A woman has a right to an abortion, if she can afford it.
A woman does not have a right to force anyone else to pay for her abortion.
I have the right of freedom of speech. Would you like to be forced to pay in order for me to excercise my right?
Pro-Choice is a misnomer.
People want to use the term,
to refer to:
1. A woman (not a man) having a choice.
2. The only choice is whether or not to have an abortion (there are no other choices are available).
Calling a fetus a parasite is the first step to condoning abortion.
The Nazis called Jews "rats" in order to make killing Jews more palatable.
That tactic is alive an well in the pro-abortion camp. Their argument is that you are only killing a parasite, a clump of cells. The reason they want to create this illusion is so that you don't feel bad about making that "choice." Why would you want to give anyone a parasite, or a clump of cells, to care for and nurture? Just "terminate" it.
Alright, so in basic terms, here is the issue:
Some people say that women should be in control of their bodies and have the right to abort. However, there are others who say that abortion is murder.
What is your take on this issue?
So I just read a tearjerker story (in a very liberal publication: The New Yorker) about a woman who grew up without a mother because her mother decided to perform a self-induced abortion. So, obviously, this woman thinks that legal abortions are necessary to prevent women from attempting self-induced abortions and dying in the process.What I don't understand is, why doesn't anyone ever asks the most obvious question? Why not put the child up for adoption? In that scenario, the mother would still be alive. Her daughter may someday be reunited with her adopted sibling. Why should the termination of life be the go to solution?
I guess we have to show that the fetus is only part of the mother so that she can have it removed as one would remove a wart.
We also have to show that the fetus is NOT part of the father so that we can claim that the father has no claim, no rights, no interest, no say in the life/fate of the fetus and that ONLY the mother has the final say in the life/fate of the fetus.
Do you remember this debate?
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ What camefirsttheChickenortheegg
In there it talks about the whether the egg shell belongs to the fetus or the mother and whether the eggshell is just a container.
I would argue that the uterus is part of the mother.
I would also argue that the uterus is a container.
I would then argue that the fetus is not part of the father. Just because the father contributed sperm, does NOT mean that the fetus is part of the father.
I would then argue that the fetus is not part of the mother either. I mean, just because she contributed the egg does not mean that the fetus is part of her body. What holds true for the father, holds true for the mother. And science backs me up on this. The mother's immune system would kill the fetus if it weren't for the placenta.
"The placenta functions as an immunological barrier between the mother and the fetus, creating an immunologically privileged site."
If it were not for the placenta, the mother's immune system would kill the fetus. The fetus is its own entity. Once the egg and the sperm fuse, it is no longer part of the father and it is no longer part of the mother. it is its own entity.
But... if the fetus is its own entity, and it is not part of the mother, it cannot be compared to a wart. When the mother has a fetus removed, she is not doing something to her body, she is doing something to another living entity.
You know, like when you're a hormy teen and you think you know it all (pull-out method works) and you're destined for college and a great career (I'm so great I can pull-out at the last minute. I've been practicing. Watch!) and then your hormones throw you a curve ball (OK, let's give it a shot. No pun intended.) and you end up pregnant (You [insert explitive here]. This wasn't meant to happen!) and the you come up with yet another great idea (I know..., let's get an abortion!) and the fetus is like (Wait..., what? No! What about meeee?!?!?!) and the parents are like, "Screw you you clump of cells!".
Conditions that must first be met:
1. Educating the public of the causes of pregnancy.
2. Educating the public about contraceptives.
3. Making contraceptives freely available to both sexes.
4. Educating the public of the legal consequences and ramifications (i.e., Educating both parents about the following responsibilities assigned to their actions).
a. All participants must use contraceptives. If contraception was NOT used by both parents:
b. The father is responsible for child support if the mother wants the baby.
c. The mother must carry the pregnancy to term if the father wants the baby.
d. Next of kin is given priority to raise the child if he/she qualifies.
e. The child is put up for adoption.
f. Illegal abortions are punishable by death. This includes Doctor, mother and father depending to what extent they have been a party to said abortion.
Abortions should be allowed under the following condition:
1. Pregnancy is due to rape or incest AND it is withing the current legal time frame of fetus development.
2. If both parents used contraception and both contraceptive devices failed and neither parent, wants the baby, AND it is withing the current legal time frame of fetus development.
Abortion should only be used in cases where neither parent wants the child.
As long as one of the parents wants the child, then the pregnancy should go to term. If the father cannot be reached, for whatever reason, withing the legal abortion period, then the mother gets to make the decision.
People who liked this debate also liked:
WITHOUT PARENT CONSENT?!?!?!
Who do the children belong to; the parents or the state?
Who is responsible for children; the parents or the state?
Who would you expect to have the best interest of a child at heart; the parent or the state?
Under the new rules of this site, as being negotiated by its members, you can no longer be classified as a sexist pig just because you are against abortion. The intent of this rule is to minimize generalizations. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible. ;)
Pro-abortion activist want women to see their fetus as a parasite and have it removed ASAP
want women to get counseling before an abortion.
prefer that women not be told about the
possible detrimental psychological effects of abortion.
This is NOT a "for VS against" debate.
Read the article.
It's in black and white.
Gays refused to accept the words, "Civil Union," and fought for the word, "Marriage."
The government could have allowed religion to have a monopoly on the word, "Marriage," while they themselves used the words, "Civil Union" exclusively for every union (in order to differentiate between a religious marriage and a state sanctioned marriage). But they didn't.
For the longest time, it was called "Gay Marriage." So, now that the law of the land is that the word "Marriage" will be used exclusively by the government to refer to every state sanctioned union, it may be time for the religious die-hards to take matters into their own hands and stop using the word "Marriage." Perhaps they can invent some new word or they can always fall back on the words "Religious Marriage."
Better yet, they can call it a "Holly Union."
Oh, wait.... I got it.... call it a "Proliferating Union." Proliferating because only a man and a woman can "naturally" proliferate and the word, "Proliferate" has the words, "Pro," "Life" and "Rate." Then they can define a "Proliferating Union" as a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of proliferating. Which makes it a Pro-Life Union, meaning that people in a "Proliferating Union" cannot have abortions (everyone else can have all the abortions they want). They can then state that all other unions do not "Rate" (meaning, they are not "real" unions).
A rose by any other name is still a rose.
NOTE: This solution will end the "Gay Marriage" debates AND the Abortion debates once and for all!!! Yay me, for coming up with the final solution!!!
Man! Can I think outside the box, or what?
While everyone else is out partying on this 4th of July, I was diligently sitting here trying to solve the world's problems.
I did not want to read the article so I figured I'd let our inhouse Satanists to tell us.
However, since all you people seem to want to do is argue,
I did NOT make this into a perspective debate.
So have at it.