Uvic Abortion Debate Oct 21st '09 Part 3 of 10

[phemmonz]

Stephanie gray looks pretty cute in a nerdy way.  I'd definitely use a condom if I hooked up with her though.

[tenorhighc1]

I've seen a lot of abortion debates and one thing I notice now is the audience doesn't like seeing the graphic abortion film, and not because it helps the PL side. The audience sees it as a cheap tactic and an appeal to emotion, it feels like an unfair manipulation. It has worked in past but I really think as a debating tactic it is no longer respected. Notice how this audience gets rowdy upon the film.

[killfloorstudios]

You know what else is graphic? Video reels of pretty much any other surgical/medical procedure. Seriously.

Folks' general squemish and upset feelings after watching these videos is a cheap trick that anti-choice folks use to try and tug at people's heartstrings. It's reality, and often the goriest cases of reality that they display, but reality none the less. And there should be no shame in that. As their should be no shame in accessing abortion.

[SecularAmerican]

what if I was to say (a hypothetical, and hideous thought) I agree, women are just devices that have no rights in the saying of what can grow inside them in the event that something is a potential human being. They have other rights, but not in regards to their future children, once pregnant, even with life threatening pregnancies, rape babies, incest babies, or children who will clearly lead suffering, short, pain filled lives of misery. Clearly there are no exceptions.

this is an extreme.

[dilemmix]

I propose that all anti-choicers (who claim that they are pro-life) line up to give bone marrow, then a kidney so they can save a child. After they recover, catch the plane to Africa or India and save a child.

Or line up at the abortion clinic and offer a pregnant woman to look after her until after the birth and to look after her baby for the next 21 years.

After you've done all of the above, criticise all other 'pro-lifers' for not doing the same.

[dilemmix]

It is immoral to force women to give birth.

[ukgukgukg]

@dilemmix It's immoral to let them kill children because they don't want the child's life to ruin theirs.

[dilemmix]

@ukgukgukg If they were children, yes. But they are not. They are only potential children. They have no birth certificate, no autonomy, so they are not children and have no rights. They rely for their existence on the pregnant woman's supply. Why bring unwanted children into the world. Even though I don't think I'd have an abortion myself, I would not want to tell others what to do with their body. Neither should you.

[Doobrai15]

@dilemmix Get over this autonomy crap! you are wrong. end of story! It is a human being its heart is beating at 21 DAYS. do you know ANYTHING about the development of a child in eutero?? apparently not...

and you know what? No, I am going to tell people to not kill their children because Thats what they are, CHILDREN! Science proves it , so try and wrap ur brain around it please, becuz its the truth. what about the childs body???

[dilemmix]

@Doobrai15 No I am correct about autonomy! Yes so what, if an embryo has a beating heart. I would stop beating if the pregnant women didn't provide the conditions for that embryo. So the embryo is NOT autonomous. If it were, then it would be a baby, a child, a person. They are not children. How does science proof that they are? Science has said nothing about embryos being children. Lol. So what about the child's body. It would cease to exists as soon as the lifeline to the mother is cut of.

[Doobrai15]

@dilemmix "cutting off the supply to the mother" would be purposely killing the child. If you cut off a born child from people it would die too. Just because this child is dependant on one person- its mother- doesnt give anyone a right to kill it. and its not like the abortionists just "remove" the baby. They rip it up into peices or vaccum it out with metal blades at the end

[dilemmix]

@Doobrai15 You don't get what this is all about. If a baby is being looked after by a carer, and this carer wouldn't want to look after it anymore, then others can look after it. Family, strangers, orphanage... But the pregnant women is FORCED to take care of it. It is HER body, NOT the body of the foetus, and NOT anybody else's body. SHE has the right to control what she does with her body including her uterus. So yes she, and the doctor who treats her DO have the right to kill it.

[dilemmix]

@Doobrai15 I do understand that it looks gross to watch an abortion, but at the early stages, foetuses will not feel it. That's why there is a cut-off of about 20 weeks in most countries. I do think that the cut-off date should be carefully considered, with the evidence we have from scientific research. I would like to see all abortions happen in the first term, but there are reasons why this is sometimes done later. EDUCATION is most important to prevent abortion.

[Doobrai15]

@dilemmix and how is having a child wrecking millions of womens lives? talk to people who had their children who were considering abortion, im pretty sure they DO NOT regret that desicion. BUT i have met many many woman who have HAD abortions, and it DESTROYED their lives. check it out--> silentnomore. org

[dilemmix]

@Doobrai15 Actually it does give women the right, by law. So... if you were the only person that could provide life for another person, even if you didn't want to have anything to do with that other person, would you want to be forced to keep that person alive?

The fetus won't feel a thing. It's not even conscious and has no developed brain and nervous system before week 26 into gestation.

[dilemmix]

@Doobrai15 Actually, yes the pregnant woman HAS that right, given to her by law.

[dilemmix]

@Doobrai15 So why am I wrong? You can't explain why I'm wrong about the autonomy argument. They are NOT autonomous beings, no matter how many times you say that I'm wrong. Explain to us why I'm wrong. Fetuses under 26 or so weeks have no developed brain and nervous system, therefore no consciousness. They don't even know they exist. They are NOT children, they are potential children.

[Doobrai15]

these pro choice people in the crowd are ridiculous. they completlely reject the truth

[dilemmix]

@Doobrai15 What truth are they rejecting?

[Doobrai15]

@dilemmix That abortion is killing a human....

[dilemmix]

@Doobrai15 Of course abortion is the killing of a human being, but not a person. So what... it is a human being that has no conciousness and is not autonomous. If it is not wanted, for any reason, by the pregnant woman she has, and should have the right to have it aborted. There are far worse things than to never be born. The world is full of starving, neglected, unwanted, abused or homeless children. Why add more?

[Doobrai15]

@dilemmix How can you say it is a human being but not a person. That is wack. You cannot kill an innocent life because of selfishness, innconveinence, or lack of money. You cannot kill a child even if you are raped. Two wrongs dont make a right! There are even children born of rape that are avid pro-lifers and have supported the cause full heartedly. There mothers chose life and they are extremely thankful.

[dilemmix]

@Doobrai15 It is not wack to say that a foetus has no personality. It has no birthright just because something has DNA. Human embryos and foetuses are not different to those of other animals apart from different DNA. And you're correct to say that we cannot kill a child even if we are raped. Because killing children would be murder. Foetuses however, are not children and therefore it is not murder and not unethical. It is unethical to force women to give birth.

[Doobrai15]

@dilemmix (part 2)

and about ur "no conciousness" and "not automous" idea. That can go for a born 1 month old, 2 month old 3month, 1 year 2 year etc. Because we dont have memories of being a month old, and because we are not independant, can you kill me then? even if im born? the answer is NO.You cannot use that argument therefore, get a better one because it has just been defeated. and the children are definetly wanted! canadas population is depleating, quickly at that.

[dilemmix]

@Doobrai15 A BABY is a person, with birth rights. It is autonomous, so we do not kill them even if they had no consciousness. Unlike the foetus, babies do NOT rely on one person to supply them with oxigen and nutrients. Other people can take care of it. So yes we can kill foetuses but not babies. I'm glad that Canada's population is declining- we have far too many people in this world already: almost 7 billion now and we won't be able to sustain ourselves if it comes to over 10 billion.

[Doobrai15]

@dilemmix automous means INDEPENDANT. im pretty sure that a 1 month old baby is not idependant in the least. He is completely dependant on his mother or gaurdian, but with time that will change of course. and where did you hear the load of crap that we cant sustain our population? or if it gets bigger. thats LIES. We have enough food to feed the whole world THREE times over!!!

[dilemmix]

@Doobrai15 No you are wrong. A 1 month old baby is dependent but NOT dependent on ONLY the pregnant woman's body. ANYONE can care for the 1 month old: father, grandparents, hired carers, adoptive parents. Nobody is FORCED to look after it except you anti-choicers want to force women to give birth and look after a foetus till it's born. That is very interfering and unethical. About sustainability, it is not only about food- but depriving the earth and pollution, too.

[Doobrai15]

@dilemmix (part 2) so y couldnt the mother wait to give birth to the child and give it up for adoption, y must there be the murder of an innocent child. Life begins at conception, you cant kill a human that has done nothing wrong!

[dilemmix]

@Doobrai15 Pfff life begins at conception-- we are talking about a few cells clumped together that are no different apart from the human DNA than any other animal's zygotes. So what, if they are human. Are we the uber race or something, that need protection even if it means that it can wreck the lives of millions of women?

[Doobrai15]

@dilemmix Um we are the superior race actually... ive never met an animal that can reason and do everything we can. about your pain argument nope not good enough. There was a little girl named Gabby. She could not feel pain. She poked and proded at her eyes until one had to be removed. Could we kill her because she cannot feel pain? NO.

[dilemmix]

@Doobrai15 If you look at all the homeless, abused and neglected children that were unwanted pregnancies, you will know that there are worse things than to never have been born!

[bahramf]

The first part about freedom of speech and academic inquiry should be taken seriously by both sides. Because this is such a polarizing issue, neither really does, unfortunately.

[KushPizzaSleep]

Pro Lifers love to try to gross people out for their cause, when it has nothing to do due with the argument.

[EdificationNetwork]

Does it feel horrific? Maybe that's because it is.

Did you hear her? All pro lifers are doing is pointing out the TRUTH of the procedure. It's not like they concoct the video or graphics!

[KushPizzaSleep]

your comment proves nothing... why don't you stay out of others people's personal choices. There are tons of people dying in africa.... go help over there or something.

[LoveStruckTonight]

Pro-abortionists love to hide the truth of abortion. Showing videos and pictures of abortion has everything to do with the argument.

We don't have to stay out of this particular "choice" because it is a crime against humanity. We need to stand up and speak up.

Do you think the pictures of slavery and Darfur and Rwanda are gross and horrifying? So is abortion. Speak up and stand up.

[LoveStruckTonight]

When people talk about Darfur, showing pictures/videos is relevant; when people talk about Rwanda, showing pics/vids is relevant; when people talk about slavery, showing pics/vids is relevant; when people talk about the Holocaust, showing pics/vids is relevant;

when people talk about abortion, showing pics/vids is relevant.

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight And pictures of unwanted, neglected and abused children, of homeless children roaming the streets are relevant, too. Pictures of women who have lasting injury from giving birth (such as myself) are relevant too. Pictures of women who died in childbirth are relevant as well, and so are pictures of abused pregnant women and children growing up in an abusive environment. If you want to show pictures, show them all, not just a selected range.

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight We are not PRO abortion, we are pro-choice. The choice should be left up to the pregnant woman, not to a lunatic lot of people who have NOTHING to do with the woman's body and who do not know about her private situation.

[LoveStruckTonight]

@dilemmix you are PRO-CHOICE OF ABORTION. finish your name.. pro-choice of what? ABORTION! and if you want people to choose abortion, INFORM THEM. show pictures and videos of what they really are. show the suctioning procedures, the butchered arms and legs. don't say "it's just tissue."

INFORM THE WOMEN WHAT THE CHOICE ENTAILS.

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight Yes you get it... pro-choice either pro-abortion or pro-birth IF THAT IS WHAT THE WOMAN CHOOSES! I am noc pro-abortion if the woman is not behind it. So that's why it is called pro-choice. In some cases I would be pro-abortion (if it's the woman's choice), while in other cases I am anti-abortion (if it's not the woman's choice e.g. forced abortions in china, or thumping a woman in the belly to kill the foetus).

[LoveStruckTonight]

@dilemmix i know i get it. what i don't get, is WHY ARE YOU PRO-ABORTION AT ALL. abortion is horrible. and you know it. your conscience tells you. why is it horrible? because it's wrong!! listen to your conscience.

you are not just pro-choice--- it's pro-choice of abortion. or in other words PRO CHOICE OF MURDER.

[LoveStruckTonight]

@dilemmix

Some things just should not be choices, ie Choice to rape. choice to murder. choice to abort.

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight abortion, as I explained, is not murder. So what would you propose doctors would do in the case of a problematic pregnancy that would kill a woman? Would you force the woman to give birth to save the foetus, even if it means she would die straight after giving birth? Who is going to be saved, the foetus or the woman?

[LoveStruckTonight]

@dilemmix there's such a thing called ethics, and people in health care deal with it all the time. i certainly would not want the woman to die along with her baby, if it wasn't at all possible to save the baby. the problem i have is the abortion-on-demand you are so fond of.  also, i believe stephanie grey answers this question quite beautifully in one of her other videos.

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight I don't understand the logic here. The question to YOU (as you are the one who advocates that women should give control of their body to the government) is: Who takes priority when it comes to making a decision when only ONE life can be saved. Save the pregnant women, and the foetus will die. Save the foetus and the woman will die. Who has your priority and why? Why, when it comes to these options, does one take priority over the other??

[LoveStruckTonight]

@dilemmix What you talking about? If you have to choose one, then it's not murder b/c you are not taking the life of one with intent!! Murder: unlawful killing of a human being WITH INTENT. Both have the same right to life because both are human beings. Therefore u would treat both as wanted patients and do what u can to save both. Doctor's oath: "do no harm". You wouldn't kill someone for their heart so you can save another who needs it.

Abortion (directly killing a baby) is always wrong.

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight Murder is about killing persons. You are talking about killing a baby. Abortion is NOT killing a baby; it's about killing a foetus. Killing a baby is called infanticede, not abortion. If you want to go on and have a discussion, at least get this right!

And no, a foetus does NOT have the same right to life as a person, simply because it is not a person and a person takes priority over a non-person.

[LoveStruckTonight]

@dilemmix No. Murder is not about killing persons. Murder is the UNLAWFULL KILLING OF A HUMAN BEING WITH INTENT. And we have already established that a fetus is a human being. Abortion is killing a fetus. Therefore, abortion is murder!!!

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight Yes murder is unlawfull killing of a person with intent. So that's why abortion is legal, isn't it, because it is not killing of a person or of a human being that is autonomous.

[LoveStruckTonight]

@dilemmix No. Murder is not the unlawful killing of a PERSON with intent. It is the killing of A HUMAN BEING with intent. Nowhere does the definition of murder say that it is the killing of a person. It is the killing of a HUMAN BEING. (which by scientific definition is what a fetus is). Incredible that you can't wrap your brain around this.

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight just for the record, it is unfair that you claim that I am FOND of abortion. Nobody is fond of abortion. Abortion should be easily accessible to pregnant women, yes! Abortion should not be banned, yes! What needs to be done is PREVENT unwanted pregnancies to lower abortion rates- not ban it. Prevention is possible by comprehensive and detailed sex ed and access to free contraception. It works. The USA has one of the highest abortion rates in the world, and Holland the lowest!

[dilemmix]

@dilemmix Why is that, do you think? Abortion is very easily accessible there, as is the case in other European countries. Still, they have always had the lowest, or one of the lowest abortion rates in the world. We also have the LOWEST teenage pregnancy rate in the world. They must be doing something right, not? Why does the USA have such a high abortion rate and many teen pregnancies? Because sex ed is laughable in your country, and contraception not accessible to many teens.

[LoveStruckTonight]

@dilemmix btw USA is not my country (I am Canadian) and I would still be against abortion if I lived in Holland, France or the Philippines.

[LoveStruckTonight]

@dilemmix I never said you were fond of abortion. I said you were fond of abortion-on-demand. There's a difference. I know you are not fond of abortion, because your conscience tells you it's horrible; and yet you still insist that this horrible thing called abortion still be legal.

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight Why would you still be against abortion when you know the facts? The facts are that countries with the most liberal abortion laws have the lowest abortion rates. Countries that have banned abortion or with abortion that is hard to access, have much higher abortion rates. Not only that, because these women cannot go to proper abortion clinics, they rely on backyard abortions and have a relatively high rate of losing their lives. Why would you be against abortion knowing this?

[LoveStruckTonight]

@dilemmix Just because these countries have legalized abortions and abortions are not as rampant, does not meant that abortion is not wrong/horrible or barbaric. You just can't get that in your head and it is pointless to discuss this with you.

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight I think you are giving up because you know your side has lost the debate. There is no question about it- women have the right to control their body like anyone else. Foetuses cannot choose, they are not autonomous and not conscious. Therefore the women's wishes MUST logically take priority. What are they... incubators?

[LoveStruckTonight]

@dilemmix I am not giving up advocating for the right to life of the unborn. What I am doing is getting exasperated because you cannot see the value of a human being. You think just because this particular human being cannot choose and is dependent on a mother, that its value depends on whether it is wanted or not.

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight I understand that. But you are the same: you cannot see the value of freedom. You want to see all pregnant women who do not give total control to outsiders, e.g. government, punished. You will be causing a lot of illegal abortions that are dirty and dangerous. You like supporting the underground butchers rather than paying proper doctors and clean procedures. If you oppose abortion, do it by preventing unwanted pregnancies. Be more pragmatic instead of dramatic!

[LoveStruckTonight]

@dilemmix Freedom is not free. You cannot have freedom to do whatever you want. You cannot have freedom to kill someone. You cannot have freedom to rape someone. Freedom has responsibilities. I do not support any abortion whether they be by underground butchers or paid out-in-the-open butchers masquerading as doctors. Abortions themselves are barbaric.

When a girl is impregnated by her dad, r u 4 abortion when that father takes her to have one so he can hide his rape & continue to do it?

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight People should not have the freedom to tell other people what to do with their body. And they don't, quite rightly so. That's why the law makes sure that the bodies of women remain their property. The foetus is also their property. But don't you understand that if you make abortion illegal, there will be illegal abortions and many women will die unnecessarily? Women have ALWAYS controlled their bodies and abortion is as old as humanity! Abortion won't stop if it's illegal.

[dilemmix]

@dilemmix It's like making drugs illegal. Lol, I know you are in Canada, don't know the situation there, but in the USA the 'war against drugs' is a total failure. We decriminalised all softdrugs here and we have a much, much lower rate of addicts. Making the things illegal that people want to put in their body or take out of their body does NOT work. Why do you like government interference with people's bodies so much? If you are against abortion, be pragmatic and fight for good sex ed.

[LoveStruckTonight]

@dilemmix People should not have the freedom to kill a human being, whether that human being is wanted or not.

[LoveStruckTonight]

@LoveStruckTonight The question is not whether that human being is wanted or not. the question is whether that fetus is a human being, which we've already established, it is.

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight I wonder what kind of contraception anti-choicers use. Probably only relying on condoms. I bet that you want to ban IUDs and the contraception pill, too. That's why anti-choicers don't advocate comprehensive sex ed- they want to ban contraception as well as abortion. We are not talking about a person here- it's bunch of cells, for crying out loud!

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight What does incest have to do with it? Talking about incest- a few months ago on the news was the story of a father who kept his daughter locked up and she gave birth to 4 or 5 babies! Rrright! Nice try.

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight So are you pro comprehensive sex ed which proved that it reduces unwanted pregnancies? Don't you want to see far fewer unwanted pregnancies and therefore reduce the abortion rate? Or should people remain uneducated and be told to keep their legs crossed and that's it?

[LoveStruckTonight]

@dilemmix i am all for comprehensive sex ed. But if you get pregnant, because you choose to open your legs and have sex despite knowing the consequences, then you take the responsibility of your actions. You don't get to run away from it by KILLING A HUMAN BEING.

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight Abortion should be easily accessible even after good sex ed because sometimes contraception fails. You just want control over people's sexual behaviour and punish women if they have sex. And yes, killing an undeveloped human being, in the state that it is just cells and tissue without a functioning nervous system and brain is a good back-up method. Abortion in the earliest stages should be done with the abortion pill, so simple. There are worse things than never to be born.

[LoveStruckTonight]

@dilemmix So now if a human is undeveloped or not developed enough, it's ok to kill them. How about if they developed in the "wrong" way? RIDICULOUS.

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight Yes it is ok to kill an embryo if the woman is not willing to carry it. What do you mean by developed in the ''wrong" way? Do you mean if the foetus shows significant defects?

[LoveStruckTonight]

@dilemmix You have pretty much just admitted that murder (the unlawful killing of a human being with intent) is ok.

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight Wrong again. You are talking about unlawful killing. I am talking about LEGAL abortion. Since abortion is legal in most developed countries, it is nonsense to keep talking about abortion as 'murder'. ONLY UNLAWFUL killing can be classed as murder. So no, I have not admitted that murder is OK at all. You simply do not get it.

[LoveStruckTonight]

@dilemmix Slavery was lawful once. Does that mean it was right, and now that it's illegal it is no longer right? There are such things as UNJUST laws and abortion is one of them.

And how many times do I have to say that I am against abortion, PERIOD. No matter who does the abhorrent act. And do you know anything about me. no. for all you know, i have adopted children.

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight You can be against abortion all you like, but women are still going to have them, if not legally then illegally. And if abortion ever becomes illegal, then the rise of illegal practices, which are unsafe and dirty, will happen because of you so-called pro-lifers.

[LoveStruckTonight]

@dilemmix and just to make it clear, LEGAL abortion you are all for.. so LEGAL killing of a human being with intent... you want to legalize murder. LOL wow.

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight You really don't get it. You can't legalise murder. Murder, by definition is always illegal.

[LoveStruckTonight]

@dilemmix PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. Fetus: human being. Murder: unlawful killing of a human being with intent. Abortion is killing a fetus with intent. You want to legalize abortion. Therefore you want to legalize the killing of a human being. Therefore you want to legalize murder. You say murder is always illegal; MY POINT EXACTLY! Abortion is murder therefore it should always be illegal. D'oh!

[Ju87s]

@LoveStruckTonight well no, abortion is not murder, since it is not illegal. As of now, it's lawful homicide. We should bring it to the status of murder though.

[Xebioz]

@LoveStruckTonight Your definition of fetus is flawed, because you think that a human fetus is always human. To me it is not and that is where the distinction lies. Your definition of human would probably apply to cancer, so to you cancer is human and therefore cannot be removed as it would be murder. To me a fetus is not alive before it has brain activity as before that it is no more human than a tumor.

[LoveStruckTonight]

@dilemmix

Yes, I am against abortion, even if people are still going to go out and get them illegally. I am also against rape. People are still going to go out and rape other people; doesn't mean rape should be legalized.

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight To say that I am fond of abortion-on-demand is wrong, too. I am not FOND of abortion, I simply think that abortion is necessary if it is required by the pregnant woman because it is HER body- not anyone else's. There can be rules about cut-of dates- I personally think it needs to be done ASAP once the woman makes up her mind. Nobody denies that it is horrible that abortion is necessary. The thing is, it is even more horrible to force women to give up control over their body.

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight FORCING women to give birth is barbaric. A foetus is not a person, the pregnant woman IS! She has human rights, is autonomous. The foetus doesn't even have a developed nervous system and does not have conciousness. A foetus is not able to choose, while a pregnant women is able to choose.

Why would you want a government to control a woman's body? Would you like the government to force you to give bone marrow, or a kidney to save a life? Why target pregnant women?

[LoveStruckTonight]

@dilemmix If you are so against childbirth; then listen to your sex ed class which should teach that sex can lead to the consequence of pregnancy, which leads to childbirth. If you don't want any of these consequences and the responsibilities they entail, then I suggest you keep your legs closed.

And a fetus, by scientific definition, is a human being. It is not a question about autonomous persons, despite what you think.

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight OK now I am against childbirth? First you said that I am fond of abortion, then you say that I am against childbirth. I am for or against neither- I am advocating that the woman should choose. I have two children myself, have never had an abortion because I do not choose to. But does that mean I should be bigoted and would want to force other women to give birth if they do not want to? No, of course not. People, and not the government should control their own body!

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight You have no idea of sex ed classes, have you!? I said that in Holland we have comprehensive sex ed that teaches people how to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

It is sooooooo 19th century to tell people to 'keep their legs closed'- thought Canada was a little more advanced than USA! You should be advocating comprehensive sex ed, not something backward like 'keep your legs closed'. Pfffff abstinency is only ONE method to prevent pregnancies and preaching this doesn't work (Palin!)

[LoveStruckTonight]

@dilemmix @dilemmix

I would not force anyone to give their organ to save a life. What I am opposed to is TAKING a life through abortion.

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight So you can see that it is unethical to force people to save lives through giving a life line such as a kidney or marrow. Yet, you expect pregnant women to continue to give a life line to a foetus that isn't even a person. You don't only expect it, you want to force them and want to punish them if they don't. You also encourage filthy backyard butchers to attract pregnant women and perform dangerous abortions on them. How barbaric!

[LoveStruckTonight]

@dilemmix I do not enourage abortions at all. be they by filthy backyard butchers or murderous doctors. It is abortions themselves that are barbaric and it is incredible that you cannot see it.

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight If you are against legal abortion and make it illegal, then you will be encouraging dangerous backyard abortions because women will, and can, control their own body whether it is legal or not. I hope you will adopt a few children, since you want to force women to have them, it's the least you can do. I have two of my own children, and adopted two as well. Even though I'm pro-choice. For anti-choicers who want to tell women what to do: put your money where your mouth is.

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight Yes abortion is horrible and therefore I advocate free contraception and very extensive sex ed. like here in the Netherlands. We have one of the lowest abortion rates in the world, as opposed to the USA where people do not get good sex ed. But even though I think abortion is horrible, it is more horrible to FORCE women to give birth against their will. Do you suggest that abortion should be illegal- if yes, what punishment do you suggest?

[LoveStruckTonight]

@dilemmix total red herring. the issue is not the punishment. the issue is whether abortion is wrong or not. i don't know the exact punishment for child porn, but i know it's wrong. i don't know the exact punishment for rape, but it's wrong.

abortion is the killing of a human being (which the unborn are by scientific definition).

Just because we haven't decided what the punishment is, DOESN'T MEAN IT SHOULD BE LEGAL.

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight BTW, if something is illegal, there should be a punishment attached, right? Otherwise, what's the point. We both know that for crimes such as rape and murder, there are punishments attached, even though they might vary from case to case, depending on circumstances. But for abortion is no punishment because it is legal. So if you want to make it illegal, then you should propose a punishment for it. Treat the woman as a criminal, and lock her up, or something. What is it to be?

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight You are right that abortion is the killing of a human being. But it is not a person, and it is not a conscious being that is autonomous and can choose. If the woman does not want an embryo/foetus growing in her body, then to her it would be a parasite and she should be able to terminate the pregnancy. Control over one's own body is what's the issue here, not some cells, tissues without a developed brain.

[LoveStruckTonight]

@dilemmix The value of a human being doesn't depend on whether it is wanted or not. It does not depend on whether the mother considers it a parasite, or whether society considers it a parasite. The value of HUMAN BEING (which a fetus is by scientific definition) does not arbitrarily change depending on whether it is wanted.

[dilemmix]

@LoveStruckTonight It is ridiculous to say that pro choice is pro choice of murder. If you watched the videos at all and look up the definition of 'murder' , you would know that murder always involves autonomous persons. Which is not what an embryo/foetus is. You cannot murder animals, and you cannot murder foetuses because they are not persons. You are making illogical points.

[LoveStruckTonight]

Have you heard of Laci Peterson? The pregnant woman murdered by her husband, Scott Peterson? Her case was DOUBLE MURDER because of the child she was carrying inside her.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another HUMAN BEING (which the unborn is by scientific definition) with intent. It's not just "autonomous persons".

It's not illogical at all. You just can't follow it.

[dilemmix]

@KushPizzaSleep EXACTLY! Not very pro-life at all, this lot are anti-choicers who have it in for women.

[dilemmix]

@EdificationNetwork I hope you know every gory little detail about the meat industry, as well, before you eat that pork chop on your plate.

[dilemmix]

@KushPizzaSleep I don't even call them pro-lifers because they don't give a crap about the lives of pregnant women and of babies. THe world is full of abused, homeless, neglected kids. I don't see any so-called 'pro-lifers' lined up to save them. They only care up to the point of birth. I call them anti-choicers.

[lizziebreath9]

The cheering and clapping as well as yelling things out like that are inappropriate for a debate or an academic environment in general.If he had a comment it should be saved for the question and answer period or privately later on with that person .

If this was at my college for the ethics class I had to take(and we did have debates like this we also had it when I was on the jr.high and high school debate team.) he would have been removed.

[LM1234Life]

What did that one guy yell that caused the audience to cheer and clap? Anyone know?

[Brooks148]

If you mean around 1:20 when Gray is playing the abortion movie, a guy said "I'm not sure yuckiness is academically relevant".

[LM1234Life]

In all honesty that is not a very intelligent thing to say. I can't believe people cheered about it

[Brooks148]

People cheered about it because it is true. If you watch an abortion procedure and feel grossed out or sick because of it, does that make it wrong? are your feelings relevant to the argument for or against abortion? No, they're not. And the people there wanted Gray to know that.

Also, I'm not saying Gray or other pro-life people shouldn't be allowed to show those images. It's just not relevant.

[rukiddingorwhat]

Can't emotion be an accurate response to reason? If pictures are reasonable truth about what abortion actually is, and the emotional response is disgust... isn't that just a re-inforcement of truth?

[Brooks148]

Emotions are extremely diverse, and it's no different in front of graphic images of abortion. Not everybody feels the same way. Human emotions are, for the most part, irrational.

[rukiddingorwhat]

If you were in court showing evidence of a murder to the jury, and showed a picture of the victim's dead body, and people were disgusted by it, would you actually say that that emotion is not a legitimate one in response to a truth? Humans have emotions! We are not machines. Emotions in line with reason or truth are legitimate.

[Brooks148]

Whether people were or weren't disgusted wouldn't matter. We are obviously not machines, but that doesn't mean we need to be slaves or that other people need to sacrifice rights to the irrationality our emotions bring us.

The argument for emotion is weak because people display a wide range and variance of emotion in specific situations.

[dilemmix]

@rukiddingorwhat Fetuses do not have emotions- they do not have a developed nervous system and brain. Pregnant women DO have emotions. How they feel about giving birth is of utter importance. Anti-choicers should stop trying to force others to give birth against their will. It is THEIR body, their emotions, their circumstances. What YOU think about it is irrelevant unless a pregnant women asks you for your opinion.

[rukiddingorwhat]

I'm interested in learning how you would define a moral wrong, and how you would describe coming to know a moral wrong.

[Brooks148]

morality is too subjective and discriminatory towards others. I prefer to look at the world with an ethical perspective.

To create a law based on one person, or groups idea of morality is discrimination against another person or group that sees the world through different morals.

[dilemmix]

@Brooks148 Exactly, I'm sure people wouldn't want to see a gall bladder removed before they had the operation. Being disgussed about something doesn't mean that it is immoral.