Prolife vs. Prochoice

[Denithar]

Still getting the basics of moderating a debate, so suggestions welcome.
5 day wait between posts=end of debate.


I'll bring up issues within this large topic and then we can debate on that issue till I deem it ended. This is a free debate, you can post at any time (not double post) and even change sides. Try to keep the main part of your post to addressing the chosen topic.

Perhaps the most important point is still: when is does a fetus/baby gain the right to life?

[eakyra]

What constitutes life? Who controls life? These questions have remained in question for several years. The world wide debate upon the ethical killing of a human being seems to be neverending. But all life begins and ends, the question is when does life truely begin, and is it truely ethical to destroy that life.

There are many that believe that a true life does not begin until a person reaches a physcological capacity. This means they have the ability to think for themselves, reason, and thus gain an identity or personality. So this means for the embryo/fetus that they are not a real person, and do not have the right to live which gives the mother the option of taking their chance of life away.

So does this mean that people with brain damage are not worthy of life as well? Should we simply euthanize everyone who is not capable of thinking for themselves because they are not truely a person?

Do these people always continue to suffer like this forever? No. There have been numerous cases of people with brain damage that have overcome their disability and are now capable of thinking for themselves, eating, dressing themselves, and living a halfway normal life.

So how is killing an embryo/fetus any diffrent from these people? Does it make it ok to kill a person who hasnt entered the world rather than kill a person who has, but is now uncapable of living?

Life, is anything that is able to grow and become. The moment that the egg inside of a female is fertilized, that is life. It has gained the ability to grow and become. It has been givin the same chance that we all have had since we started to become. And by destroying that chance, you are destroying a whole human being. So suddenly killing other people has become legal. Now you have to sit around and worry everyday that someone is going to come through your front door and shoot you, and your family, and your neighbor, and get away clean. Its legal isnt it? Its the same thing when you use abortion to destroy a fetus.

Its time that we stop playing God, and let life, take its course.

[Denithar]

How can you say that something which lives entirely off of something else is an independent being, with all the rights of a living creature? A woman owns all parts of her body, and all that functions as part of her body is her. In medical cases it is sometimes necessary to remove a part of the body, and it is the patents decision at that point.

Do you believe that sentient beings have an equal right to live, despite any difference in knowledge? How can you kill an animal, or a plant, to further your bodies need if they have as much right as you? If a mother cannot have a baby for good reason, such as tender age of the mother, financial situation, unique cases of danger to the mother in childbirth etc, then how can you say she should be forced to bring forth life?

You are the one playing at God, not allowing a person to do what they believe necessary for their safety. It is akin to the Chinese rule of only one child per family.

(Again, not my views. But Eakyra need somebody to debate, so I'll try to debate on the wrong side of a topic I feel strongly about...)

[The Observer]

If a fetus is killed on thr grounds of it being entirely dependent upon its mother, than it should be legal to kill children at least until they are weaned from their mothers. For the first many months the baby is still entirely dependent upon its mother or cargiver for its survival.

As to sentient beings and the right to live. I believe that "all men (humans) are creted equal and endowed by thier creator with certain unalienable rights, among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
That means that all humans have and equal right to live, despite differences in knowledge. To kill a child is a violation of its right to life. And the right to life surpasses the right of pursuing happiness (the mother's "right" to abort). The possible exception to this would be rape, in that it was not the mother's choice to get pregnagnt. But there would be not other exception. This is not an issue of "forcing the mother to bring forth life" but an issue of protecting the child's right to life.

As for the analogy of Chinese family planning, there is no correlation. The Chinese rule is an attempt by thier government to control the popluation/economy. It takes away the right to live from the child. A ban on abortion is an attempt to keep children from being killed. It protects the child's right to live. In both instances the mother retains her right to choose to have a child or not. That choice is made in the act or refusal of conception. The only insance in which the mother loses that right is with rape, which would be the beforementioned exception. The mother's rights come from her free will in chosing whether or not to have sex.

[eakyra]

This debate is not about the children who have gained a mental capacity to think for themselves and live and breath on their own, its about the fetus who has not gained that capacity. Its not moral to kill someone who has that ability, but the fetus who has not gained that ability isnt necessarily a person. How can you say that a woman doesnt have the right to her own body? The fetus is a part of the woman, and is not an independent being. So should we just start treating all women as dogs instead of people? If they cant control their own body, they surely arent capable of controling their own lives.

OB mentions that he "belives" that everyone despite their diffrence in knowledge has the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. His belief does not constitue the law. How can something that has not even truely lived independently have the right to life? Young children may have to be cared for, but they are not physically attatched to the mother. They are not taking her life to support it. A baby cannot kill its mother physically. A fetus can drain the life from a mother and kill her. And if thats the case, it needs to be aborted to save the womans life.

We have to think about the later. Who has the biggest chance of survival here? Do we let the woman who has the posibility of dying because of an unwanted child simply die and let this child live? The child then has to be put into foster care, costing the city, county, and goverment money to raise and support that child when it could be put into better uses. Or do we let this fetus live, who hasnt the right to its own, and cause the woman, who still has already achieved life and is capable of doing somthing on her own die? Its a wasted life, rather then letting go of one that doesnt even exist yet.

(I just want this debate to continue)

[The Observer]

(thank you for responding)

Can you prove that a fetus does not think or feel? How can we know? Perhaps mentally ill people who cannot think (or cannot show us they can think) should also be killed. They also constitue a considerable burden upon the taxpayer. As for a mother having the "right to her own body" there are two arguments against that. Firstly, that same phrase, a woman having the "right to her own body" was originally the rallying cry of the Pro-Lifers. Feminists, every one of them. It was the woman's rights movement that first turned to abolish abortion, they saw it as society's pressure to prevent them from having children. So you see, that argument can go either way. Secondly, and most importantly, what makes you think that the fetus is part of a woman's body? The DNA is different, its functions work independantly from the mother . Even if it heavily relies on the mother, and they live in a sybiosis, they remain seperate entities. They do not have the same DNA, same tissue, same thoughts (or, in your opinion, lack-thereof). The only thing they share is nutrients, which is little differnt from a nursing baby.

When I mentioned what I "believe" I was quoting the Declaration of Independance, which is a cornerstone of American Law. This DOES constitute law.

I will concede the issue of life-threatening situations and rape. In that you do have a point and I will not argue against it. However, the concession is not because the mother's lfie is more valuable than the child's, but simply because the decision of which life is more valuable (and therefore which should be saved) should not be up to the government, but to the individual and on an individual basis.
However, the majority of abortions are not for this reason. They are done out of fear or inconvienence. This is unacceptable.



**I want to make a quick aside here. This is not about the debate, but I really want everyone (especailly those who may have expirienced abortion) to hear this. We are talking about abortion and I am using some very harsh words. The words are directed at the law and the idea that fetuses can leagally be killed. I do believe abortion is wrong, but I also believe it is one of the most horrible and painful things any woman can ever go through. It is not the casual throwing away of an accessory, I have heard a much better analogy for it. The woman who aborts is like an animal caught in a trap that bites its own leg off to escape. It is a horrible and tragic thing, one of the greatest tragedies of our age. And it can haunt the woman the rest of her life. Before we continue, I want to formally offer my deepest condolences and sorrow for anyone who has chosen to go through this.**

[eakyra]

I just wanted to make this aware that I believe its been more than 5 days.

This one was so hard for me, I had to switch sides! I defended both... crazy crazy.

[Denithar]

This one was far harder to judge. Good work OB and Eakyra. OB was the only one who quoted law, and it almost won him the debate. However, Eakyra's points made more sense to me, partly just because she made fewer grammar mistakes (remember these are judged on my opinion of how you debated, obviously it's not going to be terribly fair). Eakyra has won this debate.

[eakyra]

I didnt see that comming... honestly.

But im so happy!!!!