Debates
18 Sep 07
21 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by eagleeye222001Fewer people = less crime.
How does abortion correlate to less crime when an innocent human life is taken with every abortion? Sounds like more killing to me!
Where is this that abortions correlate to less crime? Do you have a link to a credible source on this?
This argument has got stupid now anyway. Using the argument that a foetus may have had a world shatterring impact strikes me as desperate. By the same logic, we should make it compulsory for every single women of child bearing age to conceive every nine months just so we might get a good one.
EDIT: by the way, it isn't two cells dividing. The sperm cell doesn't "merge" with the egg. It chucks a bit of genetic info into it.
21 Sep 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=174508
How does abortion correlate to less crime when an innocent human life is taken with every abortion? Sounds like more killing to me!
Where is this that abortions correlate to less crime? Do you have a link to a credible source on this?
http://www.slate.com/id/33569/entry/33571/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect
21 Sep 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001Abortion is not considered a crime in that statement.
How does abortion correlate to less crime when an innocent human life is taken with every abortion? Sounds like more killing to me!
Where is this that abortions correlate to less crime? Do you have a link to a credible source on this?
21 Sep 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungInteresting. I never knew those theories existed. However after reading the links and doing a Google search I have found other studies that believed a link did not exist.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=174508
http://www.slate.com/id/33569/entry/33571/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect
"Outside of the Lott and Levitt debate, there are at least two other studies - one from the United States and one from Great Britain - that suggest no correlation between legalized abortion and lower crime rates.
.................................
The British study, done by two U.K. professors and Leo Kahane of California State University-East Bay, determined it was "unable to find a link between the legalization of abortion and reductions in crime in England and Wales."
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200708/CUL20070809c.html
To think that only legalized abortion is responsible for the reduction in crime rate is ridiculous as it is extremely difficult to find a single factor such as that.
That study that suggested it has come under fire from other researchers.
http://www.economist.com/finance/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=5246700
21 Sep 07
Originally posted by WheelyMy only real argument is that an unborn baby is human and is not "not human." I am not worried about what that child will grow up to be but rather that it is a human being
Fewer people = less crime.
This argument has got stupid now anyway. Using the argument that a foetus may have had a world shatterring impact strikes me as desperate. By the same logic, we should make it compulsory for every single women of child bearing age to conceive every nine months just so we might get a good one.
EDIT: by the way, it isn't two ce ...[text shortened]... ing. The sperm cell doesn't "merge" with the egg. It chucks a bit of genetic info into it.
No one in this forum has yet explained to me why an unborn baby is not human and therefore the abortion is justified.
21 Sep 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001Ok then, let's try.
My only real argument is that an unborn baby is human and is not "not human." I am not worried about what that child will grow up to be but rather that it is a human being
No one in this forum has yet explained to me why an unborn baby is not human and therefore the abortion is justified.
In order to get anywhere, we need to define a few things. Lets see how far we can go.
How would you define a human?
21 Sep 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou don't consider abortion to be a crime because you assume the unborn baby to be "not human."
Abortion is not considered a crime in that statement.
Could you prove to me that an unborn baby is not human?
If I went on a beach and destroyed sea turtle eggs I would get arrested and/or fined because I killed a sea turtle that was growing.
Was that developing sea turtle really just a goldfish that was morphing into a sea turtle or was it a sea turtle all along?
My point is that humans don't give birth to non-human objects or beings.
Humans do it and produce human offspring.
21 Sep 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001But it isn't illegal for the sea turtle to stamp all over its own eggs.
You don't consider abortion to be a crime because you assume the unborn baby to be "not human."
Could you prove to me that an unborn baby is not human?
If I went on a beach and destroyed sea turtle eggs I would get arrested and/or fined because I killed a sea turtle that was growing.
Was that developing sea turtle really just a goldfish that ...[text shortened]... on't give birth to non-human objects or beings.
Humans do it and produce human offspring.
It would be illegal for you to abort a foetus without the woman's consent.
21 Sep 07
Originally posted by WheelyI don't think sea turtles stomp on their eggs intentionally. IN the sea turtle's case, it is a pure accident. With humans, we have the brain capacity to understand that we are killing human life. Humans have morals.
But it isn't illegal for the sea turtle to stamp all over its own eggs.
It would be illegal for you to abort a foetus without the woman's consent.
It would be illegal for me to abort a fetus without the woman's consent. So why is it legal for the mom to kill human life and not me?
21 Sep 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001Thanks for the additional info!
Interesting. I never knew those theories existed. However after reading the links and doing a Google search I have found other studies that believed a link did not exist.
"Outside of the Lott and Levitt debate, there are at least two other studies - one from the United States and one from Great Britain - that suggest no correlation between legali ...[text shortened]... m other researchers.
http://www.economist.com/finance/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=5246700
21 Sep 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001You used the illegality of your stamping on turtle eggs to describe a double standard regarding the aborting of a human foetus.
I don't think sea turtles stomp on their eggs intentionally. IN the sea turtle's case, it is a pure accident. With humans, we have the brain capacity to understand that we are killing human life. Humans have morals.
It would be illegal for me to abort a fetus without the woman's consent. So why is it legal for the mom to kill human life and not me?
I say that the difference is that the women chooses to abort her foetus and the turtle didn't choose to have its eggs stamped on. There are no double standards, just protecting the adult turtles rights to raise its young.
Secondly, you wanted to know how people on this forum are able to refer to a foetus as "not human". However, you haven't described what you consider human. If, and I'm sure you don't, you consider a fundamental feature of a human is that it wears a hat, then the argument is easily made. Maybe therefore, you can see why we need to hear your definition of what is human in order to answer your question.
21 Sep 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001You used the illegality of your stamping on turtle eggs to describe a double standard regarding the aborting of a human foetus.
I don't think sea turtles stomp on their eggs intentionally. IN the sea turtle's case, it is a pure accident. With humans, we have the brain capacity to understand that we are killing human life. Humans have morals.
It would be illegal for me to abort a fetus without the woman's consent. So why is it legal for the mom to kill human life and not me?
I say that the difference is that the women chooses to abort her foetus and the turtle didn't choose to have its eggs stamped on. There are no double standards, just protecting the adult turtles rights to raise its young.
Secondly, you wanted to know how people on this forum are able to refer to a foetus as "not human". However, you haven't described what you consider human. If, and I'm sure you don't, you consider a fundamental feature of a human is that it wears a hat, then the argument is easily made. Maybe therefore, you can see why we need to hear your definition of what is human in order to answer your question.