What abortion basically comes down to.

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 67
Topic's author
#1
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
Basically abortion comes down to two sides.

Either you think that a mothers' right to her body is more important than the life of an infant.
Or you think that an infant is more important to a mothers' right to her body. 

I tend to lean infant for this specific reason. 
The baby didn't choose to be created. The mother caused the creation of that life. Therefore the babys right to life trumps the mothers right to her body, because she caused that situation to take place. That along with the fact that it is a living human in the mothers body, and it is not biologically part of the mothers body. 

So:
The mother does not have a right to kill a human life that is not part of her body, that she caused to exist. 
#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 271
Posts: 7,851
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Abortion = sacrificing children so that women could have sexual pleasure.

It is the modern satanic worship. It is presented as something saint to those who are guided by empty words and horrible morality.
Topic's author
#3
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Best.Korea
Abortion = sacrificing children so that women could have sexual pleasure.
Exactly.
#4
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,155
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
I see the two religious wack jobs are finding comfort in each other’s company. Isn’t that what church is for?
Topic's author
#5
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
Religion is what hold society together. Human sacrifice usually leads to the opposite. 
#6
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,155
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Human sacrifice usually leads to the opposite. 
So abortion is like a Pagan human sacrifice ritual to you. LOL

#7
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,155
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Abortion = sacrificing children so that women could have sexual pleasure.
Exactly.
What about the men? aren’t they involved in this? Aren’t they getting sexual pleasure? If men were the ones getting pregnant, do you think there would be any chance abortion would be made illegal?
Topic's author
#8
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
So abortion is like a Pagan human sacrifice ritual to you. LOL
Yes. Painted in a modern lense. 

What about the men? aren’t they involved in this? Aren’t they getting sexual pleasure? If men were the ones getting pregnant, do you think there would be any chance abortion would be made illegal?
Oh...........but I thought men shouldn't have a say?
If the man pays for it, then yes. If the man is involved in act of abortion, then yes. 

But if he impregnates and is not involved in the abortion, then no. 
#9
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 568
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The mother does not have a right to kill a human life that is not part of her body, that she caused to exist. 
It says quite a bit that a certain person on this thread has not attempted to counter this point.
#10
Bella3sp
Bella3sp's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 213
1
4
9
Bella3sp's avatar
Bella3sp
1
4
9
How annoying.. 
'Basically abortion comes down to two sides.

Either you think that a mothers' right to her body is more important than the life of an infant.
Or you think that an infant is more important to a mothers' right to her body. 
Not just her body, but her entire life that she has worked on that is going to be affected. 

The baby didn't choose to be created.
If the mother wants an abortion, then neither, in most cases did the mother choose for the child to be created.  The woman wouldn't choose abortion if she wanted the baby that's obvious. There's the misconception right there. And you guessed it, in many cases its because of rape. The mother didn't choose to get raped and FORCED to have a fetus in her body, now did she? You're saying a fetus with little, if that, to no intelligence trumps a woman or girl with intelligence that already has a (hopefully) steady life that might get reckoned with for how many years? Just so you know, i'm not saying that the fetus isn't a life. I'm saying it's (possibly) disturbing or even a better word, damaging the woman/girl's life dearly. 

Oh, and lets not forget that the girl might be a student. Many schools let off the student for quite a while since they're taking care of a child. Keep in mind the ages of a student can differ. This fetus is distracting and 'taking' away someones freedom, their life. You're making them a slave to take care of someone they didn't choose to have. I already know it's likely you'll say the fetus is a life, I know. Though you worry about this fetus's life when you're not worrying about the other? In some case its not even someone who has fully matured yet that you're forcing into parenthood..

When the child does actually form opinions and they want to commit suicide they can or that is at least for the United States. But what happens if it fails? Attempt at suicide tends to result in being charged into a mental hospital.  If the child even has thoughts about suicide, usually they can be forced into having a therapist but it still can result in being taken into a mental hospital. 

The mother caused the creation of that life.
The mother partly/mostly caused the creation of a life she didn't want to create.

Any argument that went against the claim "The woman's body, her choice" can be quickly taken down. Though this is a different topic, so, i'll ignore. 

Maybe instead of getting rid of abortions, get rid of you're sons intrusive thoughts. Teach them. If their wasn't rape, many if not most abortions would not take place. If you can't teach you're children, what place do you have in this conversation? 

So:
The mother does not have a right to kill a human life that is not part of her body, that she caused to exist. 
Actually, abortion is protected in many states in the United States and other countries. They do have rights. 
Unless you're saying they shouldn't have the right, which, I can still disagree with. 
#11
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 271
Posts: 7,851
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Bella3sp
Not just her body, but her entire life that she has worked on that is going to be affected.
No. The entire life of an unborn child is destroyed by abortion.

Abortion destroys more human life than it saves.

Therefore, it is wrong.

Abortionists have already killed over 1 billion children.

Do you argue that it is okay to destroy a human life, therefore we are justified in executing women who have abortions?
#12
Bella3sp
Bella3sp's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 213
1
4
9
Bella3sp's avatar
Bella3sp
1
4
9
-->
@Best.Korea
No. The entire life of an unborn child is destroyed by abortion.
You're talking about a life that has only begun. This "entire" life has barely started. 

Abortion destroys more human life than it saves.
Is abortion supposed to save lives? 

And by lives what do you mean? Because it is arguable that these women's lives are saved. 

Therefore, it is wrong.
Forcing to have someone they don't want and contribute long years of their life to that child is wrong. 

Abortionists have already killed over 1 billion children.
And look at where we are now, 8 billion. 

Do you argue that it is okay to destroy a human life, therefore we are justified in executing women who have abortions?
Yes and no. 
I argue that it is alright to get rid of the fetus if the woman so chooses. 

I don't believe its right to kill women who have abortion though, no. Not sure why you would mention something like this if you're so concerned about the population that could've been here without abortion. 
#13
Platypi
Platypi's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 57
0
0
3
Platypi's avatar
Platypi
0
0
3
-->
@YouFound_Lxam

... Isn’t that what church is for?
Putting the bigotry aside, I think I share the finding that your first post does not reflect a conversation that relates to government action. 


Basically abortion comes down to two sides.

Either you think that a mothers' right to her body is more important than the life of an infant.
Or you think that an infant is more important to a mothers' right to her body.

I think about politics of abortion in terms of how the enforcement apparatus of a state effects the mother and the doctor, or anyone accused of assisting procurement.

The professionals involved are the most liable to be punished.  The mother is not punished in the United States, but her presumed medical provider is quite assuredly going to consider whether their career might be effected, or if they might be charged with a serious crime.  For the legality of abortion services to be appropriate the law has to be correctly tailored so that her health is not negatively impacted by any conflict of interest. 

The state can inform the patient that abortion is a bad idea I suppose, but what she considers to be in her best interest takes precedent to what the state considers.  In other words, such a procedure defaults as a private matter between her and her medical providers.  I can relate to regulations on abortion providers.  I get that killing isn't a right.  I'm not sure if you really intended the implication you seem to be getting at with "trumps the right to her body", denying the risk assessment of carrying a pregnancy to term.   

I tend to lean infant for this specific reason. 
The baby didn't choose to be created. The mother caused the creation of that life. Therefore the babys right to life trumps the mothers right to her body, because she caused that situation to take place. That along with the fact that it is a living human in the mothers body, and it is not biologically part of the mothers body. 

So:
The mother does not have a right to kill a human life that is not part of her body, that she caused to exist. 

Well, who is killing the unborn child?  The abortion provider is killing them.  On the subject of licensed killing, why would it be necessary to implicate the mother?


Topic's author
#14
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Bella3sp
Not just her body, but her entire life that she has worked on that is going to be affected. 
Two things to say to this. 

1.) Is a mother's' life more important than the life she created? Don't give me, it's her decision, just answer directly. 
2.) The mother chose to have the child. She destroyed her own life, by her own doing. 

If the mother wants an abortion, then neither, in most cases did the mother choose for the child to be created.
Yes, in most abortion cases, it is a cause of consensual sex.

The woman wouldn't choose abortion if she wanted the baby that's obvious.
Yes. But you can have something without wanting it. 

There's the misconception right there. And you guessed it, in many cases its because of rape. 
Abortion because of rape is a whole other argument. I am talking about getting an abortion even after consensual sex, protection or not. 

Oh, and lets not forget that the girl might be a student. Many schools let off the student for quite a while since they're taking care of a child. Keep in mind the ages of a student can differ. This fetus is distracting and 'taking' away someones freedom, their life. You're making them a slave to take care of someone they didn't choose to have. 
Rape is for another forum. Lets focus on consentual sex. 
If the student consented to sex, then that is her fault. 

Also it's funny you bring up slavery. Can a person own another person? If yes, you are advocating for slavery. If no, then a woman can't get an abortion, because she would be taking ownership of another living human. She would be fully in control of that baby's body all the way to murder. Aka slavery.

 I already know it's likely you'll say the fetus is a life, I know.
Well, according to biology, which apparently means nothing theses days, it is. 

Maybe instead of getting rid of abortions, get rid of you're sons intrusive thoughts.
Again, not talking about rape. Talking about consensual sex. 
#15
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 271
Posts: 7,851
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Bella3sp
You're talking about a life that has only begun. This "entire" life has barely started.
Irrelevant. If not killed, life would grow into complete life. Therefore, abortion is the killing of a complete and entire life.



Is abortion supposed to save lives?
In order for the action to be good, it needs to save lives. In order for the action to be neutral, it needs to not destroy and not save lives. Abortion is not neutral. It is not good. It destroys lives.


Because it is arguable that these women's lives are saved.
No. Number of lives destroyed by abortion is higher than number of lives saved by abortion. Therefore, abortion destroys life.


Forcing to have someone they don't want and contribute long years of their life to that child is wrong.
It is more wrong to kill your child.


And look at where we are now, 8 billion.
Irrelevant. We would be at 10 billion if abortionists didnt kill 1 billion children.


I argue that it is alright to get rid of the fetus if the woman so chooses.
By same logic, it is alright to get rid of a woman who kills her child.


Not sure why you would mention something like this if you're so concerned about the population
Killing a killer doesnt reduce life, but increases it.
Topic's author
#16
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Platypi
Mother pays for a murder, mother must be convicted. 
Simple really. 
#17
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,303
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
0} Prior to your comments is pregnancy --either she is pregnant or not--- and what is overpopulated humanity on Earth, for the operating systems we have in place, going to do about that?  To date religous right and right-wing have fought tooth and nail to fight preventive pregnancy, other than just say no to sex.  Sex is primary and 95% pubescent animals are not going to just-say-no.

The mother does not have a right to kill a human life that is not part of her body, that she caused to exist.
1] False as usual.  The egg and fertilized egg is in and of the woman, --not of Youfound_lxam or any male---, ergo she has all of the rights. The spermazoa is gift deposited by the male. Here you go and good luck, then male runs off, of the female runs off.  See above about preventions

2} the egg or fertilized egg detaches from fallopian tubes { in pregnant woman } as it travels to uterus, where it attaches to womb wall for 9 months and nourished by pregnant woman until born-out and taken its first breath { in-spirited },
#18
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 271
Posts: 7,851
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ebuc
where it attaches to womb wall for 9 months and nourished by pregnant woman until born
Yes. The duty of a woman is to nourish her child in order to increase life. Saying "Woman has no duty to nourish her child" is equal to saying that life has no value. If life has no value, then the woman's life has no value.

So, do you believe that life has value?
#19
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,303
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
2} the egg or fertilized egg detaches from fallopian tubes { in pregnant woman } as it travels [ via muscle contractions } to uterus, where it attaches to womb/uterus wall for 9 months and nourished by pregnant woman until born-out and taken its first breath { in-spirited }, or,

...........is naturally aborted, for whatever reasons--  or aborted as choice of the pregnant woman. Any other, sticking their nose into her bodily business.
----without pregnants womans consent---, is virtual rape.

Biologic life has value. Cars have value. Money has value --until is doesnt---.  Gold has value. Dirt has value. Concepts ergo Meta-space info has value.

How we arrive at value varys i.e. there exists no cosmic absolute truth regarding value. 

Value is in the eye-of-the-beholder, and that value can change, just as circumstances altar cases. 

#20
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,344
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Typically, people do not abort infants.

And abortions tend to result from sexual pleasure, rather than sexual pleasure resulting from abortion.

You see, it all boils down to words and how extravagantly one chooses to use them.

I would suggest that typically abortion is no more than the removal of an undeveloped blob of human organic tissue.

And typically also, an infant is a child between the ages of four and eight.
#21
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Pregnancy ≠ infant (a born, young baby)

You really need to use correct terminology when addressing this topic. Thread after thread you keep getting corrected for bad wording. 
#22
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The mother caused the creation of that life
Uh, that’s not how human reproduction works. The male gamete is what causes successful conception. Her egg doesn’t do it on its own. 

And the conception is 1/2 her genetics and the other half, the baby daddy donor’s. 

Either way, it is within her body and as such, it is of her body.

The pregnant girl/female has personal liberty and legal rights, the pregnancy has neither. 

#23
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam

The mother does not have a right to kill a human life that is not part of her body, that she caused to exist. 
Again, language matters. Your language is way off and disingenuous. 

[a] human life = [a] human being

A pregnancy is NOT [a] human being

And she didn’t cause anything. 

This is just another epic fail on your part to address abortion here at DART 

#24
Bella3sp
Bella3sp's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 213
1
4
9
Bella3sp's avatar
Bella3sp
1
4
9
-->
@TWS1405_2
This I can agree with.
#25
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,068
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Basically abortion comes down to two sides.

Either you think that a mothers' right to her body is more important than the life of an infant.
Or you think that an infant is more important to a mothers' right to her body. 

I tend to lean infant for this specific reason. 
The baby didn't choose to be created. The mother caused the creation of that life. Therefore the babys right to life trumps the mothers right to her body, because she caused that situation to take place. That along with the fact that it is a living human in the mothers body, and it is not biologically part of the mothers body. 

So:
The mother does not have a right to kill a human life that is not part of her body, that she caused to exist. 
Nope, abortion has nothing to do with infants, you are thinking infanticide, illegal always.
#26
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Bella3sp
Glad we can find some common ground on some topic(s).
There [may] be more…time will tell.
Topic's author
#27
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TWS1405_2
Pregnancy ≠ infant (a born, young baby)
Well, the word pregnant doesn't = infant, but a pregnancy holds a zygote, embryo, fetus, which is a living human.

Uh, that’s not how human reproduction works. The male gamete is what causes successful conception. Her egg doesn’t do it on its own. 
Context matters. 

Women don't create the baby (fetus, embryo, zygote) by themselves, but if they involve themselves in consensual sex, then they are letting a male, impregnate them, or giving them access to their egg. 

Consent is making a choice (choosing). 

Either way, it is within her body and as such, it is of her body.
Can people own other people? 
In other words, is it right for one singular person, to own another?

Let me be clear with my wording. Is it ok for a living human to own another living human?

The pregnant girl/female has personal liberty and legal rights, the pregnancy has neither. 
I thought you said pregnancy doesn't equal infant.
Did you mean the infant doesn't have any rights? 

[a] human life = [a] human being
Nope. 

Human Life (lets break it down):
Human: "relating to or characteristic of people or human beings:" From conception, the zygotes DNA is human. 

Life: "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death:" Conception is literally the start of life. 

So, from conception, a zygote, embryo, and fetus are a human life. 


Topic's author
#28
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Bella3sp
So, no reply to my rebuttal? 
#29
Bella3sp
Bella3sp's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 213
1
4
9
Bella3sp's avatar
Bella3sp
1
4
9
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
No, I have a reply. Though, I won't be posting any of my replies until tomorrow. 
To clarify, i'm not backing down from my statement.
#30
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Pregnancy ≠ infant (a born, young baby)
Well, the word pregnant doesn't = infant, but a pregnancy holds a zygote, embryo, fetus, which is a living human.
And yet you likened a pregnancy to an infant by your own wording: “Basically abortion comes down to two sides. Either you think that a mothers' right to her body is more important than the life of an infant. Or you think that an infant is more important to a mothers' right to her body. ”

Also, I used the term pregnancy vs pregnant. Context matters, YFL. Something you have yet to learn since being here, no matter how many times I correct you in this specific debate/discussion on abortion.

Lastly, a zygote, embryo, fetus… neither of which = an “infant.” So just admit you were wrong in your failed use of terminology here. 


Uh, that’s not how human reproduction works. The male gamete is what causes successful conception. Her egg doesn’t do it on its own. 
Context matters. 

Women don't create the baby (fetus, embryo, zygote) by themselves, but if they involve themselves in consensual sex, then they are letting a male, impregnate them, or giving them access to their egg. 

Consent is making a choice (choosing). 
You lecturing me on context is just rich, laughable, and obscene. 

Not all women engage in consensual sex. That is just a fact of life. And I am not talking about rape here. There are cultures where women are coerced into sex under obvious duress. 

Not all pregnancies are “consensual.”


Either way, it is within her body and as such, it is of her body.
Can people own other people? 
In other words, is it right for one singular person, to own another?

Let me be clear with my wording. Is it ok for a living human to own another living human?
Complete and utter NON SEQUITUR argument.

A girl/woman being pregnant has nothing to do with slavery and/or involuntary servitude. Such an ignorant comparison on your part.

“Let me be clear…” A pregnancy is WITHIN a girl/woman’s body…it is NOT external like you clearly characterize. 

Try again, little one.


The pregnant girl/female has personal liberty and legal rights, the pregnancy has neither. 
I thought you said pregnancy doesn't equal infant.
Did you mean the infant doesn't have any rights? 

Reading comprehension matters, 🤦🏼‍♂️ 
Your retort is yet another non sequitur argument. 


[a] human life = [a] human being
Nope. 

Human Life (lets break it down):
Human: "relating to or characteristic of people or human beings:" From conception, the zygotes DNA is human. 

Life: "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death:" Conception is literally the start of life. 

So, from conception, a zygote, embryo, and fetus are a human life. 


Uh, yeah… [a] human life does in fact = [a] human being. By definition. 

From conception, the zygotes DNA is human. 
Being human in origin (DNA), does not [a] human being it makes.
Blood and/or other organic material found at a crime scene later tested and determined to be “human in origin” does not make those sales = [a] human being.

You also begin with the term human life, which is a single term, not two, as you proceeded to define separately.

Look, kid you have a lot to learn. Most of which involves linguistics. You clearly do not know how to define let alone understand terms that you try to use in these debate/discussions. 

Slow down. Do more research. You have potential, but as of late you are consistently SUCKING at the abortion debate.