Should Abortion be banned? [Manoflooks vs. BHC Warman_888]

[Manoflooks]

Topic title; Should Abortion be banned?
Details; Abortion is a touchy issue. Since the 1970's, major parties have been lobbying for keeping it or banning it. Should it be banned or should Women have the choice to decide?

Warman is for banning it, while I think it should be by choice.

Warman, you can start. I'm that nice.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

I get my offical answer up tomarrow (Wednesday Morning)! Sorry for the delay !

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Abortion should be made banned. Innocent babies die for what reason? If you do not want to have this "choice", then use protection. Better yet, do not have sex then. If you are raped, People say that the victim didn't ask for the child. Correct! But nethier is the child asking to be murdered. That what abortion is, no matter how hard the pro-choice crew may try to deny it, Abortion is plain murder. Would you kill a 1 month old baby because the mother doesn't want the kid? No. However, if the baby is still inside the mother, it is OK to kill it.

Pro-Choice supporters say a baby is a bunch of mass tissue. Is it really? And a month old baby isn't? Pro-Choice supporters say Abortion is safe. Is it really? Breast cancer cases risen by 50% in women since abortion became legal. If you do decide to have a baby later, the baby will more then likely have a low birth weight.

[Manoflooks]

Abortion should be for choice.

You say innocent babies die for no reason? Are they really babies? They cant even fell pain until 30-40 weeks, and less than 1% of abortions are performed after that period(I think that should be illegal, btw). The brain isnt fully developed either. Especially at the very beginning, they are closer to a lump of cells and tissue that a human being.

I also have to disagree with the "no reason" part. Would they do it if there was no reason? Of course not. Dont try to throw the "they should have used protection" argument out there-condoms, for example, are only 88% effective. What are they supposed to do? Raise the baby, potentially ruining their life and making life for the child miserable? I think there should have to be a certain criteria for abortion-but it should not be banned.

Rape is the area where I believe it should always be allowed. Lets take an event that happened recently. A nine year old girl was raped and impregnated with twins. If she had let the babies be born, both of them, as well as the girl, would have died. Even if we decide to call the fetus's full humans, abortion makes only two people die-no abortion would have meant three.

Abortion became legal in the US in 1973. It is true that breast cancer rates went up since then-but do you not think there was a chance that there is another cause? Or was that the only thing that changed in 36 years.

Let us say that there is a building being constructed. So far, they have only filled in the hole with concrete as the foundation. If you went there and removed the concrete, would you say you had destroyed a building? No. You would say that you had stopped a building from being made. But not destroy.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Look, yes, condoms are only 88% effective or so. However, there are birth control pills, etc.....
There is also something called abstinence. Don't have sex. But I guess that's to complex for some women today? You could put the kid up for adoption if you do have one. Don't have unprotected sex or sex in general if there's of risk of you being pregnant. If you don't want to "ruin your life", then be more wise.


Yes, there may by other causes. But do you not think Abortion isn't one of the causes? That is like saying that if you smoke 2 packs a day, you not going to get Lung Cancer after an X many of years.

[Manoflooks]

Look, yes, condoms are only 88% effective or so. However, there are birth control pills, etc.....
There is also something called abstinence. Don't have sex. But I guess that's to complex for some women today? You could put the kid up for adoption if you do have one. Don't have unprotected sex or sex in general if there's of risk of you being pregnant. If you don't want to "ruin your life", then be more wise.


Yes, there may by other causes. But do you not think Abortion isn't one of the causes? That is like saying that if you smoke 2 packs a day, you not going to get Lung Cancer after an X many of years.

Abstinence...who, except for the very religious, stays abstinent for their life outside marriage? Do you really think that is realistic option? You tell me if you plan to stay abstinent.

You will probably get lung cancer-but you might not.

I do not think abortion should be for whopever wants one though. There should be an assessment. Heres an example-My mom works in poverty law. She is pro choice. What she said to me is "There should be a financial , medical, and physchological assessment to be able to have an abortion. If you could give the child a good home, then you cant get an abortion. If, however, you are one of those types of people that comed into her office that have 4 kids already, three boyfriends, one tooth, horribly mean, and is being evicted for leaving the house unsafe for kids-you should be sterilized after the abortion.They would make the child's life miserable."

No argument that a fetus isnt just a mess of cells and tissue I see...

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Abstinence...who, except for the very religious, stays abstinent for their life outside marriage? Do you really think that is realistic option? You tell me if you plan to stay abstinent.

You will probably get lung cancer-but you might not.

I do not think abortion should be for whopever wants one though. There should be an assessment. Heres an example-My mom works in poverty law. She is pro choice. What she said to me is "There should be a financial , medical, and physchological assessment to be able to have an abortion. If you could give the child a good home, then you cant get an abortion. If, however, you are one of those types of people that comed into her office that have 4 kids already, three boyfriends, one tooth, horribly mean, and is being evicted for leaving the house unsafe for kids-you should be sterilized after the abortion.They would make the child's life miserable."

No argument that a fetus isnt just a mess of cells and tissue I see...

On the issue of abstinence, you have a good point. Ever hear of "God's Natural Birth Control" (), e.g, Anal/Oral Sex (I always been a butt man anyhow )? Again, on a serious note, you have a good point there.




I agree with your mother, to a point. However, regardless if you a good-looking wealthy lady who get rape and gets preganet, or some lady with one tooth and 4 baby daddies,etc....
In both cases, they should have their kids put up for adoption. Why should the One tooth lady not put the kid up for adoption?

On the issue of the fetus just being a "mass of cells", I was not trying to avoid it, my apologies. What do you mean? You mean the fetus is really just a bunch of the following with no right to live;




At the very beginnig..... Of course they would be. A normal pregnancy takes 9 full months. You can not expect a fetus to be made like you see on ultrasounds all the time the second the sperm hooks up with the egg. Nevertheless, it is not a excuse to kill the baby.


Some people make very foolish mistakes in life regarding sex. But it is NOT a reason to have a abortion. I understand if you are raped and such. It would make me sick also. Rape is a horrible crime, however. but put the kid up for adoption. Then at least the kid could have a good home then if you can't provide for him/her.

[Manoflooks]

Yes, a pregnancy takes 9 months. But most abortions are before even the 3 month stage. At 3 months, the fetus is "
Starting at eight weeks, your baby is called a fetus. By the end of the first trimester (week 13), the fetus will have grown to 3 inches/ 7.5 centimetres long and will be fully formed. She has begun swallowing and kicking. All organs and muscles have formed and are beginning to function. "
I admit, this seems a lot. Especially "fully formed". But it is still beginning to function-even the brain. And I would daresay that most people against abortion have killed an animal in some way, whether hunting, putting down a pet, or in some other way. And I think a 10 year old cat is more developed than a fetus at this stage-do you feel so strongly against putting down animals?

I would like to know, what do you think is justified if, after rape, it is shown that holding the child will kill the mother and maybe the child? Is abortion okay then?

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Yes, a pregnancy takes 9 months. But most abortions are before even the 3 month stage. At 3 months, the fetus is "
Starting at eight weeks, your baby is called a fetus. By the end of the first trimester (week 13), the fetus will have grown to 3 inches/ 7.5 centimetres long and will be fully formed. She has begun swallowing and kicking. All organs and muscles have formed and are beginning to function. "
I admit, this seems a lot. Especially "fully formed". But it is still beginning to function-even the brain. And I would daresay that most people against abortion have killed an animal in some way, whether hunting, putting down a pet, or in some other way. And I think a 10 year old cat is more developed than a fetus at this stage-do you feel so strongly against putting down animals?

I would like to know, what do you think is justified if, after rape, it is shown that holding the child will kill the mother and maybe the child? Is abortion okay then?

Animals being put down aren't the point Looks. This is the same argument the Pro-Choice camp puts up. Trying to bring animals and the "What if the mother/child could die" question. Have you ever consider a abortion is murder? You haven't address my statement earlier when I mention it. And to answer your questions, Yes, if a animal is suffering, it needs to be put down. A Human typically is smarter then a animal, usually anyhow. You don't murder humans so they "don't need to grow up bad" as you might put it.

On the last question, it's a tough call. You want me to try to back step on myself here. Yes, if enough proof is shown, that BOTH mother and child will die, fine. However, the rapist must be charge with murder then for the abortion.

[Manoflooks]

Whether not abortion is considered murder is an argument about morals and definitions. Murder is the ending of a life. DOes this life count when there is the possibility to have a life, when the life is in development, when? Your opinoin is at conception, I believe-whileas prochoice people have varying beliefs that go from near the end of fetal development to birth, usually. By their definition, it isnt murder. By yours, it is. YOu need to provide proof for your belief.

The point I was trying to make by mentioning putting animals to sleep is that you cant use the defense of "Abortion is taking a life." Also, are you trying to insinuate that the value of life is based on intelligence? How intelligent is a fetus?

GOod answer. Best I've heard in response to that question, actually. But the murder, of course, depends on the definition of murder. Read above.

So far in the debate, it seems neither of us has gained any ground. Think I'll go check the commentary thread...

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Whether not abortion is considered murder is an argument about morals and definitions. Murder is the ending of a life. DOes this life count when there is the possibility to have a life, when the life is in development, when? Your opinoin is at conception, I believe-whileas prochoice people have varying beliefs that go from near the end of fetal development to birth, usually. By their definition, it isnt murder. By yours, it is. YOu need to provide proof for your belief.

The point I was trying to make by mentioning putting animals to sleep is that you cant use the defense of "Abortion is taking a life." Also, are you trying to insinuate that the value of life is based on intelligence? How intelligent is a fetus?

GOod answer. Best I've heard in response to that question, actually. But the murder, of course, depends on the definition of murder. Read above.

So far in the debate, it seems neither of us has gained any ground. Think I'll go check the commentary thread...

So for your beliefs, it is OK to have a Abortion, but not alright to put an animal to sleep? I guess animals are more important then humans?


You asked for some sort of proof or something? Here you go.

http://www.christianet.com/abortionf...ioniswrong.htm



Well, both of us been arguing the typical arguments, we must break some new ground sooner or later .

[Manoflooks]

When did I say that? What I was insinuating was that if you think abortion is wrong, wouldnt it be wrong to kill an animal?

Lets see...Christianet. How unbiased.

THe link brings up some good points. If they kill a pregnant woman it is a double murder. That is true. But do you truly believe the law is unfallible? Perhaps the law should be changed?

It also says that "How many great people have been aborted?" That argument, while good, is cancelled out by the opposite, how many evil peole had been aborted? If only Hitler had been aborted...or is it preferablwe to let him live?


THirdly, it says that is bad, from a religous view, because of how much God reveres life. Is this the same God that flooded the world and killed almost every single living thing?


Heres a hint. I was in the district speech competitions the other day(which, btw, I would have won if one the judges wasnt a devout christian that disliked my proving that religion is evil and dangerous), and somebody did one on why abortion is wrong. Here best arguement was the methods of abortion. Try that.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Of course, the law does need to be change. Few weeks ago, an 11 year old Western PA, same part of the state I live in, shot and kill his 27 year old pregnant step-mom (step-mom I believe). And he is going to be charge with murdering her and her un-born child. It's simple as that.


2nd, Good point, however, how did the mother of Hitler know that her son was going to kill 12 million people from Jews to Poles to the good Germans who fought against him and others?


And on your final point, Again, while it is valid, I will say this. Many of those people were sinful, do you not disagree? And again, to bring up a previous point, does killing an animal, like an deer, in hunting season, inhumane, but abortion is not? Is putting down an sick 10 year old cat inhumane, but killing an baby is not? Or is it because those animals got more rights then Humans?

[Manoflooks]

So you want the law changed? I think your worded the very first part wrong there...

No she didnt. But that woman over there who got an abortion mightve just killed the next Hitler. Or the next ALbert Einstein. YOu cant be sure-so this is not a valid argument for either of us.

Everything in moderation and with a reason. Killing a sick 10 year old cat isnt inhumane, not to me, who is prochoice. He would have been sick, had a miserable life, and been a burden. Which is why I dont think abortion should be available to everyone.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

So you want the law changed? I think your worded the very first part wrong there...

No she didnt. But that woman over there who got an abortion mightve just killed the next Hitler. Or the next ALbert Einstein. YOu cant be sure-so this is not a valid argument for either of us.

Everything in moderation and with a reason. Killing a sick 10 year old cat isnt inhumane, not to me, who is prochoice. He would have been sick, had a miserable life, and been a burden. Which is why I dont think abortion should be available to everyone.

Good point, but I said that because of this. Were you trying to imply something with your previous comment? Maybe I'm just paranoid.

And I would daresay that most people against abortion have killed an animal in some way, whether hunting, putting down a pet, or in some other way. And I think a 10 year old cat is more developed than a fetus at this stage-do you feel so strongly against putting down animals?

No she didnt. But that woman over there who got an abortion mightve just killed the next Hitler. Or the next ALbert Einstein. YOu cant be sure-so this is not a valid argument for either of us.

So why have an abortion then if you don't know how your children are going to be when they get older.....

[Manoflooks]

You know, we should probably either declare this debate undecided or throw it to the audience-no ground is being gained by either of us.

So why have an abortion then if you don't know how your children are going to be when they get older.....

Let me try a new reply to this question...I think I've answered it four times(similar questions, at least)
Because if they dont get older they dont get any older. It isnt like killing-its stopping the development. Like stepping on a seed, or something. The possibility of a baby is gone-not the baby.