This debate, among others I have started follow the same guidelines. Keep it relatively formal, only make useful posts, do not post without reading what others have said first, and if you decide to post, make sure you comment on the post above you before contributing your own "bit".

This debate is not whether or not any and all abortions should be legal.

The purpose of this debate is to theorize possible compromises to abortion policies. I understand that this could easily become a conversation about when does life began which is subjective and has no right answer.

Compromise 1: Women who are victim of rape should be allowed to abort a child within a certain time limit. If the woman never voluntarily wants to have unprotected sex because of the consequences (aka Pregnancy), the woman should not be accountable for the actions forced upon them by another. It's by general moral law and the theory of ethics which states that an action cannot be good nor evil if done involuntarily. That is to say: an action can only be morally right or wrong after a choice or decision is made voluntarily. Therefore, by not choosing to have sex and simply becoming victim to an incredibly heinous crime, women should not be held liable for another criminal's action.

Compromise 2: Women who are going to die due to severe illness before a baby will be born should be allowed to have an abortion. Whether or not the being lis alive or not shouldn't be the thought process towards the rebuttal of this compromise. Take into proper consideration the fact that the baby will never have the opportunity to exit the body of the mother and become a citizen of a nation.

Like I stated above: I understand if a great deal of the arguing is revolving around when life begins;however, it's important to stay on topic with the debate of the preposed compromises stated in this thread.

Well duh, abortion better be legal in those cases. I think even fundies would agree that it's better to save a womans life than force her to give birth (effectively murdering her). Other than that - as Jones said. I don't see a reason to disallow other types of abortion. As long as they are done at earlier stages, when fetus is about as aware as a potato.

Well, out of the 8 people I spoke with yesterday, 7 of which disagreed with these compromises.

Seems like you are around a lot of dumbasses.

Anyone who would deny a woman the right to abortion when her life is at stake should not have voting rights.

Odlov: The opposition would could easily say "Anyone who would allow someone to murder a living being simply because their mother is going to die should not have voting rights."

The problem is, many conservatives believe that even if the child is 100% promised not to exit it's mother because the mother will die from illness before it's time to deliver, it's still living, and abortion would still be murder.

But it's one or the other. An adult human being or an underdeveloped human being.
They would still have murder on their hands if she dies because of that delivery.

Ironically, these types of people are the first in line when there are some Muslim brown people in Middle East that the government wants murdered, yet a fetus is sacred human life.

Well let me ask you this then: If a woman was guaranteed to die if they give birth to a child; however, the child would without a doubt be born, is it right to abort the child? Take into consideration the child would be assured much more time to live then the mother if she didn't abort the baby. Is it more valuable or at least enough valuable at that point to not allow it's abortion?

Here is a common argument I recently heard: If you are okay with aborting a child at any point in time, because the woman was raped or what have you, why would you not be okay with killing the child 2 years later? What's the difference? They are both forms of life.

Yes. Because:
1. It is more practical. A child is not a functioning member of society, and has to be developed (which requires time and $$$)
2. Mother is already conscious, with her dreams and bonds to reality. A fetus is oblivious to pretty much everything.
3. That's what mother wants.


.

No, no one is "assured" any time to live. That child could as well die in 2 years from peritonitis in an orphanage.


Completely false.
Structurally, there is a world of difference. A 2 year old child is already fully aware of everything. It is already connected to the world and has active desires (like to live, be warm, be fed, etc)

A fetus prior to 23-24 weeks is, for all intents a purposes, a lump of cells akin to potato. It doesn't have any neurons, let alone brain. It doesn't feel pain, it doesn't have any thoughts or concerns, it doesn't have any desires or dreams.

Disclaimer: I am pro-choice, so don't get me wrong when I try to advocate for the opposition.

1)
) : It's true that the baby doesn't make money; however, the child will promote trade and create a higher demand of products produced. Thus, economically important. While it takes time for the child to become developed, speaking financially only, the child will certainly yield more money from the time it's born to the time it dies naturally than the woman will from the time she's pregnant to the time she dies of natural causes. So in that sense, it would be more practical to have the child introduced into the world.

2) People can and do argue that a fetus within the mother are already conscious beings. There are little to no evidence which supports a child while still in the mother is oblivious to pretty much everything, but say 1 month later, the child becomes conscious to the world around it. And it certainly doesn't happen instantly after it leaves the mother (not that I am insinuating that you are proposing that).

3)...I feel like you have a deeper reason to say that, but until I know exactly what you are trying to say, I am not going to spend time trying to refute a point that I am not sure you are making.

And if it's completely false, when do you believe a child is fully aware of everything?

It doesn't matter what i believe - it's not a popularity contest of time periods. I'm not a scientist. People who have knowledge and authority to answer this question claim it's ~23 weeks, prior to which a fetus can't even potentially be conscious due to lack of neurons. If old debate was up I'd fish the links out, but you can google it.

Here is one i found now. Last 3 paragraphs should tell you a lot.
http://www.slate.com/id/2120872/