Abortion should remain legal.
Consequentialist Libertarian said 03/03, 12:23 AM
"The legal status of abortion is the single most important factor determing its impact on women's health. In the US its legalization led to a decline in mortality from 30 to 5 per 1000 terminations between 1970 and 1976. In contrast mortality in Romania rose from 21 to 128 per 100,000 live births between 1965 when abortion was made illegal, and 1984."
Abortion is a very safe procedure. The risk of complication is minimal ??? less than one percent of women experience a major complication. The risk of death associated with childbirth is 10 times greater than the risk of death from an abortion. Legal abortion is safer than a tonsillectomy, an appendectomy, and a shot of penicillin.
Nearly nine in 10 abortions take place early in pregnancy.
Eighty-eight percent of abortions are performed during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and 98 percent occur during the first 20 weeks.
90% 1st trimester,
9% 2nd
0.9% saline 3rd trimester
0.1% "partial-birth," mostly on anencephalics and stillborns
Of the 3rd trimester/partial-birth abortions almost every one of them was done to save the life of the mother or to remove a stillborn.
All banning abortion does, is take it underground.
Liberty said 03/03, 10:10 PM
Ok... so ur argument is that abortion should be legal because... it saves womens rights? You say that there are less deaths during the abortion process than the birth process, u argue that "Abortion is a very safe procedure" Wow ok for who? Not the baby thats for sure! The constitution gives everyone the freedom of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness! Are you saying that an unborn babies dont have rights? Think of it this way if a man kills a pregnant women he is charged with murder for 2! Not 1, because when a women becomes pregnant there are 2 and she is therefor responsible for that babys life! It doesnt matter when u have the abortion its still murder, that baby would have had a life if u didnt take it from him, or her, that baby would have loved some one, would have made an impact... so to argue that it is safer for women! wow that baby might have been a women wasnt very safe for her huh!!!! In a 100% of abortions someone dies it just may not always be the women!
Consequentialist Libertarian said 03/03, 11:16 PM
Funny that you mention the Constitution; the Supreme Court ruled that abortion laws infringe upon a woman's 9th and 14th amendments.
I assume you are referring to feticide. These laws were enacted to protect the mother, not the baby. A mother can be charged with feticide if she tries to give herself an abortion, but not if a doctor performs it for her.
In order for something to be classified as murder, it must involve the intentional killing of an innocent human life, which is a "person." This is the absolute key, essential element of the whole definition. If the innocent human life which is intentionally killed does not constitute a person, than no "murder" has been committed. Ethicists list more than a dozen criteria for something to be a person, but I believe only three are absolutely necessary: consciousness (awareness of environment), self-awareness (ability to recognize between environment and oneself), and memory. Despite temporary lapses into unconsciousness, a person must be able to return to consciousness and self-awareness with their memory intact. Therefore, abortion does not equate to murder.
Taking a life and preventing a life are two entirely different things.
Liberty said 03/04, 01:12 PM
Your exactley right taking a life and preventing a life are two different things, if you want to prevent a life you use birth control, once there is a baby inside your stomach you now have a life and you are taking it! And when i said that abortion was murder you through our all these laws that says its not mureder... well duh thats why the debate was abortion should remain legal, as it already is. My argument is that is shouldnt be legal because you are killin a human life! Throwing these facts around really doesnt mean much when my argument was that it should no longer be legal!
This is a human life we are dealing with, It should have the same rights as you and I, By the way you better be thankful that your mother didnt have the same feelings on abortion as you do, or i guess it doesnt matter because you werent a life then.
I guess my point is that when a baby starts developing bodyparts and is living inside the mother than it is our responsibility to protect that baby. THat baby should still have the same rights as you and I.
Consequentialist Libertarian said 03/05, 01:28 AM
I don't know where to begin. Perhaps I should commend you on your spectacular use of the English language. Your points are weak, and they are made even weaker by your incessant ranting.
Your argument was that it should be illegal because it is murder, which I proved was incorrect. Your first paragraph is moot.
If you are really going to take that route, then I am going to ask you to prove it. Please show the readers how a pseudo-conglomeration of cells equates to a human being. You know, Hitler's mother almost had an abortion; imagine how much better the world would have been without him.
This definition (when it starts developing body parts) is different than your original definition; please clarify your definition. Then please defend it. You have sort of made an argument, but you have failed to even try to prove it. Please use your last section to make your case.
I normally do not have a problem filling in the 1200 characters; but when your argument has been proven incorrect and then you restate it in different words, it makes it difficult to argue back. Here is you chance to come up with a valid thesis and defend it. Good Luck!
Liberty said 03/05, 04:01 PM
Using the law to prove that abortion is not murder, isnt a fact. Thats the point it should be considered murder thats why the argument is abortion should REMAIN legal. I understand that it isnt considered murder, i said it should be considered murder, you know because you are taking a life away from something that would have lived but whatever man. Your arogance is really mature, i hope that you understand that the argument was about if it should or shouldnt be legal... and u used laws to back up your facts
Comments
Add Your Comment
I am curious how this plays out. There is always the argument that abortion has a 100% mortality rate for the child. What are you numbers for how many abortions occur when it is legal or illegal. Does the legalization increase the amount of abortions? Do you believe the child is a life upon conception, or is it at a later stage for you? If a later stage, how late until it is a life?
Eveas | 03/03/08
Report Offensive Comment
"All banning abortion does, is take it underground." The greatest argument for pro-choice people such as myself ^^
ApatheticFighter | 03/03/08
Report Offensive Comment
I hope I can provide you guys with the debate you are hoping for. I also hope that people are able to differentiate from their personal opinions and vote on who actually wins the debate.
Consequentialist Libertarian | 03/03/08
Report Offensive Comment
That is why I haven't voted yet. Personally, I am for legalization, but the arguments I mentioned are rather common ones. Simply resting on the one argument of it being safer for the mother isn't going to cut it, since quite a few anti-abortionist would see that as a justified loss for killing a baby or even a deterrent to scare some off from having the operation at all. It is a hard crowd to sway.
Eveas | 03/03/08
Report Offensive Comment
Does life trump life? Does choice trump life? Does statistical analysis trump values? Ethics, religion, morality, mortality, the meaning of life, the meaning of death, the meaning of choice, the consequences of actions, ... so much gets wrapped into the abortion debate. Statistics tell only a small sliver of the real story of the human toll of keeping abortion too easy to do and the toll of making it too difficult to access when absolutely needed.... An argument based upon safety of abortion vs. child birth is hardly persuasive.
AmericanMan | 03/03/08
Report Offensive Comment
Evans & American, I am fond of using statistics to begin a debate. I have several angles for the debate. I'm just waiting for a response.
Consequentialist Libertarian | 03/03/08
Report Offensive Comment
My point in posting the statistics was to prevent Liberty from spinning this into a debate about partial-birth abortion which is what most pro-lifers tend to do.
Consequentialist Libertarian | 03/03/08
Report Offensive Comment
Save the hangers for the closet! The problem with the whole abortion issue is that everyone has their own opinions on when life TRULY begins. Some think it's when the egg and sperm are introduced, others believe it's when the heart begins to beat and others believe life begins when your kids move out and go to college (kidding). Keep it legal and safe.
Antioxidant Overdose | 03/03/08
Report Offensive Comment
Wow Consequentialist Libertarian you say u want a fair debate... the score was 2-0 before i even read your argument! This is crazy people a debate is a 2 sided argument please wait at least until i have responded to vote
Liberty | 03/03/08
Report Offensive Comment
One of those two was mine. Therefore, you were up against one; lets see how this plays out.
Consequentialist Libertarian | 03/03/08
Report Offensive Comment
I'm sure he did Jvjrz; that is probably the one vote he received.
Consequentialist Libertarian | 03/03/08
Report Offensive Comment
wow thats pretty cocky of yourself to say that u won a debate b4 it started but ok
Liberty | 03/04/08
Report Offensive Comment
Its 14-3; I think the outcome is pretty clear.
Consequentialist Libertarian | 03/04/08
Report Offensive Comment
I don't know why people don't see the obvious: you wanna prevent abortions? Then make men more responsible. I am sick and tired of the fact that most anti-choice zealots (I refuse to call them pro-life, cause they're NOT) don't seem to hold the man responsible for an unwanted pregnancy. Believe you me, if men became pregnant, abortion would be free and on demand. How about this: a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy can sue the presumed father for damages - oh, and HE bears the burden of showing that he's NOT the father. HE has to pay for DNA testing, etc. If the mother is proven incorrect, then she has to reimburse him for all expenses. Don't like that? Ok, what about this: men have no parental rights if you outlaw abortion. If women are made the more responsible party, then they should have greater parental rights. I don't mean whatever some judge says - I mean, statutorily, they are deemed the only "real" parent. You could put another twist on it: the father has to marry the mother (if the mother wishes him to do so). If the father is already married, then he's guilty of attempted bigotry and may face criminal and civil penalties. Still don't like it? Then let's impose a male chastity belt. Once a male becomes sexually mature, he must wear a government-issued chastity belt. When he's ready to become a parent, the government can unlock it, he can procreate, and when the baby is born, he has to wear the chastity belt again. I know the cries of "male basher" are on the lips of many who read this. But I don't actually support any of these measures - I am just trying to make you think about the male's responsibilities - or lack thereof. And anti-choice folks would get a lot more sympathy from me and others if they focused the majority of their attention on helping orphans and kids in the foster care system. These kids ARE LIFE - but no one seems to care what happens to them once they leave the womb. It's kind of like their attitude is, "You better have that baby - but when it is born, we cease caring about it."
Pelle | 03/05/08
Report Offensive Comment
Pelle, I find your feminist rant outrageous. I am an advocate of Pro-life. I feel this way because I find it morally dicusting to take the life of an innocent human being. In no manner does my opinion have to do with anything agianst women! Also, it takes two to tango missy, a female is just as conscenting when having sex as a male is. This is no longer the middle ages where a woman has to be submissive to a man. If she chooses to have sex, she takes on the risk of pregnancy simple as that. YOU DONT LIKE IT>>>> STOP HAVING SEX! Don't blame it on the guy. I do believe a man should take responcibility for a child and should provide for that child. The majority of Republicans, which are the majority of Pro-life supporters, are the men who actually are the ones that take care of their child and raise him/her. Stop bashing the good guys who have one wife and take care of their children and start yealing at the males that knock up a woman and leave her. The majority of men like that are screaming, hell yea give her the abortion i dont want that fucken kid. THe men not taking responcibility are the pro-choice people not the pro-life. And i would love to start a debate about this with you, or anyone for that matter. I will be posting one soon, sometime today.. I expect to see you then.
shrek | 03/05/08
Report Offensive Comment
I have to agree with shrek that pelle is being a bit over board on blaming the men for it being there fault, women can carry a condom in their purse just as easily as a man can in their pocket. But I think that is a valid argument made about the foster care and orphans. If you want to make it so they have to have the baby then you better start helping the programs that have to deal with it after.
Jeskimo | 03/05/08
Report Offensive Comment
I actually used ethicists and logic to prove you wrong. I think calling me arrogant is no way to get your point across. I really hoped for a real debate, but you obviously weren't interested in having that. Perhaps next time you will come better prepared and without such animosity.
Consequentialist Libertarian | 03/05/08
Report Offensive Comment
Um, Shrek? What about the women who are impregnated via ****? Do they have a choice? That aside, my point is that if you are going to outlaw abortion, then you are essentially making the woman the more responsible party. So, the woman should have greater parental rights than the man, or heck, have all parental rights. You can't have it both ways. I'm not bashing all men. If men became pregnant and women did not, do you honestly think that females would not be held accountable for preventing pregnancy? I'm just tired of the majority of the responsibility being placed on women. Why is it that Viagra and other "male sexual enhancement" products are covered by most insurance - but birth control pills are not? While women are deemed the more responsible party for pregnancy prevention, they are almost never saluted for the pain and discomfort they endure, simply because of biology. As Anne Frank so poignantly put it, the treatment of women as second class citizens is unwarranted since in childbirth alone, women commonly suffer more pain, illness and misery than any war hero.
Pelle | 03/08/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
Israeli Soldiers Sweep Into Gaza
IDF tanks and infantry launch a ground offensive in the Palestinian enclave
(Uriel Sinai / Getty)
The Science of Snowflakes
Caltech physics professor Kenneth G. Libbrecht has turned his passion for the study of ice crystals into an art form. In his books and website, Snowcrystals.com, he breaks down some of the basics behind these miniature miracles of nature
(Kenneth G. Libbrecht)
The vast majority of permutations of this argument end up being a hopeless impasse because neither said even agrees on what values are at stake and does not acknowledge the others. While Elephant-Donkey's three argument format is not ideal for this, I hope that this particular debate cann prove to be an exception to the rule.
Copacetic | 03/03/08
Report Offensive Comment