Welcome to Gaia! ::

Feel free to reply, but I'm sort of doing an experiment. I'm trying to come up with an equal number of arguments, based on logic, that support "each side" of the abortion debate. As such, I'm far more interested in people pointing out the issue in the arguments supporting "their side" than in people debating arguments from the "other side" (though of course, feel free to do that as well - though please follow the "Be Civil" rule, of course). And, of course, feel free to add your own arguments. I'm trying to keep emotions out of this (but, really, I don't think that is completely possible).

The easy one, for me, first:

Pro-Choice:
All humans should be allowed to control their own body, which includes being able to deny use of one's body to any other human or organism. Thus, pregnant women retain the right to deny use of their body to unborn humans, and be able to demand their immediate removal. Until viability, all methods that remove unborn humans result in their death.

Pro-Life:
All humans should be allowed to live. While the unborn human is living inside the body of the pregnant woman, it isn't taking away her right to continue living (baring the tiny percent of women who need emergency life-saving abortions - a completely different issue, since almost no one wants to see those abortions banned). Thus she should not be allowed to take away its right to continue living.

I think those are the main arguments (but feel free to correct me if you feel I am mistaken about anything).

Some supporting arguments:

Pro-Choice:
The government should not be allowed to take away a pregnant woman's right to make decisions about her own body, even to protect the life of another human. This is an issue that should be decided by the people involved (the woman and the man), and not by bureaucrats.

Pro-Life:
The woman should not be allowed to take away the life of the unborn human, just to protect her bodily integrity. She is the one who chose to have sex, the unborn human didn't ask to be created. Since she is partially responsible for the creation of the unborn human, she should be responsible for supporting it, until that responsibility can be passed on to someone else.

Right now, that's all I can think of.

[Edit] I thought of another one:

Personally Pro-Life:
Women should not be the only person to make the decision to abort. It takes two humans to make a new human life, and both should be equally involved in the decisions made after that happens.

Pro-Life:
There are three people involved in a pregnancy, the man, the woman, and the unborn human. All should be equally respected. No one should ever be allowed to make decisions to end the life of another human.

Pro-Choice:
Women should get the "final say" when it comes to the decision to abort. Though couples should discuss what they will do (hopefully before they ever have sex) with an unintentional pregnancy, the unborn human is living inside of the woman's body.

I would have to say that the last argument isn't that the father should have a say, but that nobody should have a say. I feel that abortion is a negative, and should not be done by anyone, and should not be a decicion made by anyone- a man, a priest, a doctor or a pregnant woman.

Hmmm...good points. I guess I was thinking more of personally Pro-Life people (who believe that no one should choose abortion), rather than politically(?) Pro-Life people (who believe that abortion should be illegal).

No differences other than size, weight, age, brain development, and hand-eye coordination, you mean?

I agree. An unborn human is just as human as the pregnant woman carrying it, a five year old child, an eighty year old man, or any other human that's ever existed.

*grin* I was just saying that there are lots of differences between humans of different ages. I guess I didn't "get" that you were saying that unborn humans are humans like any other (probably because I don't see how anyone could say something different - they're humans and made of human, what else would they be?).

Human being is just a rehtoricly fance way of saying "human" they mean the same thing. Its when people begin to play with the word to twist it fomr its actualy and literal definition into what THEY WANT it to mean that we begin to have a problem.

"Human being" means the same thing as "human", and will continue to mean the same thing in life and in debate untill literal proof can be brought forth to say otherwise. "Well, it means X, in my opinoin" equates to you shoving a four foot burning poll smothered in every STD up your a** "in my opinoin smile "

Well, just to be nitpicky and say it any ways. There isn't a legal definition for "human" only "person" and even then the word "person" has been loaded so many times over the years to mean what a group in power want it to that it's convinced me of the stupidity of man to refuse to learn from his past and repeat mistakes he made so many years ago.

America for a time took away person right from blacks...what did we learn? They are people

Nazi Germany for a time took away person rights from Jews, Gypsies, and so many other races and ethnicities. What did we learn? They are people.

America has taken person right away from the unborn. Judging by history and the fact that the scenario and almost/nearly* all its variables...what do you think we'll eventually learn?

Yes, Tiger does not accept the word "person" as a legitimate argument for or against anything in this debate for these exact reasons.

*I used two words that roughly mean the same thing in the hopes some one will catch it and pay attention to them...since almost all of Gaia has a tendency to ignore their existence in a post.

I'm personoly of the belief that the idea of person hood is simply put, worthless and has no place in the English language other then to describe some one with out referring to them as "that human over there" which just sounds plain weird. As such, I'm the kind who simply will never use the word "person" in any debate other then it's literal meaning

N. "Person": A human being.