I would like to say that incest shouldn't be an exception; most of the time, the incest exception is there as a result of concerns about genetic defects in the child. Disability shouldn't take away your right to life.
Moreso, I've seen some testimonies from medical professionals that abortion is almost never required to save the mother's life. I don't know this for sure, though, so I would look into that yourself for more detail. Just a thought I've had.
@9SXH6DP1yr1Y
Tubal pregnancy is pretty common actually.
@B52X97V5mos5MO
Yes, abortion is almost never required. But about the incest thing, we all have inalienable, God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This does not depend upon one's parents or one's genetic defects. Also, killing the genetically inferior was the entire premise of Nazi eugenics.
Abortion is murder. Honor life.
@9TC4KHH1yr1Y
I agree with everything you say, but the sad thing is if somebody is in relationship with their father brother anything like that the family will not let anything change. We are not protecting these children. These people will never have abortions because they are not allowed to.
@9FCBW4C2yrs2Y
Abortion does not equal killing children. When a women decides to treat her own body and get an abortion, she is preventing the embryo from forming into a child, meaning that there is no baby yet and it is not murdering anyone. A women should be allowed to make her own choices and if she feels that the baby would not have a good life at that point in time then she may choose to rightfully terminate her pregnancy.
@C0mfyclouds 1yr1Y
What? an embryo is literally a baby in the early stages of development. It only takes a simple google search to figure that out. But forget about the baby being in the mother, you literally just rationalized dissent and human sacrifice simply because someone deemed that life not fit (“the baby would not have a good life”? what’s a good life? who has a good life? and how do you determine if that life is good enough to live?). See how that makes no sense? It’s not a “woman’s choice” to kill another life. Period.
@AffectedBoars2yrs2Y
Indeed, the topic of when life begins is a central point in this debate. While some argue that life begins at conception, owing to the distinct DNA and potential for development, others assert that life starts at a later stage when the fetus can survive outside the womb.
Consider this, if we discovered a single-celled organism on Mars, wouldn't we proclaim we've found life? Yet, when it comes to a zygote, a multi-cellular organism in the womb with unique human DNA, why do we deny its life status?
Furthermore, the argument that women should have a choice is definitely valid. However,… Read more
@9SXH6DP1yr1Y
And, not only that, if we are saying there isn’t a good reason for continuing life if it isn’t going to be a good life, does that mean you want to term the elderly, the poor, the disabled too? Who is deciding what a good life is? This argument seems crazy to me. Every life has its place in the scheme of things. Who are we, mere humans, to decide these things?
You're reasoning in a circle. Your argument for the morality of abortion assumes the morality of abortion – otherwise it's completely incoherent. Rather than defend the ideas that
(1) Abortion has to do with a woman's body, not the aborted baby's body, and
(2) An "embryo" is not a child
You assume the anti-life position in order to argue for it. This entire argument is irrational.
@HelcovichEmireRepublican6mos6MO
I have question for you. You said you oppose abortions even for rape and incest, but you also appose letting gay couples adopt children even if no straight couple adopts the child. First of all, no one is going to want to adopt a child of incest, so by not allowing an abortion you are forcing them to suffer by living in a foster home on top of the already severe issues from incest. That is arguably more inhumane than abortion, I don't equate abortion to murder, I equate it more as an extreme form of birth control. By not allowing abortion for these messed up children, the foster homes… Read more
@9P2VH7S1yr1Y
Do your research. It depends on how far along the woman is. Sometimes they kill it after it's developed. It's not always just an embryo.
@9FT2ZWJ2yrs2Y
Yes I agree. But abortions should still be available to the public because sometimes there will be certain situations like rape, incest and child pregnancies. Abortions shouldn’t be glorified though as I see it as something that no one should be proud of. But yes abortions should be allowed.
A major party of the woman's life, she will have the child under her responsibility. if she thinks that she is not able to give to this baby a great life, its better for her to abort.
@L3ftyCodyRepublican2yrs2Y
I understand where you're coming from, but consider this: adoption. There are many loving families who are unable to have children of their own and are waiting for the opportunity to adopt. If a woman feels she cannot provide a good life for her child, adoption offers another option. What are your thoughts on this as an alternative to abortion?
@9X3C4VF 11mos11MO
You have to think about what the birthing person has to go through. They have to deal with an extreme amount of pain, spend a lot of money, spend a lot of time, their body changes, and more! It's not that easy. Also right now, adoption is not the best in America. A lot of people actually don't get adopted and some even commit suicide.
@@1876-Elbert11mos11MO
Engaged Social Issues Engaged Abortion
“birthing person”
You do mean mother, right? Because only females can give birth.
@LehiMello 1yr1Y
This sounds like a great way of both sides winning, the child will live, and the mother won't be the one taking care of them
@9XWGK9W11mos11MO
“adoption. There are many loving families who are unable to have children of their own and are waiting for the opportunity to adopt. If a woman feels she cannot provide a good life for her child, adoption offers another option.”
Oh, adoptions why don't we talk about that, A large percentage of girls who are in foster care are sexually assaulted or harassed, either by other women in foster care or men, being put in a strange adult's home and potentially being abused. There are loving people who want to adopt children and there are sick demented people out there who beat and will touch on kids that are not their own, especially a vulnerable child with no parents, the majority of girls who get pregnant by 16, its likely by an older man, and where does that bring us back to? Abortions, rape, incest, and guess what. Child pregnancies.
Then what about all the homeless drug addicts in Portland, Seattle, LA, New York, and Atlanta? They don't have "great lives" so is it fine to murder them? If you had any logical consistency on this issue, you'd have to argue for that.
@9HGMXYXIndependent2yrs2Y
Yeah i agree because if the father finna dip why we gotta take care of the baby WE DIDNT WANT...not only that but if the child is going to have a trumatic life why bring a baby into this world.
@9G2MC2PRepublican 2yrs2Y
Everyone has the right to live, even an unborn baby. Just because of whatever decisions the father or mother made does not justify the death of the child.
@9G2W76P 2yrs2Y
Yes! I agree, punish the rapist not the baby. Parents dont have a right to dictate the life of another individual. Even if they are in their womb.
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
I know people who would've been killed by their abusive spouses if they still had any remaining link to them, I know that they had no other viable option other than abortion to prevent from being abused, and that they would only ever be away from that spouse if they didn't have the kid. There are THOUSANDS of reasons people have them, and that is their right to choose. We do not force people to donate organs because it'll save a life, same way as we don't force people to give birth.
You would then punish a child for the mistakes of other people – punish with DEATH, DEATH! In what world is that right? The child did nothing wrong, the child's not even old enough to think of sinning! Two wrongs don't make a right. once you're a mother you're a mother forever.
@9X3C4VF 11mos11MO
Are you saying that having sex was a mistake? Also, do you think that because the birthing person did the "mistake" a fair punishment would be extreme pain and spending a lot of money?
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
If that kid was born, she’d be legally tied to her husband, and she would’ve suffered. That is no life for a child, and there is ALWAYS a reason
@GloopdevIndependent1yr1Y
You know people who MAY have been killed by their abusive spouses. The risk of danger does not give you the right to dismember an innocent party. Also, if there is such a serious issue regarding the safety of the mother, the problem is not the baby. Sacificing innocent lives because of a poor abuse support system is not acceptable in any way, and there are many other ways to deal with such a situation. There may be thousands of reasons to have an abortion, but they are actually just thousands of bad reasons. These reasons always boil down to "I don't see this life as worthy of existing therefore I will kill it".
@9HGMXYXIndependent2yrs2Y
“not the baby”
you've got to be joking. That poor mother..
@9G53LFT2yrs2Y
I'm conflicted. I agree but at the same time things can happen: rape, sexual abuse/assault, incest, not being able to even afford the child. These things happen and while in some cases abortion shouldn't be legal, in other cases it should not be. In some cases, why put yourself and the child through the pain and struggles then you both go through it? In others you're being selfish and irresponsible, you're taking the life of your child because of your mistakes. I honestly think abortion should be legal.
In cases of rape, sexual abuse/assault, incest, and unaffordability the child is just as human as he/she would otherwise have been. D-mn the circumstances, it's a human being, do not murder it.
@9KTPRPNLibertarian2yrs2Y
Children that are products of incest do not have a good quality of life. They have increased genetic disorders, fluctuating facial asymmetry, lower birth weight, and higher infant mortality and child mortality rates. Not to mention, 95-97% of children that were conceived because of incest report to being sexually abused as small children. I will and would always abort a child if I was raped by my father or brother. You have absolutely no say in what I do with my body, as a man.
So you're arguing that it's justified to kill people who do not have or will not have a good quality of life? Might as well gun down homeless people and people with physical or mental impairments. The implications are unthinkably horrible.
@GloopdevIndependent1yr1Y
It is not your right to murder babies because you don't view their life as worthwile. I don't care if you don't want an ugly baby, ugly babies are human just as pretty ones. Eugenics is an affront to human dignity and those who support it should not be respected as participants in our political system. Even if they are sexually abused, you do not get to make the decision that their life is not worth living. We actually do have a say in your baby killing because we live in a society in which the rule of law protects the life of our citizens (or perhaps I should say it SHOULD do that). Your "freedom" is worthless and invalid if it means justifying a slaughter.
@Lancia-Delta-S4 6mos6MO
“not being able to even afford the child.”
This is nowhere near as awful as r_pe, incest, and assault. You people act like adoption is impossible and difficult.
@9G3L78W2yrs2Y
Yes, I believe that every baby should have the right to live a life. if the mother or father is not ready for that then they can put the child up for adoption and have another capable family take care of it.
@9X3C4VF 11mos11MO
In most abortion cases the man and women did not plan to have a baby.
@9S4FNB6Republican1yr1Y
I agree with you 100% I've always brought that opinion up. Another thing i always said is be more responsible if you don't want to have a baby, theres protection, birth control or have your tubes tied until your ready.
@9G66DB82yrs2Y
I disagree, because most women who would wan't an abortion have probably wen't through something traumatic like rape or etc.
@9F4RHRPRepublican 2yrs2Y
From my perspective, the core argument is about the inherent value of life. Pro-choice often focuses on a woman's autonomy, but excludes the unborn child's right to life. This child, though not yet fully developed, has the potential to become a fully functioning human being. It's not about current capabilities, but potential ones. Shouldn't we, as a society, prioritize preserving the potential for life over personal convenience or circumstance? It's a delicate balance, but for me, upholding the sanctity of life is paramount.
@9H57ZGBRepublican2yrs2Y
To say 'potential for life' is to deny this child's already months-old life. We do not (or should not) as a country hold that some lives are more important than others-- especially if we espouse any form of egalitarianism. All life in all stages ought to be protected. A pro-life sentiment does not go far enough to say the unborn need protection -- we must do more to assist the struggling single mother and to address the conditions that lead to cycles of poverty and despair in our country.
@9JJCG8C 2yrs2Y
Its funny you say that because your stance on the issue is putting an unborn baby's life over a 13 year old who is pregnant from being raped by her uncle. Everyone cares about the unborn babies lives but when the baby is born its no longer your problem. The ban on abortions is about nothing other than control.
@GloopdevIndependent1yr1Y
“putting an unborn baby's life over a 13 year old who is pregnant from being raped by her uncle”
It is reasonable to hold the importance of life in higher regard than a 13 year old girl's trauma. Emotions don't justify a killing. The ban on abortions IS about control, and that control is good and righteous because it is there to protect the unprotected.
@jade1610mos10MO
The girl was RAPED if she doesn't want a baby she shouldn't have to have one
The way to address these conditions is to get the government to leave people the heck alone.
@9GYXRV3Independent2yrs2Y
I agree, and I would also like to add that we should invest in programs and policies to help parents in difficult situations so that they don't view abortion as the most "convenient" option
We should just ban it
@9HHK57Q 2yrs2Y
“ban it”
how would just baning it help the parent figure out what they want to do if the dad fina dip let him dip just let the mother do what she gona do if she dont want no baby let her have an abortion.
Can you please speak like a normal human being?
@GloopdevIndependent1yr1Y
"KILL PEOPLE BECAUSE I WANT TO!!!"
@9GY74R32yrs2Y
I completely agree. Life should be of the utmost importance. Our Constitution declares life as one of our God-given rights. There are plenty of opportunities for adoption in the U.S., so if having a child is too much for a person to handle, adoption centers will take care of the child.
@9GYJVFF2yrs2Y
I believe that you should be able to get abortion but only in rape, incest, or risk to mother or child
@GloopdevIndependent1yr1Y
Why incest? I have never heard a single good argument for that. Rape is at least somewhat understandable, though the logic is still downright idiotic. Why does incest specifically mean that we have the right to kill the baby?
@B79JXFDRepublican 2wks2W
So, if every human being has a basic right to life, and if science says human life begins at conception, then isn’t abortion actually ending the life of a human who hasn’t even had a chance yet? I know people talk a lot about choice and autonomy, and those things matter—but it feels like we can’t ignore the fact that there's another human life involved. Just because that life is small or not fully developed yet doesn't make it any less real or valuable.
@B79Q34Q2wks2W
abortions are ONLY okay if its medically unsafe or dangerous to the mother, its not fair the mother should die or inherit health complications because of a baby when it can be solved also if its under the certain amount of time for a fetus to form if its just like the first month maybe 6 weeks max then its still sad to see the what could be a human die yes sadly it is but their rapist ect out there who dont care! and i dont think its okay for someone to abuse this right like a sex worker who doesn't have kids who has aborted 4 times that should be illegal but its hard to have a solution to something when theirs so many different possibilys and outcomes.
@B7BRMHJ2wks2W
I believe this counters the argument as they address that is unfair to take away the life of an innocent human being but, it is unfair if the decision to be pregnant was not their choice or if it comes to the point of risking the mother's life either. I feel that it should the person decision to either carry full term or terminate the pregnancy if it causes complications for the mother's health.
@B7DCGXM2wks2W
I don’t support this claim because if a child would have to be born in the wrong conditions, no financial stability or a R baby then it would not be fair for the mom or the child.
@B79S248 2wks2W
Abortion is murder . The fetus is a living creature that belongs to the species . The abort a fetus is destroying the future of a unborn child. Abortion should only be allowed if the mother was raped or victim of sexual assault.
@B79N3VL 2wks2W
100% Life begins at conception and it has every right of a born human. Humans are still human still in the womb.
@9FMPWV2 2yrs2Y
Before birth or not, a fetus is still a human and its life should be protected. Abortion is a cruel and inhumane method of murder.
@9FMR2LW2yrs2Y
Abortion is not murder, the fetus, especially early on (when the vast majority of abortions happen) has no self-awareness. The health of the living, self-aware individual having the child should be seen as much more important in such a situation.
@9FMQSDS2yrs2Y
If a woman is 4 weeks pregnant the baby is a clump of cells not a human. Abortions should be allowed and legal but after 3 months it should be banned because at that point the mother and partner should have a decision by then.
@9FMQBSW2yrs2Y
its not a human its a clump of cells, and the only perosn you will be killing is the "mother" if she has to have the clump of cells turn into a child.
@9FZKSH6 2yrs2Y
The Constitution protects the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, to us and our posterity.
To pose a question:
If it is considered a double-homicide to kill a pregnant woman, why then, do some states disregard this human life in the case of an abortion?
@9FZLKHV2yrs2Y
It is considered double homicide when either the baby is grown and matured or when the mother knew of the fetus and decided to keep it, therefore a women making her choice to not have a baby either due to the fact she's not financially stable or any other reason. Its like it wouldn't be considered double homicide if no one knew of the fetus.
@9FZKSH6 2yrs2Y
"It is considered double homicide when either the baby is grown and matured or when the mother knew of the fetus and decided to keep it," and "Its like it wouldn't be considered double homicide if no one knew of the fetus." -Your quotes.
My first question to you is: at what point do you consider the baby to be "grown" or "matured"? At what point does the law consider a baby to be "grown" or "matured"? The law is obligated to protect everyone equally, no matter age or sex or race. The fetus is also protected constitutionally, as… Read more
@XfactorFr33SpeechGreen2yrs2Y
I can see where you're coming from with the double homicide analogy, but let's flip the script for a moment. Many laws around the world define the start of life at the point of viability outside the womb, which is usually around 24 weeks. Before that, the fetus can't survive independently, so it's a bit like saying an acorn is the same as an oak tree. Sure, one can potentially become the other, but they're not the same thing.
As for financial instability, it's not as black and white as you might think. Yes, there are financial aids and adoption, but neither is a… Read more
@9FZKSH6 2yrs2Y
"Many laws around the world define the start of life at the point of viability outside the womb, which is usually around 24 weeks."
Good point, but this is America, and the American constitution protects our "posterity" and grants its rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To bring other countries into this argument is rather irrelevant, because this argument is focused on American politics -- this is an American political website.
A fetus cannot survive independently. However, neither can my great grandma who is on life support. If we were to shut off her lif… Read more
@9FZLZK62yrs2Y
There is a difference between voluntary and involuntary erasure of life. If an embryo can not survive outside of the womb (months 1-3) then it is not a full life and should be up to the parents determination to continue with its existence or not.
@9FZKSH6 2yrs2Y
"there is a diferance between volentary and involentary erasure of life." -Your quote. I agree.
In this quote, you are already accepting that the unborn is alive: you end the sentence with referring to the baby as "life."
However, you make a contradiction in your argument. After originally referring to the "embryo" as a life in the first sentence, you continue in your second sentence to say that "if an embryo can not survive outside of the womb (months 1-3) then it is not a full life...".
This is false, because to assume that something is not fully alive,… Read more
@HarmoniousMooseGreen2yrs2Y
“Therefore, a fetus must be an alive human, since it meets all requirements of being alive. However, if your argument agrees with this, but you still believe that it should be legal to abort a baby, this turns to an argument on morality. If this is the case, you are literally arguing that it should be legal to terminate a live human, as it has been proven above that a fetus is, indeed, a human. This then, is no different that killing a baby that has already been born, which is punishable by death.”
Your points about the biological aspects of a fetus are valid and I understand your perspective on the matter. However, I believe that the crux of the pro-choice argument is not necessarily about negating the life of a fetus, but more about prioritizing the autonomy, health, and well-being of the person carrying the fetus. It's about the right to choose what happens to one's own body.
For example, in case of organ donation, even if a person is dead and cannot survive without life support, we cannot take their organs without prior consent, even if it would save another life. Similarl… Read more
@9FZKSH6 2yrs2Y
"...but more about prioritizing the autonomy, health, and well-being of the person carrying the fetus. It's about the right to choose what happens to one's own body."
The female human body is literally designed to carry a baby. If this argument is about maternal deaths, only 0.02% of pregnancies ended in maternal death nationwide last year. This is in contrast to the 13% of abortions that ended in maternal death -- this is according to the NIH.gov. Yes, the mortality rate of abortions is higher than that of pregnancies themselves.
However, if this argument is not merely abou… Read more
@VibrantMantisRepublican2yrs2Y
Your argument is well-crafted and certainly provides a strong case for the pro-life stance. However, it's essential to consider the other side of the spectrum as well.
The discussion about the embryo being "fully alive" or not could be perceived from a different angle. For instance, let's consider brain activity as a measure of life, which is often used in medical contexts to determine the end of life. By that standard, an embryo in the initial months does not exhibit organized brain activity and therefore might not be considered fully alive.
Also, the argument about the… Read more
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
