UnitedIssues U.S. Political Debates - Debate

"When does life begin?"

Original Opinion by Vultren (85)

This is the classic Abortion debate, with a little bit of a twist. When does human life begin? The first heart beat? What do you think?

Responses

"Once the nervous system/brain are develop(ing)" by Conro (6)

The nervous system starts around week four. Once it has been firmly established (i.e. the brain has started to grow and form neurons), I would consider that a baby. Life has existed before that point, but it wasn't a human life.

"It doesnt matter." by Gaelin (85)

the fact is that everyone has different opinions on this, and this will never change. everyone gets to make their own choice on whether abortion is right or wrong. but no matter how sure you are that your answer is the right one you cannot legislate that, because by doing so you are taking away people's right to make up their own mind, and by doing that aren't you taking away the very freedom that you wish to protect? the same is true with drug crimes and gay marriage: by legislating morality the state removes the citizen's rights to make up their own minds, and could their be anything more un-american than that? and before you dismiss my argument, id like to one last thing: personally, i think that a fetus is alive.

"But it does matter" by TonyRobinson (10)

"....I would consider that a baby. Life has existed before that point, but it wasn't a human life."
If it isn't human then what is it? At what point does it become human and what point does it by nature develop into a human life?

".... and by doing that aren't you taking away the very freedom that you wish to protect?"
In the pursuit of acting upon my freedoms I can not infringe upon the freedoms of someone else. The cliche your freedom ends where my begins" still holds true. Should a person not have the right to life just because they are unborn? I think not. I could go on but I have made my point.

"arrogance" by Gaelin (85)

you are convinced that your answer to this moral dilemma is the correct one and as a result of that you wish to impose it on others. that is wrong.

"There should be more understanding on this issue..." by FreeRoamer (42)

My views on this issue are complicated. However, I would like to speak my mind about a few things.

To Gaelin, first of all, no offense but I wish people like you were a bit more tolerant to pro-life views. I am not necessarily pro-life myself, but you need to sympathize with others and understand their viewpoints on this issue. If someone TRULY PERCEIVES ABORTION TO BE MURDER, then there is NOTHING you will be able to do to convince them that abortion is okay, or should be legal, regardless of what religion they are. Because the only people that think murder should be legal are anarchists, in which case "legal" would be irrelevant in a stateless society. If abortion = murder in someone's mind, then legal abortion is the equivalent of legalized murder in their perception as well. So the real question on the abortion issue is "Is abortion murder?", not "Would I like to impose my moral views on others?"

"not necessarily." by Gaelin (85)

Because ones opinion of whether abortion constitutes murder is almost entirely based on that person's subjective morality it does amount to forcing ones morality on someone else. pro life people need to understand that. I am myself anti abortion, but I recognize that everyone should make their own choice on the matter. it's the same thing I think with doctor assisted suicide, people are saying "that seems wrong to me" and then banning it for people who think otherwise.

"I understand, but why not apply that principle elsewhere?" by FreeRoamer (42)

I sympathize with pro-choice views as I was pro-choice once. Now I am kind of undecided on my view on this issue because as someone who has no knowledge of medicine, I don't know exactly what officially constitutes "life." However I do think more attention needs to be paid to this issue and if a fetus were to be officially declared "living" by a reputable scientist or organization, I would become pro-life.

I understand your principle of moral subjectivism but if you apply it too far, it becomes perverse and doesn't work outside of theoretical, hypothetical scenarios. For example, why couldn't you say believing in prohibiting murder was "forcing your views of morality on someone else"? Obviously we don't want to legalize murder, rape, or theft, etc., but if by technical interpretation of this principle, telling someone they can't murder, rape, or steal, is forcing them to adhere to your standard of morality. I think rather than saying things like "government should not determine morality", we should say "government should not determine virtue", because just about everything the government does is determining morality and using force to make individuals do or not do something against their will.

Now don't get me wrong, normally I am a civil libertarian and support people's right to participate in behavior I find repulsive or otherwise personally oppose - for example, I think all drugs should be legalized, what you do in your own privacy is your own business, I believe doctor-assisted suicide should be legal, etc. But I think abortion needs to be differentiated from other civil liberty issues, because if abortion IS murder, then it should not be treated as a liberty. That is my opinion.

"murder damages society." by Gaelin (85)

Abortion lowers the number of children in an over populated nation. and when abortion was illegal all it lead to were back alley abortions and women dying as a result of those abortions all the time. and if pro lifers are so concerned about murder they should probably try to prevent their fanatics from murdering so many abortion providing doctors

"You have some good points..." by FreeRoamer (42)

You have some good points, except for your last sentence. You have to admit that was a poorly thought out response and overall bogus statement. Just because a few radical extremists have murdered abortion doctors doesn't mean all pro-life people are going to take arms and go on a killing spree. Noone I personally know that is pro-life thinks the killings of abortion doctors were justified. Likening all pro-lifers to these radical few is the equivalent of saying all leftists, such as yourself, are radical environmental terrorists, or that all Muslims are a part of Al Qaeda. We know it's simply not true and a misrepresentation of an entire group, based on a select few.

When you say abortion controls overpopulation, why couldn't you apply this principle to generic murder as well? You could use that same rule to justify a mother or father killing their two-year old infant, saying "they were lowering the number of children in an overpopulated nation", or "they didn't like their child, he/she was going to grow up in a troubled home by parents that didn't want him/her, so they did what was best and got rid of him/her." When you quote overpopulation, you are citing a small, small benefit indirectly resulting from an otherwise horrific act, that is not enough to justify it.

Thirdly, you use the "Prohibition didn't work" argument, and say before abortion was illegal it just led to back-alley abortions. First I will ask - do you have any statistics to prove this? For example, we know Marijuana Prohibition doesn't work because we have the statistics to back it up. Do you have any stats about abortion occurences before and after it was legalized?

Also, once again, you could apply that same principle to murder as well. Obviously there are some people that murder despite the fact that it is illegal. Does that mean we just give up and legalize murder, saying murder Prohibition doesn't work? Of course not. Not only do we keep fighting murder because while not abolishing it all together, it still reduces the number of incidences, but also because the law is meant to provide justice to the victim of the crime, not just prevent the crime from happening. The same could apply to abortion laws - even if abortion laws didn't do away with abortion altogether, from a philosophical standpoint on justice, you could argue we would still need the laws in place to reduce the number of incidences, and provide justice to the victims of abortion.

Besides, the point of laws is to prohibit or condemn unjust behavior that some people are going to be compelled to participate in. If we dismantled a law everytime it "didn't work" or someone disobeyed it, that would nullify the entire purpose of having a law.

If you want to successfully pass abortion off as a liberty, then you have to differentiate it from murder, which I haven't seen anyone do. Frankly I think the basis of these laws should come from the opinions of medical professionals and physicians, not politicians.

"Murder has a cost to society." by Gaelin (85)

The law should be about society, murder damages society. it removes skilled people from productive positions and leads to other burdens as well. on the contrary, abortion reduce the number of children born into circumstances where they cannot be effectively taken care of. Murder is the taking of a life from someone, abortion is the preventing of a life. also if you actually look at my statement on doctors being killed you will notice that I was careful not to label all pro lifers as supporting such murders, merely pointing out that the murderers are pro lifers. I was merely stating that pro life leaders should be putting more effort into convincing the most radical of their followers that murdering abortion doctors is wrong. But then it seems not to
matter to you what I'm actually saying as long as theres some way you can twist my words into an accusation against me. also, it is a well known fact that deaths from illegal abortions were pretty common, and although estimates are hard to come by since most women who died from illegal abortions would commonly be listed under another cause of death the general estimate I have found is as high as 10,000 women a year. as I stated I don't know for sure if that's accurate, so don't quote me on it.

"When you become offensive and personal, you know I've won." by FreeRoamer (42)

Where did I twist your words? I don't see any case where I did that, so please don't become offensive and accuse me of not caring what you say or twisting your words - because it steers the subject away from the debate topic and takes on a slightly offensive tone, and it is also false (unless you can prove otherwise or quote a statement of mine where I twisted your words.)

You may not have directly stated word-for-word that all pro-lifers are abortion terrorists, but you definitely implied that all pro-lifers are tolerant of abortion terrorism, or at least don't pay that much attention to it as a problem, and ignore it. Abortion terrorists are imprisoned, and sometimes even put to death for their actions so justice is served Everyone condemns terrorism, so please stay on the topic at hand (abortion) and don't try to bring terrorism into the issue.


Second, I am somewhat appalled at the fact you think murder is/should be illegal because -

"it removes skilled people from productive positions and leads to other burdens as well."

This is probably the LAST reason murder should be illegal. You are wrong on so many levels. Murder is illegal because it is the ultimate inexcusable wrong anyone can commit (aside from murder in numbers), from all moral standpoints. Taking someone's life and sending them into eternal nonexistence is the absolute worst thing any individual can do to another, besides the excruciating pain coming from the method used to kill the victim - stabbing, shooting, torture, etc. Also it is impossible to assign any value to life when you know you could die any second at the whim of someone else's unrestrained impulses. Murder is wrong because of the damage it does to the individual, not society. You say "The law should be about society." You are wrong - individuals, not groups or society, have rights. Our entire criminal justice system is based on the principle of providing justice to the INDIVIDUAL.

Third, you quote:

"Murder is the taking of a life from someone, abortion is the preventing of a life"

Once again, you don't understand that this is just YOUR perspective, and not that of others. The whole pro-life argument is that abortion is NOT the prevention of a life before it happens, and that it is the termination of a life that has already started. You may not think so, and that is perfectly fine. But you need to learn to tolerate others' differing views as well. You chastise an earlier poster by saying "you are convinced that your answer to this moral dilemma is the correct one" but this statement could very much apply to you as well. You think your answer to this moral dilemna are your pro-choice views - that the fetus is not alive, and thus abortion is okay - and everyone else is wrong. It is the nature of anyone who is politically involved to be ultra-opiniated and believe you are right. This is inherent in anyone who is politically active. If you don't think your answer to every issue is right, then you are probably not opinionated, and probably not politically involved. There's nothing wrong with this, people just need to realize this and not chastise others for being this way when ths is how we all are.

"Examples." by Gaelin (85)

1. "...that was a bogus statement. just because a few radical extremists have killed abortion doctors doesn't mean that all pro lifers are going to take up arms and go on a killing spree."
That is not even similar to my statement. I stated that pro life leaders should try to prevent their most fanatical followers from taking such action by universally condemning it. no where did I say all pro lifers want to kill abortion doctors, and yet you cite that as te reason that my statement is "bogus". The only implication of my statement was that some pro life leaders do not condemn such murders, which I'm sad to say is true. there are fundamentalist groups that are part o the pro life movement which still contend such action is justified.

2. I do not believe that damage to society is the only reason murder should be illegal is because of damage to society, I merely point out that abortion does not damage society. of course the rights of individuals must be protected, including I believe the right of the individual to choose whether abortion is wrong.
speaking of which, pro choice people are not trying to force anything on pro lifers, except their right to make a choice. it is pro lifers who are trying to force their opinion on all others.

3.I did understand that that was my opinion, it was you who didn't understand that. the issue is that when this debate occurs all that happens can happen is a debate on our opinions on the issue, which is why with that previous criticism I stated that we should not be having this debate.
Do not accuse me of not understanding something, you do not know what is in my mind. do not presume that you do. and stop. twisting. my F------ words. I reiterate my opinion on the merits of this debate now and thus conclude my argument.

Source(s):

the posts above this one, maybe you should try reading them. and I mean the whole posts, not just the statements you then take out of context.

"I apologize for the first statement..." by FreeRoamer (42)

1. The first one I did take out of context, I see that now. However that doesn't excuse your cursing and overall immature method of argument. You are taking politics seriously and you are becoming personal with it. My instinct tells me you are probably not out of high school yet. Learn to debate professionally and with maturely, that is how you gain respect.

2. Either way that is not my point. My point is that when making laws, you have to take into account the welfare of the INDIVIDUAL, not just society. You may think murder should be illegal because of the negative effects on the individual as well. I would agree, I'm trying to help you understand this to apply it to the abortion situation - abortion may not effect society in a negative way, but it might affect the solicited individual victim in a negative way, and we need not overlook this.

(P.S. On a side note I think it's ironic that you're using the "effects on society" argument to justify your pro-choice views, because it is often PRO-LIFE groups that quote the negative effects abortion has on society (the loss of potential merited individuals [potential presidents, astronauts, etc])) I don't like this argument, I believe laws should be based on the individual and not society, but this is the type of argument pro-lifers usually allude to, and it's also the one you used.

And no, it is not pro-lifers who are forcing their opinions on "pro-choicers." When someone says murder should be illegal, they aren't "forcing their views" on the murderer by restraining their actions. Rather they're protecting the victim from the murderer's actions. When you harm another individual, you don't get to complain that the law is "enforcing itself upon you", because that would make you a hypocrite since you forced yourself upon the individual victim that you harmed.

You may not be "forcing your opinions" on others but you are strongly chastising anyone that disagrees with you, labelling them as nosy and overly-intrusive in the lives of others (and no, you don't technically state these EXACT words but it's very much paraphrased in your earlier statements) and showing little tolerance for any views different than your own. While you are not forcing others to except your opinion, you are bashing them for failing to do so.

3. I don't even know what you're saying here. To me this just appears to be a rage-fueled rant. And yes, I do know how you think because I can catch a general glimpse of your mentality and perspective through what you say/type, and I used to think EXACTLY like you. Everything you are saying now is exactly what I used to think. I understand my perspective, AND yours. And while perspective isn't necessarily right or wrong, there are some things yours hasn't taken into account.

Source(s):

Good day

"Debate professionally." by Gaelin (85)

You tell me that I need to "debate professionally and with maturely" and I will admit that my anger was immature. however it was in response to your immature style of argument, I style you have consistently been using throughout this debate. you have spent much of this time debating not against my points but against ME. it is a typical strategy that ammatures typically fall upon, and in this case you did repeatedly. argue against my points, that is the point of debate, but don't try to argue that my points show negative things about me. that Is not debate. perhaps you could stand to gain some maturity as well, after all though you are not in highschool as I can tell from the condescending nature of your comment on the subject you still believe yourself to be fundamentally more mature in every aspect as a result of that age: you should know that maturity and age are not the same, though they often go hand in hand, and you should perhaps worry at the fact that I showed comparable maturity to you in spite of my anger. which after all scientifically speaking is more a matter of my age since the judgment areas of the brain do not fully finish development until around 22.

by the way my opinions on pro lifers are irrelevant to the "forcing opinions" argument, I merely wanted to point out that pro choice people have no desire to force abortions on those who don't want them, while pro life people wish to force people who do want abortions not to get them. and your murder example doesn't work so well when it's 55% of people saying "this is wrong" and forcing the other 45% in line with them. which is the goal of anti abortion legislature. a few maniacs believe murder should be legal; around 45% of people, mostly good law abiding citizens, believe abortion should be legal. do not equate the groups, it is just as nonsensical as equating abortion clinic bombers with all pro life people.

"First time visiting this site in awhile..." by FreeRoamer (42)

The reason I was condescending to you is because you DO seem to be very immature and young. Your anger WAS very uncivil, and your immaturity showed. Your viewpoints and the way you speak them generally point to a stereotypical naive, high school hipster that thinks they are smarter and more "open-minded" than the rest of the world. I say this because I really was this person once, and I had very similar viewpoints to yours, and I said them in a similar way, and I was intolerant and bigoted towards people with opposing viewpoints in the same way. As for the condescension, the fact that you refuse to accept others' (in this case, pro-lifers') is the most patronizing aspect of all from this argument.

I don't see anywhere in my previous arguments (then again, I haven't visited this site in awhile but from a quick glance at my past posts, I still don't see) anywhere where my argument relies on stigmatizing pro-choicers, rather than debunking their views. I make a few references to pro-choice people, mostly in response to some of your posts, but other than I do not use any ad-hominems. You attack anyone that is pro-life as being morally wrong and only interested in legislating virtue on others. In this, you are attacking those who hold pro-life ideas, not the ideas themselves.

The point that pro-lifers view, FROM THEIR OWN PERSPECTIVE, abortion as being violence against another and constituting murder, wasn't meant to serve as a statement that this alone should be grounds to ban abortion. It was simply meant to put things in perspective for you so that you would be more tolerant toward their views (which in this case, you could REALLY use some tolerance.) Pro-life people, whether they're wrong or right in their views on abortion, are not just trying to repress those want an abortion and condemn them - in their mind they are trying to protect someone they perceive as a victim, just as you would wish to "protect" a potential victim of rape, murder, etc., by outlawing these actions. They do not have malicious intentions, so there is no point in getting riled up, and shouting at them to change their views. It's like yelling at cats.

I see what you're saying with your "legislating morality" argument but it's not just the same. Moral values such as the idea that premarital sex is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, doing drugs is wrong, etc., just don't fall under the same umbrella is abortion. If a fetus IS alive, and it feels pain, then a desire to stop this goes beyond simply forcing Puritan virtues onto others; it constitutes an attempt to protect PERCEIVED victims of violence. It is just not the same as what you are trying to liken it to.