What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Cons for Abortion

theLords

theLords

Member
Hi folks,

I currently have to present the cons for abortion in a debate for a class. Someone on this board made the most compelling argument when they said that the law charges any person who murders a pregnant women with 2 counts of murder counting the death of an unborn child as murder and then turn around and legalize abortion doctors to kill babies.

Can anyone help me flesh out that argument and provide a source?

I'm also going to include the story of Gianna Jenson (sp?) and speak about the emotional issues and depression increases that occur in post-abortion women.

Father's rights and the babies rights as well.

Thoughts or advice?
 
Is the topic of the debate an issue of the better choice of the expecting mother, or is it making abortion illegal?

I'm assuming this will be intended for a secular audience/class. I would say that while there are many adults who are unable to conceive a child who would be thrilled to take this "burden" from the mother. The mothers would be achieving two things in dismissing abortion as an alternative in avoiding the responsibility and providing a priceless gift to the adopting parents.

I've worked with many OB/GYN's in my career. They are the first ones (pro or con) to state that the development of the human begins at the fertilization of the egg. At that point, the gamete (sperm) unites with the oocyte (egg) to form a single celled zygote. At that moment, the development process starts. It then becomes an "opinion" of when this process is far enough along to be considered a life in and of itself. Over the first three months, this baby within the womb develops to the point of having fully formed body parts, with cerebral mapping of both hemispheres, muscles, nerves and organs. While it's a judgment call to say when this can be termed a "baby", it's a medical fact that the development process begins at the moment of conception.

This is ironic, but in the U.S., eagle eggs are protected from destruction by law. Why? Because they have the potential to become full-fledged eagles. Are not babies within the womb at least as valuable as eagle eggs? You can make the argument that a baby in the womb is "connected" and "dependent" on the mother, but this doesn't change the approach to the unborn themselves.

The stance of the pro-abortionists is the rights of the mother, but what about the rights of the baby? They will say the unborn baby cannot sustain his/her own life and depends on the mother. What about people who are mentally retarded, senile or otherwise unable to sustain themselves? Do we have the right to snuff out their lives for this reason? Most would say "no", but then we come back to the rights of the unborn child independent of the mother.
 
Lords, I think that I have had the most heated debates on abortion in the history of this board. I have some good ones around here somewhere, and from those you should get what you are looking for.
 
Thank you both of you for your responses! I am yet to read them yet I gotta run and get gas and pick up dinner but I am so appreciative.

My group has decided to leave the debate open to only the Pros/Cons of abortion so we don't limit ourselves (we all want good grades :lol)

Coincidentally, my group is 3 women and 1 man, and the 3 women are all against abortion and the one guy is pro-abortion claiming women's rights! :rolling (he's a nice guy I just thought it was so ironic)

I'll be back to read and respond some more!
 
Mike said:
Is the topic of the debate an issue of the better choice of the expecting mother, or is it making abortion illegal?

I'm assuming this will be intended for a secular audience/class. I would say that while there are many adults who are unable to conceive a child who would be thrilled to take this "burden" from the mother. The mothers would be achieving two things in dismissing abortion as an alternative in avoiding the responsibility and providing a priceless gift to the adopting parents.

I've worked with many OB/GYN's in my career. They are the first ones (pro or con) to state that the development of the human begins at the fertilization of the egg. At that point, the gamete (sperm) unites with the oocyte (egg) to form a single celled zygote. At that moment, the development process starts. It then becomes an "opinion" of when this process is far enough along to be considered a life in and of itself. Over the first three months, this baby within the womb develops to the point of having fully formed body parts, with cerebral mapping of both hemispheres, muscles, nerves and organs. While it's a judgment call to say when this can be termed a "baby", it's a medical fact that the development process begins at the moment of conception.

This is ironic, but in the U.S., eagle eggs are protected from destruction by law. Why? Because they have the potential to become full-fledged eagles. Are not babies within the womb at least as valuable as eagle eggs? You can make the argument that a baby in the womb is "connected" and "dependent" on the mother, but this doesn't change the approach to the unborn themselves.

The stance of the pro-abortionists is the rights of the mother, but what about the rights of the baby? They will say the unborn baby cannot sustain his/her own life and depends on the mother. What about people who are mentally retarded, senile or otherwise unable to sustain themselves? Do we have the right to snuff out their lives for this reason? Most would say "no", but then we come back to the rights of the unborn child independent of the mother.
Click to expand...

Wow Mike :o

I'd never even thought of half of this stuff! Thanks
 
theLords said:
Someone on this board made the most compelling argument when they said that the law charges any person who murders a pregnant women with 2 counts of murder counting the death of an unborn child as murder
Click to expand...
Mike, are you looking for specific cases, like Scott Peterson who was in the news a lot, and charged with killing his wife and unborn child?

Of are you just trying to recall the wording of the argument someone on this board made?
 
Sissy said:
Mike, are you looking for specific cases, like Scott Peterson who was in the news a lot, and charged with killing his wife and unborn child?

Of are you just trying to recall the wording of the argument someone on this board made?
Click to expand...

Either one would be fine since I have to research and site the source!
 
Mike said:
This is ironic, but in the U.S., eagle eggs are protected from destruction by law. Why? Because they have the potential to become full-fledged eagles. Are not babies within the womb at least as valuable as eagle eggs? You can make the argument that a baby in the womb is "connected" and "dependent" on the mother, but this doesn't change the approach to the unborn themselves.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's one I never thought of before, but so true! Not only eagles, but even many other birds and animals, even including the everpresent and over-abundant seagulls! (If a seagull builds a nest on my boat, it is actually ilegal for me to disturb it in any way!)

Of course, many of these laws come from hardcore environmentalists that do, indeed, consider animal life to be more valuable than human life (except, of course, the one particular human life that they posess!) No matter what stand a person takes on abortion, it is still a horrible statement that our government (American) has caved into the whims of the extremists, and legislated more value into the life of a bird than the life of a human!
 
Igor said:
Wow, that's one I never thought of before, but so true! Not only eagles, but even many other birds and animals, even including the everpresent and over-abundant seagulls! (If a seagull builds a nest on my boat, it is actually ilegal for me to disturb it in any way!)

Of course, many of these laws come from hardcore environmentalists that do, indeed, consider animal life to be more valuable than human life (except, of course, the one particular human life that they posess!) No matter what stand a person takes on abortion, it is still a horrible statement that our government (American) has caved into the whims of the extremists, and legislated more value into the life of a bird than the life of a human!
Click to expand...

all thanks to the panthiestic influence on enviromentalists.

i say feed em to them hungry bears. they gotta eat to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top