Facebook Activity



Teen Ink on Twitter

Home > Forums > Teen Ink Forums > Philosophy and Thought > Pro Life vs Pro Choice

Teen Ink Forums

Lively discussions with other teens
   
Next thread » « Previous thread

Pro Life vs Pro Choice

DoctorbugThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Jul. 10, 2013 at 9:38 pm

But then, to do that, I'd have to delete the comment above...because she's sure not going to come around with me saying that about her...hahahaha.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
packerbacker12This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Jul. 10, 2013 at 10:00 pm

Stunt: i know you're talking to half.note, but oh well i am going to answer the question. guns are not designed to murder. they are designed to kill. they are two different things. killing is war or self defense. murder is killing liberally, as in not in war or self defense. so say you have two little kids and a wife, and someone comes in your house, the police can't get there in time, and your daughter and wife are taken because you couldn't defend your family...now what was that you were saying?
 
Shalom
PB:)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
half.noteThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Jul. 10, 2013 at 10:01 pm

stuntddude:
 
Whether or not a f.etus is alive is still under debate (thought I believe they are).
But deliberately killing an unborn baby is much different than not regulating a weapon that may be used to kill someone.
 
Also, it should be noted that less than 1% of registered guns are used to commit murders.
Besides, if someone really wants a gun they can find a way to get one. Or they can use another weapon to kill someone. Should there be regulations on kitchen knives and shoelaces, too?
 
Governments can't stop criminals from taking lives, but they can make it illegal for doctors to.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Jul. 11, 2013 at 12:34 am

But... make abo.rtion illegal and people are just gonna do it illegally anyways o^o And unsafely too.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
half.noteThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Jul. 11, 2013 at 12:57 am

^ It's unlikely, especially with the adoption option.... but I'll still do some research on that tomorrow. :)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Destinee replied...
Jul. 11, 2013 at 12:00 pm

Pro-life and I think the gov't should be involved in what I see as some form of second-degree murder. (Except in some certain cases.) 
 
Cheers.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
DoctorbugThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Jul. 11, 2013 at 4:53 pm

Oops. I got pro-life mixed up with pro-choice. What the heck is it with these stupid political terms? Now said friend is repremanding me strongly for saying she's "pro-choice".
 
*Facepalm*
 
This will go down in history.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
half.noteThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Jul. 11, 2013 at 5:46 pm

*dramatic music*

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Imaginedangerous replied...
Jul. 12, 2013 at 7:28 pm

I am opposed to abo.rtion except in cases of ra.pe or when the mother's life is in danger.
 
"The government should not be meddling in this sort of stuff. At that age the fetus, or even if you want to think of it as a child, has its lives' hands in their mother. It's their mother right to decide at that point. You honestly can't do anything about that. The fetus is pretty much helpless and if the mum wants to ab.ort it, she can."
 
It worries me a little bit that you think a mother has the right to do whatever she wants with her children. My little sister is a minor; she depends on my mother for food, clothing, shelter, and everything else. She is 'pretty much helpless'. Does that make it okay for my mother to kill her?
 
The counterargument usually advanced at this point (and also addressed in your post) is that a fetus is not a fully developed human being. It may not be fully developed... but it's still a human being. We can't define life based on level of advancement. That would mean that none of us are alive (given that the human brain doesn't fully develop until the mid-twenties). That would mean that mentally/physically handicapped people don't qualify as alive. If it's okay to kill a baby because it's not all the way grown yet, who else can we kill? Where do we draw the line? It doesn't matter whether it's a full human being yet or not. What matters is that it will be.
 
 
There are some things that the government should keep out of... but murder is not one of them. Anyone remember Kermit Gosnell's trial? Why is it legal to kill a child inside its mother but not after you take it out? (For the record, I am in favor of gun control for the same reason that I am against a.bortion. One of the major purposes of government is to preserve the lives of the people under it. Neither loose gun laws nor a.bortion accomplish that.)
 
I don't buy the 'people will do it anyway' argument because if we accept it as valid, then there's no point to having laws in the first place. Why bother setting speed limits? People are going to speed anyway. Why bother making murder illegal? People still kill other people, and making it illegal only makes them want to hide the incident (probably committing other crimes in the process). Let's make things safer and easier for the attackers! People are going to trespass on nuclear waste sites anyway. Making it against the rules only means that they'll do it without the proper equipment and protection from radiation.
(Also, this argument requires you to prove that passing laws against an action has absolutely no effect on the prevalence of that action- a difficult feat at best.)
 
 
Finally, from an ethical standpoint, abor.tion is not 'making a choice'. It's dodging the consequence of a choice. If you don't want to get pr.egnant, don't have se.x. (This is why I'm in favor of legalizing a.bortion in cases of ra.pe, even if I don't approve morally.)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Jul. 12, 2013 at 10:23 pm

You assume I'm pro abo.rtion. I'm not. I'm pro choice. There is a difference.

You sister may rely on her mother, but she doesn't rely on her to the extent that a fetus does. If she needed to, she could live on perfectly fine without her mum. It may cause some hardships, but she would be able to live. A fetus however, disconnect it from the mother and it's dead.

A fetus is the beginning of a human being, but I don't exactly count is as a human being yet. By the logic you're advocating a zygote's a human. Also, sperm (and eggs) are each half a human. What does that mean, when a sl.ut swallows sperm she just commited cannibalism? "No, it's just sperm, it's not human yet". You're right, but "it doesn't matter whether it's a full human being yet or not. What matters is that it will be." You draw the line between embryo and fetus, I draw my line between fetus and infant. That's the difference here. It's just that while your line has no discernable reason, mine does as when a fetus becomes an infant, we know for a fact that they are conscious and can feel pain. As for fetuses, the science is still shaky there- the time is estimate from 19 to 29 weeks. Kinda a big gap. Maybe after they do some research and know for a fact when a fetus becomes conscious and such, I'll move my line.

As for laws, they are pointless. The human race is the only species that has governments and laws to this extent. Why? Because we're all as.sholes who think we're better than animals. We need rules so we can point at them and distinguish ourselves. For some reason, we have this abstract concept of morality. And when enough people agree on something that is 'immoral', we make a law.

I'm not saying passing a law will not affect the number of ab.ortions at all. It probably will go down tremendously, however, there will always be exceptions and that's what most people focus on. As for the people who adhere to the law, they're then stuck with a baby they don't want. Sure they can put it up for adoption, but there's no way every baby's gonna get adopted, especially since people already adopt babies from overseas and not everyone wants to adopt an infant. I tried to work out the numbers before, it didn't go too well. After some research I'll go try the numbers again, but I still doubt they'll work. And if they do, it's only because the numbers I try are very idealistic.

And the last statement is too idealistic for reality. People are gonna have se.x and they're gonna get pregnant, even if they know the concequences. Humans will be humans. Not only that, but some people may just have made that one mistake and was just really unlucky. So realistically, it's not as simple as "if you don't wanna get pre.gnant, don't have se.x".

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Jul. 12, 2013 at 10:28 pm

You assume I'm pro abo.rtion. I'm not. I'm pro choice. There is a difference.
 
You sister may rely on her mother, but she doesn't rely on her to the extent that a fetus does. If she needed to, she could live on perfectly fine without her mum. It may cause some hardships, but she would be able to live. A fetus however, disconnect it from the mother and it's dead.
(asdjaskld i dunno wat's wrong so imma post this in parts)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Jul. 12, 2013 at 10:30 pm

A fetus is the beginning of a human being, but I don't exactly count is as a human being yet. By the logic you're advocating a zygote's a human. Also, sp.erm (and eggs) are each half a human. What does that mean, when a sl.ut swallows spe.rm she just commited cann.ibal.ism? "No, it's just sp.erm, it's not human yet". You're right, but "it doesn't matter whether it's a full human being yet or not. What matters is that it will be." You draw the line between embryo and fe.tus, I draw my line between fe.tus and infant. That's the difference here. It's just that while your line has no discernable reason, mine does as when a fet.us becomes an infant, we know for a fact that they are conscious and can feel pain. As for fe.tuses, the science is still shaky there- the time is estimate from 19 to 29 weeks. Kinda a big gap. Maybe after they do some research and know for a fact when a fe.tus becomes conscious and such, I'll move my line.



As for laws, they are pointless. The human race is the only species that has governments and laws to this extent. Why? Because we're all as.sho.les who think we're better than animals. We need rules so we can point at them and distinguish ourselves. For some reason, we have this abstract concept of morality. And when enough people agree on something that is 'immoral', we make a law.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Jul. 12, 2013 at 10:31 pm

I'm not saying passing a law will not affect the number of ab.or.tions at all. It probably will go down tremendously, however, there will always be exceptions and that's what most people focus on. As for the people who adhere to the law, they're then stuck with a baby they don't want. Sure they can put it up for adoption, but there's no way every baby's gonna get adopted, especially since people already adopt babies from overseas and not everyone wants to adopt an infant. I tried to work out the numbers before, it didn't go too well. After some research I'll go try the numbers again, but I still doubt they'll work. And if they do, it's only because the numbers I try are very idealistic.



And the last statement is too idealistic for reality. People are gonna have se.x and they're gonna get pre.gnant, even if they know the concequences. Humans will be humans. Not only that, but some people may just have made that one mistake and was just really unlucky. So realistically, it's not as simple as "if you don't wanna get pre.gn.ant, don't have se.x".

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Izuo.This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Jul. 12, 2013 at 11:03 pm

Flow:
"We need rules so we can point at them and distinguish ourselves."

Hmm, not exactly. We have laws to stop people from going too crazy. We have laws because everyone wants to survive and to survive you need to huddle up in a group. This group creates a country and for every group, there are codes to follow.

As for my views on abort.ion. I don't really care about it. If a girl gets preg.nant sure she can have an abort.ion but if she keeps on getting preg.nant and having abort.ions then she should be banned from abort.ions.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Izuo.This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Jul. 12, 2013 at 11:26 pm

((It hasn't posted so I figure there's a word in here that I'm forgetting to censor but here goes another try.))
 
Floree:
 
"As for laws, they are pointless."
 
I disagree with you there. Laws are created so that people don't go causing chaos. Every person wants to survive and to do that they group up. These groups form countries. Eventually these groups will get more and more people and it'll be harder to control the citizens. So they create laws to discourage it's citizens from creating chaos and make it's citizens happy. 
 
As for my views on ab.orti.on, I think it's okay if a person gets an abor.tion once or twice but if they keep on getting pre.gnant and getting abo.rtions then they should be banned from it.
 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Destinee replied...
Jul. 13, 2013 at 2:16 am

"As for laws, they are pointless. The human race is the only species that has governments and laws to this extent. Why? Because we're all as.sho.les who think we're better than animals. We need rules so we can point at them and distinguish ourselves. For some reason, we have this abstract concept of morality. And when enough people agree on something that is 'immoral', we make a law."
 
Are you sure laws are pointless? It is a bad argument to say that animals don't do so and so and we just amde it up. Animals don't need laws. We do. Whether or not we have free will, functionally we believe we do, and as a society we have a collective responsibility to carry out justice. Who gives a poo what animals do? How is at all relevant to us? Laws, if nothing else, give us a sense of security, which is pretty important I'm happy to report. A lawless society is one like Somalia, so if you want one, you can go live there. Or it is a very small society, but even those societies have rules and customs, even if they aren't written in bills and constitutions. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Destinee replied...
Jul. 13, 2013 at 2:24 am

And from an ethical standpoint, the only times killing ought really technically allowed is:
 
a) Self-defence
b) War (and even then you can have conscientious objectors to the purpose of the war)
c) Possibly death penalty for murder (unless you don't believe in the death penalty, skip this if you don't) 
 
The only way this is applicable to a f.oetus is (a); if the child will somehow harm the mother fatally. Other than that: sorry, but I don't really care if something is inconvenient to you. If it has a bad life, it can grow up and choose its own fate. And if you're too irresponsible to have a kid, then society should encourage you to grow up and deal with it or give it up for adoption. 
 
And if it's about the fact that a foetus can't feel pain, and killing (for instance) a baby will cause pain, there are quite painless ways to kill someone. And if we are trying to make people avoid hard lives, then we shouldn't have babies at all as suffering as a guarantee in living. 
 
As for the time period I haven't thought about it much. I think in Islam the a.bortion usually has to be done before 120 days. 
 
Cheers.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
CollinF replied...
Jul. 14, 2013 at 1:16 am

This is my first argumentative post in a while, so I'll keep it brief. 
 
The whole debate centers on this: Is the fetus human?
 
If it's not, then the mother should have the right to choose, If it is human, then it cannot be lawfully killed regardless of whether or not the mother is its life-support or it can feel pain. These things are irrelevant, as they don't justify killing another human being.
 
And since the debate over whether a fetus is a human may never be conclusively decided (I personally think the conclusion that it is is rather obvious, but many disagree), we must ask ourselves, "What should we do since we're unsure?" Well, if you hear something approaching you in the woods in the night, do you shoot without determining if it's a person? No, you make absolutely sure it is not. We cannot leave the possibility that we're committing a sin exponentially worse than the Holocaust up to the flip of a coin. 
 
So, Pro-Life. In fact, very actively and outspokenly Pro-Life.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
CollinF replied...
Jul. 14, 2013 at 1:19 am

Science-and-Progress:
 
If you leave a nursing infant separated from his/her mother, they will also die. I don't see the difference other than that one looks a bit more human and can be seen.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
JubilexThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Jul. 14, 2013 at 1:32 am

I thought the argument was more on the idea of if the fetus counted as sentient. Alive is an incorrect term as trees are alive too. And I thinks it's pretty obvious that it's human.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread

Launch Teen Ink Chat
Site Feedback