Alabama Proposes New Law That Makes Abortion Punishable By Up To 99 Years In Prison

A womans life is more important than an embryo, please make some attempt at making sense, you are after all a 'perfect balance'.

You have lost the future chance, but currently, only one holds that life, so taking that chance away is not the same.

The story you explained would never happen, for a few reasons, you said the doctors told his family he would awake in a year, by a chance of 95%, clearly you lack the information to talk about this topic, 1. A doctor will advise the family of his options, the doctor already has a percentage by which he could awaken, there is no time whereby he can say that the patient will wake up in 1 year, that simply does not happen

2. The patient would have had plans for this scenario, whereby he would choose, if he didnt have instructions then the family would choose, the next of kin would choose what would happen to him based on multiple conversations with the doctors handling his case.

You have left out all the factors in your example to speed up the process of reaching your much wanted conclusion.

My example is different, a 2 year old and an embryo, which would be frozen, are in a building, they are both in danger, this is possible, it's not out there.

Your example on the other hand leaves out multiple factors and pieces of information, all in the hopes to rush to your side of the conclusion.

I am getting at the point you're making, that life is somewhat sacred, your bias makes your answer unreliable, so you can't say for sure that life is so amazing.

No, the scenario is a case whereby you have to make a choice, if that choice happens to be the death of the old man that does not mean it's right to kill old men, that's the conclusion you've come to based on my comments, a conclusion that holds no ground whatsoever.

as opposed to playing with the lives of innocent babies.

Not opposed to, as well as.

You think they care about these children? Their actions towards already existing children would suggest otherwise.

That isnt really an argument. Just because adoption and childcare isnt as good as it should be does not mean murder is the next best alternative.

Whose saying it’s the best alternative?
The problem is you don’t understand. Abortion is a last resort. It’s not an alternative but something to use when all that other options are out.
Abortion isn’t recommended but in some cases, it’s necessary. No one is saying they would want an abortion but they want in on the table.

Really? 200,000 last resorts every year? 38% of whom (2/5) had 1 or more abortions before. There are 2 resorts - abortion or birth. Just 29 abortions in 2017 were because of complications in pregnancy (ie mothers life and wellbeing in danger).

@AperfectBalance
@BenK64

I am sick and tired of debating abortion, two threads on this already, created by myself and both with large amounts of comments.

You may think what you think Ben, I have not read your reply, nor will I, because it has come to my attention that we both think we're right, and no doubt I would find error in your argument this time again and again, you're against abortion, the other user is against abortion, its great that you're standing for something, unfortunately for you abortion will always be legal in the forward thinking countries, if that doesn't say something I don't know what does.

all it says is that 'forward thinking countries' are actually immoral an disgusting, much like your views.

@AperfectBalance
@BenK64

I am sick and tired of debating abortion, two threads on this already, created by myself and both with large amounts of comments.

You may think what you think Ben, I have not read your reply, nor will I, because it has come to my attention that we both think we're right, and no doubt I would find error in your argument this time again and again, you're against abortion, the other user is against abortion, its great that you're standing for something, unfortunately for you abortion will always be legal in the forward thinking countries, if that doesn't say something I don't know what does.

That's all well and good but it's going to be those on the lower end of the income scale - the ones who can't afford to have a child - who are hit hardest by this. There's no way they'll be able to afford to travel to a different state and then pay for an abortion. Seeing as they're classed as an "elective procedure", American insurance companies won't pay for them (nor can the federal government).

But my arguments are flawless

In response to the actual point of this thread, 99 years is ridiculous. Any amount of prison time will not achieve true change in attitudes. I am also aware the majority of this country is pro-abortion, and this is unlikely to change. Public opinion does not determine my own however, and I firmly believe abortion is dark spot of modern society. I believe more people would too if they really thought about the ethics of abortion. Abortion has also become inextricably tied with women rights, such that to be anti-abortion is to be anti-woman. Like its taboo to be against abortion. This is obviously false and a myth, the abortion debate is far more complex than simply 'womans body womans choice'.

And I will always be wary of people who argue its for the greater good of society. I study developmental geography and I am very aware that in developing countries, giving women control over finance and conception is perhaps the biggest and most efficient way to lift families and societies out of poverty. But in the modern UK contraception and education is widely and easily available to everyone. The excuse doesn't hold. Its also very easy to point to the greater good when it isn't your life being sacrificed. Each individual need only ask themselves what if they had been aborted.

If I was aborted at 8 weeks because my mother was in a very tough scenario in which having a child would be a turn in the wrong direction I would not mind, nothingness is pretty great, I wouldn't be losing out on anything.

An fetus naturallly ages, grows and develops. Even if you refuse to class it as life now, it will enjoy life. A specific, individual human life, beginning as that specific, individual human fetus. Taking the chance away is the same- because there is nothing else to it. This is all murder is. 1) Murder removes the possibility of future life. 2) Murder is immoral, because people ought to be able to live their future life if they please. Well what if they cant please? What if its a fetus? What if it is an baby infant? What if it is a temporarily unconcious human? They have no clear expressed desire for future life, they are all incapable of maintining life on their own life. Are we to do with them what we please? No. We know that they will be alive like us, live like us, desire life like us in the coming future. Their state is temporary, and to kill them before they were able to enjoy future life, while we enjoy ours, is unfair.





Is it immoral to kill an unconcious being who you are fairly sure will wake in the future? This is the essential question. And even then this isn't quite the same. An unconcious adult, in a coma lets say, requires constant medical attention to survive. You may not kill him, but you may also say you will not save him either. (ie is it the same to kill as to let die). But the fetus, though reliant on the mother for survival, isnt something you can just let die. It will grow and develop as long as the mother continues to eat healthily. A healthy pregant mother will birth a healthy baby- you must actively kill it to remove its possibility for future life.





Lets be clear. I am not religous. Life is not 'sacred' in the religous or mystical sense. We are all completly physical beings. The univerise is totally deterministic. Humans are made of flesh, evolved from apes, we live, die, rot. But unless your trying to make the point that life is totally worthless and therefore there should be no laws against murder or rape or theft on anything for that matter- I dont see how this is relevent. If we are arguing about abortion, then we must have a start point of 1) human life has value, 2) murder is wrong. The debate is over whether a abortion constitutes murder - not whether murder is wrong or life is valuable to begin with. This is besides the point.




The fetus, the 2 year old, the old man all have the possibility of future life. All will live in the future, if not for premature death, natural or otherwise. Debating who to save is a debate on whose future life is more valuable. Picking one does not devalue the others potential for future life. Thus picking the 2 year old isnt a 'win', because it doesn't change the fact that killing the fetus is immoral.

A better question to ask me is whether i would save 1 two year old or 100 embryos. This is far more difficult for me to answer. The success rates of IVF can vary greatly, though at best they seem to be 30%. Moreover, unused embryos are destroyed, so it is unclear how many of those embryos would ever get the chance to develop. Since 1991 about 2 million unused embryos have been destroyed in the UK.

Who would I save? Intuitively the 2 year old, because she is large (relatively) and in front of me and capable of displaying emotions (causing greater guilt). Logic tells me that if even just 5% of those embryos were successfully used, then that is 5 against 1 and I should save the embryos. Emotion often wins in the heat of the moment.

Sperm also has the possibility of life.If you don't interfere with it then it will become life.By your logic all contraception is murder.Clearly that's nonsensical.

Aye and if I murdered you while you slept tonight you would lose nothing tomorrow either.

Rape makes up an extreme minority of abortion situations. The vast majority are out of convenience for the mother. If you consider a foetus a living being from conception, then it does equate to murder. Rape victims don't have a licence to kill.

Yes he would because he knows all about life now.At 8 weeks old you probably don't even have a brain to know anything with.Certainly you wouldn't know anything about your surroundings.You can't miss what you never had.

Yes he would because he knows all about life now.At 8 weeks old you probably don't even have a brain to know anything with.Certainly you wouldn't know anything about your surroundings.You can't miss what you never had.