What are some good anti-abortion/abortion points?

[CrAz3D]

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.

[Mephisto]

-Woman's right to choose (I don't believe in this, might someone else be able to back it up)?

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.

[CrAz3D]

-Woman's right to choose (I don't believe in this, might someone else be able to back it up)?

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.

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?

[Joe[x86]]

Edit of anti-death sentence:

What if Jesus were aborted?

[MyndFyre]

Edit of anti-death sentence:

What if Jesus were aborted?

Joe, I swear, how does that have anything to do with a political debate in a secular society?  That isn't even close!

[CrAz3D]

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

[disco]

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.

I completely agree.

Edit of anti-death sentence:

What if Jesus were aborted?

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.

[Adron]

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.

[Yegg]

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?

[Warrior]

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.

[Newby]

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?

You know what: life goes on, 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.

[CrAz3D]

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?

You know what: life goes on, 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.

So I guess that's for abortion?
-It doesnt matter

[quasi-modo]

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

[disco]

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

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.

[CrAz3D]

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

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.

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.