(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); The reason why I'm asking it like this is because they both involve the killing of a human. What are your views on each of them?

Sure the child has the right to live and the child could end up with a happy life but you may as-well just flip a coin, it's so luck-oriented. Personally, I don't think it's fair taking a 50/50 chance on a kid's life like that when not only could you have an abortion but you could take care of a child that's already been born(adoption or alternative).



For me the death penalty should only be 'granted' when the evidence is 100% solid. In terms of letting the sods rot in jail, don't forget that's costing the tax-payer money

No offense but why did you say a child has the right to live then say we should determine whether they live based on the flip of a coin? Also it is just a time in the child's life that they can look back on and forgive their parents for what they did. I personally don't think adoption is that bad because you are in a safe secure shelter all the time and you get fed.

On the death penalty, I can see where your coming from about the evidence and the tax money. I don't see how much it would cost to feed a prisoner a 10 cent package of ramen noodles every day which would equal to 1500 dollars a day (if you had 5000 prisoners) which is only about $550,000 a year and that isn't really expensive also. I believe they should go to jail if the evidence is conclusive to but not die either. The lazy things of doing stuff would to just kill them. Instead of letting them face a better punishment.

1) I put the word 'right' in italics, meaning just because someone has the right to do or be something doesn't mean they would want to be.
2) Said shelters aren't that fine and dandy, I assure you. At least not sometimes.
3) It's not just food, there's much more cost-wise to take into consideration.
4) Lazy? Not even worth replying to.

Abortions, for me, as soon as the child is conceived it's a life and therefore should be allowed to live. Put the child up for adoption if needs be, but at least give it a chance of a life. I know I'm gunna get the old "Does that me masturbation is mass genocide" line, and I can totally see that point of view. However, I don't know why, it just doesn't sit right with me beyond that point.

As for the death penalty, again killing doesn't sit well with me. Also, being an atheist I don't believe in anything after death. This makes the death penalty the easy way out, like falling asleep and never waking up to face the horrors you've committed.

I think we both have the same reasoning for disliking abortion. it's about actions, cause and effect. When it comes to abortion it's different on one specific level.

Masturbation
Do it - Result: No Baby
Don't do it - Result: No Baby

Abortion
Do it - Result: No Baby
Don't do it - Result: Baby Exists

It's as simple as that, it's an action that specifically stops a baby existing, a baby who's genetic structure has already been chosen. The argument that "masturbation is mass genocide" is stupid because not masturbating wouldn't cause a child to exist. The reason abortion is the drawing line is it's the one action where doing nothing results in a baby. Assuming everything stays the same, not having an abortion directly results in the child living, it would be the equivalent of shooting the child in the head with a gun at birth to have an abortion. Pretending the child doesn't already exist to justify it, calling it "not yet a baby" doesn't justify it either. If someone stabs your pregnant wife in the stomach or stabs your baby the day after it's born, they still killed your child. If someone steals your money, or steals the lottery ticket before you have a chance to win the money, they're still stealing. This is why the line is drawn here, it's a positive, purposeful action done to make a baby THAT ALREADY EXISTS not exist. This is why it's different from contraception. No child exists, no child is planned to exist and the choice to use contraception is not a case of actively destroying a life that's already begun to form but preventing an unwanted life from starting. This is how I see it. I'm still not sure I've explained this position well, but I hope people understand what I mean.

Exactly what I meant. Can't think of a time I've ever disagreed with you.

I still disagree, at the very least with your reasoning. So what if doing nothing would have created said baby? That's like saying "yeah errr I was gonna pull out but I thought that's kinda morally wrong since finishing in there means a baby will most likely be popped into existence". See what I mean? Not the best example, but I strongly disagree with your stance on abortion here.

Aaah, but I think that's where we fundamentally see this differently. Doing nothing isn't creating the baby, the baby has already been created, doing nothing is merely letting it live, acting is actively destroying ie. killing the baby while in embryo form. Pulling out is an awful example, because "not pulling out" is not the same as "not having an abortion", the first is word play because the choice is really, "Stop having sex before ejaculation" or "Knowingly ejaculate with the knowledge it can result in pregnancy", both are purposeful actions and before the choice is made there is no baby, with abortion the choice is, "Purposely remove a newly forming life from a womb" or "literally do nothing", only the first is an actual action and the choice is made AFTER the baby already exists as a fully realised entity. This is the line for me, now, would I legislate against abortion... No, I think it should remain legal, but not because I agree with it, but for pragmatic reasons. In my ideal world, abortion would be a last resort to prevent severe illness or death for the mother, or in the case of rape... but then in my ideal world there's also no rape.

You keep saying "after the baby exists etc" but to me during the time that abortion is legal(I forget how many weeks it is) it isn't a baby. It just has the potential to be a baby, just as sperm etc does.

That's why this is so awkward to debate though, everyone crosses the line in a different place to one-another and IMO no answer is the best logically(unlike the infamous deity debate ).