How To Finally Resolve the Abortion Debate

Not really, since deliberate and unjustified killing of a child is murder. The question, then, is when it becomes an unborn child; and since no one knows, the zygote must be assumed to qualify as such.

 

This is simply nonsense. Obviously humans can abort and they do so on a regular basis. Who gave them that power if other than the creator. The question is whether or not God agrees with the practice - and that you or I do not know.

If you want to go by the Bible depiction of God of the OT. God in fact commands abortion and the killing of fetuses in a number of instances.

 

It was resolved in 1974 with RvW. Abortion is legal


And it will stay resolved as long as women have the same right to their body as everyone else .

 

This thread is about abortion, not killing children.

You can deny science but it will trump you every time.

Many, many people know it's only a "child" upon birth. Before that it's a fetus. It is no more a "child" in the womb than it is a teenager.

No.

 

I once wrote some questions for people on both sides of the abortion debate in an effort to get them to think in a way that might lead to consensus on the issue.

For instance:

For abortion opponents:
1. Assume for the sake of argument that human life does NOT begin at conception. Does that change your opinion on abortion? Why or why not?

2. What, specifically, do you believe are the legal rights a fetus should have?

3. Do you believe that the mother has any legal rights or interests in this matter, or do all rights belong to the fetus? If you believe the mother has rights, what are they?

4. What happens when the rights listed under #2 and #3 conflict? How should that conflict be resolved? On what principle do you base this belief?


For pro-choicers:
1. Assume for the sake of argument that human life DOES begin at conception. Does that change your opinion on abortion? Why or why not?

2. What, specifically, do you believe are the legal rights a mother should have when deciding to terminate a pregnancy?

3. Do you believe the fetus has any legal rights or interests in this matter, or do all rights belong to the mother? If you think the fetus has rights and interests, what are they and how do they develop?

4. What happens when the rights listed under #2 and #3 conflict? How should that conflict be resolved? On what principle do you base this belief?

 

Life started thousands and thousands of years ago.

IF "life" starts at conception it changes nothing, the fetus has no rights....and the woman it's in does not lose her rights because she became pregnant.

The SAME right everyone else has , the right to their own bodies.

It is her body, and only she should make the decision to give birth or not.

Only the woman it's in has rights. The fetus is a non-feeling, non-thinking entity and to give it rights is ridiculous

They have none.
IF a fetus has rights like born persons then it also has the same restrictions that born persons have, it cannot use another person's body to sustain it's life without consent.


It cannot harm another without their consent.

So the woman it's in has every right to kill it.

There is no conflict because the fetus has no rights.

 

Before Roe V. Wade, females simply used coat hangers.

Before coat hangers, they used bamboo shoots.

 

Neither side on this issue can agree with anything.

They are not in the mood to agree.

They won't give an inch.

The pro-abortion side believes females should be able to make that choice at any time without regard to the fetus.

The anti-abortion side believe that all abortions should be legislated to be illegal everywhere.

Both sides are extreme, unreasonable, and not at all self evident. But each side thinks their position is self-evident.

 

Hilarious! You think women having the right to their own bodies LIKE EVERYONE ELSE is "extreme"....!!!!!


Wow! What century are you living in???


BTW, there is NO "pro-Abortion" side....

There ARE people, not you of course, who believe women have the same rights as everyone else....even pregnant women...they are known as Pro-Choice.....

 

Has been resolved already.

The right is no more concerned about human life as the left is concerned about human rights. The abortion debate is more about ego and image.

 

If you intend to create a poll on abortion then I would hope to see the 1st choice as "never" with the last choice "at any stage including full term birth". I think that would allow us to see just how different the views are on abortion, and that there might even be other things that could contribute to the view such as the ability to afford and care for the child, the cause of the pregnancy being consensual sex, rape or incest, or genetic defects.
I'm not even sure we can achieve consensus on the taking of life 'after' birth to be murder, can we?

 

Why do you assume no one knows? Surely the answer iscat birth

 

We know most of the answers to those questions from previous research. We know that the further along the less acceptable abortion becomes however thro in the question of foetal abnormality and suddenly any point in the pregnancy abortion is acceptable

 

Good for you!!!

Then, by all means, feel absolutely free not to have one...

 

Not really, since deliberate and unjustified killing of a child is murder. The question, then, is when it becomes an unborn child; and since it has been legally determined to be at the point of viability, the zygote cannot be assumed to qualify as such.

 

Essentially we know there is no one answer that will put the debate to rest.
Government can/will tell us what IT will allow to be lawful and applicable without need of acceptance by all as it is not a major issue for the majority of voters. Central control results in often having to accept more of what you disagree with in order to acquire any change more desirable.

 

There IS one answer that should have put the debate to rest.

The answer is , women have the right to their own body just like everyone else and should not lose that right because they became pregnant.

Becoming pregnant is not a crime and shouldn't be treated like it is.

 

Incorrect. Murder is the ILLEGAL killing of a person by a person. If it's legal, it CANNOT be murder.

 

That sounds like a very circular argument.

"It should be legal because it's not murder"
"It's not murder because it's legal"

you didn't say that but that's what's implied

 

That wasn't what was implied, that was what was stated...

 

Obviously not, since a fetus can hear at around 4 months.

Even if that were the case, only the disgracefully credulous would find it compelling.

Sure, I get it: as far as you people are concerned, none of the Jews who died in Nazi Germany were murder victims.

 

There are research papers showing that clinically brain dead patients have physiological changes to heart rate and bo when they hear the families voices

Hearing is an extremely primitive sensation but is useless if there is no cognitive connect. In other words it must be processed

BTW congats on evoking Godwin's law

 

They may not actually be truly brain dead then. There's a lot about the brain we don't understand.

I could link you to a couple of stories about patients who all the doctors agreed were brain dead but then eventually came back to life. (A few interesting Near Death Experiences as well, but that's another topic)

https://www.wral.com/boy-declared-b...-parents-agree-to-donate-his-organs/17535368/

 

If its legal then it can simply be called an execution.

 

Or what adults call it, a legal medical procedure called abortion.