Abortion

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 108
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
The claim that a zygote isn't a human being: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703 states 95% of biologists disagree with that.  Trust the science, just like with vaccines and climate change.

If you support legalizing abortion, at least acknowledge it kills a human being.  There are times when it is okay to kill human beings (murderers, rapists).  You just need a good enough rationale.  The main rationale used to justify abortion is, "My body my choice" if you are a female and, "Their body, their choice" if you are a male.

However, how far does this argument go?  If there is a conjoined twin that decides, "My body my choice.  My conjoined twin is causing me so much embarrassment and pain.  My body, my choice.  I want to kill my twin." do we let that twin kill their twin?  Absolutely not (Although I have heard the never trump crowd say this is okay from my own personal experience).  Normies will claim it's different because a zygote isn't a human being, but 95% of biologists believe a zygote is, so I have to believe that and apply the knowledge.  Just as conjoined twins share the same body,  a pregnant female shares the body with an unborn kid.

There is the occasional argument that people will make which is the fear that a kid will end up living a horrible pain filled life unless aborted.  However, lets say that there was a child that got raped several times by their parent.  Do you kill the child over that?  No; under no pretext is it okay to kill somebody without their consent just to prevent them from having pain.  This applies as much to a child rape victim as it does to an unborn baby (who will almost certainly live a less messed up life than a child rape victim).

Overpopulation doesn't justify killing someone, like ever.

So I would want abortion banned and convince states to do it on their own.  Don't do a federal ban because that's how you get civil war.

Anyone is free to address what I have to say, but Polytheist witch and ebuc are trolls, so if they didn't comment, I'd appreciate it.  If they did comment, I am making it my goal to not respond to them.

#2
RileyByng
RileyByng's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2
0
0
0
RileyByng's avatar
RileyByng
0
0
0
-->
@TheUnderdog
The claim that a zygote isn't a human
Whether or not we classify it as a human is surely irrelevant, either way the end result is the same.
If you support legalizing abortion, at least acknowledge it kills a human being.  There are times when it is okay to kill human beings (murderers, rapists).  You just need a good enough rationale.

Would you agree that the problem with murder is depriving someone of their future?
If so then surely the same ethical issues come when you deprive a fetus of their future. However then we can extend this to potential humans who haven't yet been concieved. All of these at a stretch could then be classified as murder, however in the case of the latter it's obviously immoral to force someone to bare a child. That's how I feel about abortion, you are forcing someone to bare a child. At least during the early stages of pregnancy it has the same impact on the fetus as them having never been concieved.

Do you support abortion in the case of rape?

I'd be happy to debate you on abortion 1 on 1 if you want? In a organised debate we can avoid the mess of a paragraph I just wrote.
#3
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,597
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@TheUnderdog

Isn't 8 billion people enough for this planet?
#4
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you support legalizing abortion, at least acknowledge it kills a human being.
There is a lot to address in that one statement. First, abortion is generally legal - no need to advocate for legalization. Secondly, there is ambiguity in the term 'human being'. If we simply mean 'human DNA with a lot of potential' and not a legal status, then why is the legality of abortion in question? Finally, there are legitimate reasons why individuals who are undeniably people can be killed. Should we acknowledge self-defense kills human beings? What about assisted suicide? The statement is emotionally manipulative.

I'm am willing to stipulate abortion ends life... and that this is justified by self-ownership and (in the most extreme cases) self-defense. If you oppose legalized abortion, can you acknowledge this undermines the basis of human rights while endangering the lives and futures of individuals who have undoubtedly achieved personhood?
#5
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Semantically killing a human being, sure.

The problem is no actual person is harmed. Whereas enslaving women creates a massive harm to them, their families, and society.
#6
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
Removing an unwanted lump of organic tissue.
#7
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
The claim that a zygote isn't a human being: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703 states 95% of biologists disagree with that. 
It’s not [a] human being !

A zygote is human in origin (it’s biological makeup), and it meets the basic criteria for life, but [a] being like you and I it is not. 

Words have very specific meanings, and when used a certain way convey a very specific idea, thought, or fact. 

Had you written that a zygote meets the basic biological criteria for life and that it is human in origin, then I’d agree. So would 100% of all scientists. 

But stating it is [a] human being is patently factually inaccurate!! 
Topic's author
#8
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@RileyByng
Whether or not we classify it as a human is surely irrelevant, either way the end result is the same.
How so?  If a zygote is not a human being, aborting them is okay.  If a zygote is a human being, abortion is an unjustified killing.

Would you agree that the problem with murder is depriving someone of their future?
The problem with murder is it takes an innocent human’s life away without their consent.

That's how I feel about abortion, you are forcing someone to bare a child.
You are forced to bear a child in the same way a conjoined twin is forced to take care of their twin.  This doesn’t justify the right to kill their twin over it (unless you believe a zygote is not a human which 95% of biologists believed they are).
Do you support abortion in the case of rape?
Yes, but have an incentive not to abort.  My solution is rape victim insurance.  Here’s how it works:

Every American female pays a penny a day to the federal government.  In exchange, if they get raped and get pregnant from the rape, the woman gets $20k in restitution for what she went through if she is able to prosecute the rapist (because then women would lie about being raped to get abortions).  If she aborts, she gets $13k (the remaining $7k goes to sponsor a poor American child, saving their life).  Eye for an eye; if you take a life from abortion, you should be required to save a life by some other method.  This money pays for her abortion and then some.
I'd be happy to debate you on abortion 1 on 1 if you want? In a organised debate we can avoid the mess of a paragraph I just wrote.
I perfer forums.  In debates, both people are more committed to their beliefs so it makes it harder to change one’s mind on any issue.  Forums are different.
Topic's author
#9
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@FLRW
If it was justified to kill people in the name of overpopulation, this would set the precedent to legalize mass shootings.  I don’t want to do this and I’m assuming you don’t either.  It is unacceptable to kill people in the name of reducing overpopulation.
Topic's author
#10
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
Secondly, there is ambiguity in the term 'human being'. If we simply mean 'human DNA with a lot of potential' and not a legal status, then why is the legality of abortion in question?
The cite I stated states that 95% of biologists believe a zygote is a human being.  Not just human DNA.  A human being.

Finally, there are legitimate reasons why individuals who are undeniably people can be killed. Should we acknowledge self-defense kills human beings?
Yes, and killing stranger human beings in the name of self defense is based.  Saying that a woman can kill the human being inside of her on the grounds of self defense is like saying a deadbeat dad should be allowed to opt out of child support payments of his own free will in the name of self defense.  You don’t get to use self defense as an excuse to avoid taking care of the children that you chose to bring into this world.  Adoption is different because the foster system consents to have your kid, although out of all unwanted pregnancies that are birthed, adoptions are rare (99% of unwanted pregnancies that are birthed are kept by the biological parents).  Raise the kids you choose to create.

If you oppose legalized abortion, can you acknowledge this undermines the basis of human rights while endangering the lives and futures of individuals who have undoubtedly achieved personhood?
You don’t deserve a human right to kill your unborn child.  Take care of the kids you choose to create.  Just like deadbeat dads should be forced to pay child support no matter how much it stresses them out because they need to raise their own kids.

Topic's author
#11
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Barney
The problem is no actual person is harmed. 
95% of biologists believe a zygote is a human being.

Whereas enslaving women creates a massive harm to them, their families, and society.
Would you argue that forcing a deadbeat dad to provide for his kids is akin to slavery?  Would you argue a conjoined twin keeping their twin alive without their consent is akin to slavery?  If not, how could you argue that forced pregnancy is slavery?


Topic's author
#12
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Removing an unwanted lump of organic tissue.
If a conjoined twin wanted to kill their twin in the name of bodily autonomy, would you support their fight to do that?  If so, virtually no normie is going to agree with you.  95% of biologists believe a zygote is a human being.
Topic's author
#13
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@TWS1405
A zygote is human in origin (it’s biological makeup), and it meets the basic criteria for life, but [a] being like you and I it is not. 
The cite argues a zygote was a human being

But stating it is [a] human being is patently factually inaccurate!!
The cite I posted disagrees, unless you can show me where it said what you said.
#14
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
The cite I stated states that 95% of biologists believe a zygote is a human being. Not just human DNA. A human being.
Ok. You've not cleared up the definition. Is that "human being" in the legal sense? If so, biologists aren't legal experts. If not, how does agreement among a small group of biologists on non-legal distinctions matter to whether abortion is legal? 

Saying that a woman can kill the human being inside of her on the grounds of self defense is like saying a deadbeat dad should be allowed to opt out of child support payments of his own free will in the name of self defense.
That doesn't make any sense. A woman can defend herself regardless. An ectopic pregnancy can kill just as easily as a teenager with a gun.  At the very least, we should be able to agree abortion is warranted in some cases.

You don’t get to use self defense as an excuse to avoid taking care of the children that you chose to bring into this world.
Of course you can - see above. Also, someone can choose to stop a pregnancy before 'bringing a child into the world'. It seems like you've got the chronology all wrong. Abortion doesn't happen after birth.


#15
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
The problem is no actual person is harmed. 
95% of biologists believe a zygote is a human being.
Still not a person. People have minds with self awareness, etc. Our innate understanding of the increased value of personhood, is why we're able to have a meat and diary industry.


Whereas enslaving women creates a massive harm to them, their families, and society.
Would you argue that forcing a deadbeat dad to provide for his kids is akin to slavery?  Would you argue a conjoined twin keeping their twin alive without their consent is akin to slavery?  If not, how could you argue that forced pregnancy is slavery?
You may argue those are akin to slavery, but forcing women to lose their freedom of autonomy and become property for use as medical devices is actual slavery.
Topic's author
#16
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
Is that "human being" in the legal sense?
No; it is a human being in the scientific sense.  Since it is a human being in the scientific sense, that should be translated over into American law.

That doesn't make any sense. A woman can defend herself regardless.
A woman can defend herself and her property, but this does not apply to the kids she chose to create.  Otherwise, a deadbeat dad can avoid child support payments because he's protecting his money from being taken.  Otherwise, a deadbeat dad can shoot his kids for taking his money.  

There are times when it is okay to kill in self defense (shooting a theif who is taking your money for reasons that you didn't directly cause).  There are times when it is not okay to kill in self defense (a deadbeat dad shooting his kids who is taking his money for reasons that he did directly cause).  The pregnant female is more like the ladder situation because it's her fault the kid was created.  If she is raped and can prove it with a rapist prosecution, she should be allowed to abort under the condition that she receives less money from rape victim insurance.

 Also, someone can choose to stop a pregnancy before 'bringing a child into the world'.
The child is brought into the world when they were conceived according to 95% of biologists in the link I said.  If they found different conclusions, you can point out to me where they said that.  But this is what the article said:

Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502).
A human life is a human being (or I don't know the difference).  Our laws should reflect science 100%.  This is not just for abortions, but climate change and vaccine recommendations as well.  People should get vaccinated.  We should be going towards renewables and nuclear energy.  And a human being starts at conception so abortion should be banned with the exception to save a mother's life.  I'm consistently pro science, are you?
Topic's author
#17
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Barney
Still not a person. People have minds with self awareness, etc.
Babies out of the womb don't have self awareness.
Whereas enslaving women creates a massive harm to them, their families, and society.
Would you argue that forcing a deadbeat dad to provide for his kids is akin to slavery?  Would you argue a conjoined twin keeping their twin alive without their consent is akin to slavery?  If not, how could you argue that forced pregnancy is slavery?
You may argue those are akin to slavery, but forcing women to lose their freedom of autonomy and become property for use as medical devices is actual slavery.
If it's akin to slavery, it's as bad as slavery.  If your argument is that deadbeat dads should not have to pay child support because it's slavery, I think virtually every single mother is going to disagree with you there.  Would you argue that a conjoined twin being forced to carry their twin for their whole life is unjustified slavery?  If so, that would mean you would be fine with a conjoined twin killing their twin (their body, their choice).  If a politician stated this argument, they would lose the normie vote even in NY.  So a politician can't make the argument that a conjoined twin would be allowed to exercise bodily autonomy in a way that causes somebody else to die, even if they argue it is slavery.  So how would an unwanted pregnancy be any different?
#18
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
If your argument is that deadbeat dads should not have to pay child support because it's slavery
Not my argument. If you scroll up you can plainly see I have given no commentary on issues of child support, nor on the various other unrelated arguments you've brought up as a strange kritik and obvious slippery slope fallacy to the subject.

What you've done, would basally be like if I accused you of advocating legalizing kidnapping people for organ harvesting. While technically some parallels can be drawn, your opinions on one issue are not assured to reflect on any others; nor are mine.


#19
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
Your cite is patently wrong. 
It is factually inaccurate to call a zygote [a] being. Take it out of the womb, it dies. Cellular life is not sustainable without further gestational development tk the point of viability, at which point it becomes closer to being [a] being since it could survive outside the womb without further gestational development. 

Potentiality ≠ actuality. Never has. Never will. 
#20
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
The problem is no actual person is harmed. Whereas enslaving women creates a massive harm to them, their families, and society.
How is making abortion illegal enslaving women. 
In all pregnancy's 90% of the time the woman purposely has sex. Therefore, whether the couple used protection or not, they were aware of the consequences of what could happen. 
And how is it enslaving women, if it's not their body to begin with.

"The fetus is a part of the mother’s body. if the fetus is a part of the mother’s body, then all pregnant women are chromosomal mosaics. That is, they are organisms that have two sets of genomes. Chromosome mosaicism is a rare disorder and is not synonymous with pregnancy. There is no such thing as “transient chromosomal mosaicism.” Furthermore, if the fetus is a part of the mother’s body, then half of pregnant women are hermaphrodites — i.e., they contain both male and female tissues. Needless to say, “transient gestational hermaphroditism” is not a recognized medical disorder. 
Furthermore, if a new human life begins by a piece of the mother’s body becoming a new organism, then human beings reproduce by budding. Budding is a form of asexual reproduction used by some species of worms, sponges, corals, and microorganisms, but it is not a means of human reproduction. 
There is no biological sense to be made of the claim that “the fetus is part of the mother’s body.” The claim leads to scientific implications that are nonsense. "


#21
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
How is making abortion illegal enslaving women. 
Lose of their freedom of autonomy, to instead become property for use as medical devices. Adding to it, they are not paid for their time and hardships in this, and have committed no crime to warrant the state doing this to them.

And most obviously, slavery and similar forms of forced servitude are outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment.
#22
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
And how is it enslaving women, if it's not their body to begin with.
Every person (or proposed person) needs permission to use the body of another. Pregnancy requires the use of someone's body. So...it IS their body and taking away control of it is slavery.
#23
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
@Barney
Pregnancy requires the use of someone's body. So...it IS their body and taking away control of it is slavery.
So, giving consent to someone having sex with you, and you getting pregnant is slavery.

I'm not talking about rape/incest cases. I'm talking about cases just for peoples own convenience.

Also, a fetus/baby is not part of the woman's body, therefore it isn't her body, her choice.

Lose of their freedom of autonomy,
Not their body. 

, to instead become property for use as medical devices
Elaborate.

 Adding to it, they are not paid for their time and hardships in this
Yes, because they chose to have sex without protection, and knew the consequences. Again, I am only talking about abortion for peoples own convenience.

And most obviously, slavery and similar forms of forced servitude are outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment.
So, if you don't get to have an abortion, then you are a slave? 
I could say the same for literally anything else. 
I don't get to chop off my own arm by myself at home just because of my own convenience. I could argue that is a violation of "my body my choice".


#24
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So, giving consent to someone having sex with you, and you getting pregnant is slavery.
Consent to sex isnt consent to pregnancy, so....no, not even close. Consent is conditional and limited. 
#25
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Yes, it is. Let's put it this way:

If you are consenting to sex, then you are undeniably accepting the fact that there is a possibility that you will get pregnant, therefore, consenting to pregnancy as well. 

If you are not aware that sex, can lead to pregnancy, then, you shouldn't probably be having sex.
#26
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Let's put it this way:

If you are consenting to sex, then you are undeniably accepting the fact that there is a possibility that you will get pregnant, therefore, consenting to pregnancy as well. 
If someone consents to sex, are they undeniably accepting the fact that there is a possibility their partner might want sex again later, therefore, consenting to sex with that person forever?

That's just not how consent works...
#27
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
If someone consents to sex, are they undeniably accepting the fact that there is a possibility their partner might want sex again later, therefore, consenting to sex with that person forever?

That's just not how consent works...
No, that's not what I said. They are undeniably accepting the fact that there is a possibility that they might get pregnant.
Saying: "If someone consents to sex, are they undeniably accepting the fact that there is a possibility their partner might want sex again later, therefore, consenting to sex with that person forever?" Doesn't mean that the person consents to sex with the person forever. 

I am making the point that when you are having sex with someone else, there is a probability that through biological processes, a baby could be conceived. 
If you are having sex with someone else, and they want to have sex later, then you don't have to consent, because your indicial act of having sex was already done with that person, therefore you don't have to consent again.

But with pregnancy, you are already committing to both sexes, and the possibility of concaving a child, when you give that first initial consent to sex. 

Sex is defined as a way to impregnate, or become pregnant, or a way to feel pleasure, therefore by consenting to sex, you are consenting to both of those things.




#28
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
Depends upon the complexity of the joining and the viability of the twin.

Biologists make up a tiny percentage of the population and are free to say whatever they wish.

I personally refer to zygotes as zygotes and to human beings as human beings.

The difference being the developmental state of the mass and the independence of the mass.

Zygotes could also be referred to as a developing mass with the potential to become a human being. 
#29
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I don't get to chop off my own arm by myself at home just because of my own convenience. I could argue that is a violation of "my body my choice".
Your arm, so your choice. However, no one else has a right to deny you use of your arm for an extended period against your will, even if it would save a life.
#30
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Barney
Semantically killing a human being, sure.
I don't understand the need to specify "semantically" - it's like if a Nazi were to say "were ok fine we are semantically killing people but...". Why oughn't we just accept that abortion kills a human period?

Whereas enslaving women creates a massive harm to them, their families, and society.
I've been looking more into the bodily autonomy qusetion which seems popular (likely because the pro life's exposition of the fact that th eunborn are in fact human is undeniable) and I've encountered a thought experiment I would be interested in having your feedback on. 

Suppose you are a camp instructor and you were bringing 3 kids onto a camping trip for 1 month. You sign the contract that you'll keep them safe, give them their resources and teach them about the wild life etc. In the fine prints, there is also the stipulation that in the case that an avalance occurs, you will be given access to a safehouse with food and resources, and you must sustain the lives of the children. This of course means you lose liberty (you cannot go away, you cannot leave the children, you eat and sleep bad, you are forced into certain acts of care etc). So do you believe that the autonomy of the instructor ought to trump to life of the kids and that they should be able to break the agreement to keep them safe, instead opting to drive off to leave them for death?