Pro Abortion

< > No, you didnt. You said, "Unless recomended by a Doctor because of a threat on your life." This means that unless the woman will die, she must have the baby, all other variables are ignored. Never mind that she was raped, it was incestuously conceived, will be born with a terminal illness that will mean it lives in agony for its short life. << 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).>> What you fail to realize is that there are far more reasons than "social" reasons. Like economic. What if the mother does not have insurance? Who must pay for all the prenatal care? The government? Yeah, theres a great ides, force the government to pay for the promiscuity (as you claim it is) of others. Again, where are you getting your statistics? I dont see a website, or other cited source. < > There is no point in my arguing against a theoretical, but I will say that you are wrong on this. First off all, a germinating seed does not have roots, second of all, no, it is not the same as cutting down a 200 foot tall tree, its just not. God forbid someone accidentally step on a tiny seed sprout in your forest, because they just murdered a tree, send 'em to jail!! < > I didnt say that you said "punish" or "force". I simply said that based on your line of arguement, a woman must accept responsibility for her actions, if that does not mean reap the consequences than i dont know what does. Its the exact same point. Although, how can a woman be held responsible for actions that she had no control over? Failed contraceptive, rape? How can you force a woman to take responsibility for things that she had no say in? Alsoo, does not a man play just a large a role as a woman does in conception? What if the man walks out on her (which happens a lot)? Should he be tracked down and chained to her until she gives birth? < > Here is the web address: http://women.webmd.com... "Intended use" Get real, who doesnt know how to use a condom? Take a pill? Stop trying to find tittle technicalities to rationalize your moral arguement. Contraceptives fail, even the makers of them will tell you that. Birth control is only 99.8% effective, the drug companies have to disclose that. So the arguemtnt that they were not used properly is bogus. < > I dont know what world you live on, but down here on planet earth, atleast the United States, abstinence ceased to exist when the birth control pill was introduced. Again, get real. People are not going to wake up one day and decide to live a perfect sex free life only out of fear of pregnancy. Its not going to happen, and this is a useless arguement. < > This is perhaps your most absurd arguement. The only reason that abortion rates have severely declined is due to the use of emergency contraceptives. Odds are, the sperm has not had time to fretilize the egg (which by your moral standard is the time of human life comencement). < > Really? Last time I checked, invading a country for no reason other than imperialistic gain was not moral. Domestic policies are not made out of morals. There is no master book of morals to reference. National policies are based off the Constitution, and the interests of the people. Nothing More. Especially not morals. Is it moral to spy on an innocent person for no reason? No, but our current policy says you can. < > Can you please quote the section of the United States Code that confirms this statement? No? Well, how about the Constitutional ammendment? No? Hmm. Looks like you are the only one that agrees with this statement. The government doesnt, the constitution doesnt, the scientific community doesnt. Who does? < > But its NOT. Until it is, the government has no right to stop it. <> Oh, but you would. By making abortion to be considered murder, anyone who attains an abortion is by legal definition an accessory to murder, and the doctor a murderer. That is the problem with the pro-lifers, they dont want to admit this, nor will they ever find a politician in this country to support this fact. < > Thats not what I meant, I meant that your statements may be moral to YOU, but ther is no book of morals for us to reference. Because of this, you have no right to assert your personal morals over another human being. My point is this.................. When you take away all your emotionally charged rhetoric, all your warrantless claims, all your statements that a 1 second fertilized egg (scientifically defined as a zygote) is just as human as I am, you are left with a serious flaw in your arguement that you refuse to address: There is no universally (by this I mean in the United States) accepted legal and social definition of the comencement of life. You, for some reason, have failed to address this point. Until either the Constitution is ammended, or the entire scientific community agrees when this point is, and is subsequently accepted by the people, the government has ni right to impose the morals of one person over another person. A decision of this magnitude should be left up to the person that will have to live with it for the rest of their life. I will again pose this question to my opponent, and assert that if she can not answer this question, I should win this debate: State and cite the definition of the comencement of life (what time does life begin) that is accepted legally and socially by the people (the vast majority) of this great country. Until you can do this, you have no arguement. Remember, what should happen may really be what should happen, but until it happens, it is not worth debating.