frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Abortion should not be free.

Debate Information

I have the Christian right to not pay for things that goes against my religious beliefs.
  1. Live Poll

    Should abortion be free?

    10 votes
    1. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      70.00%
    2. I'm proabortion.
      30.00%
About Persuade Me

Persuaded Arguments

  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    I'm pro-choice, but I'd say that in cases beyond medical necessity, you're right that abortion should not be a free service. It should, however, be available.
    Polaris95DrCerealZombieguy1987
  • DrCerealDrCereal 193 Pts   -   edited July 2018
    Vaulk said:
    This falls under the fallacy of inconsistency and is a false equivalency.  The two subjects that have been stood side by side are incomparable in that they share more inconsistencies than similarities and serve as a false or erroneous representation of logic and rationale.  Waging War in the case of the United States is not similar to committing one's unborn child to death nor is the redistribution of wealth from a Religious demographic for the cause of abortion similar to the redistribution of wealth from any demographic in the United States for the cause of funding the Military.
    The original post's point was that someone's taxes should not be used to fund things that violate their beliefs.
    Cameron wasn't trying to make a false equivalency, and thus didn't make a fallacy, but was attempting to demonstrate the flaw in the original post's reasoning.

    EDIT: Changed some poor wording.
    George_Horse
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • George_HorseGeorge_Horse 499 Pts   -  
    Why should abortion be free? Unless a pregnancy is not threatening a mother's life, or if she was raped, that is entirely different, but if they just want to have an abortion because they no longer wish to have a child, then of course it should not be free. 
    VaulkDrCereal



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • CameronCameron 16 Pts   -  
    It goes against my religious beliefs to wage war. That means the US has to disband the military for my religious beliefs, because I don't want money going to something I don't believe in. This is why secularism exists, and is the better than theocracy.
    WordsMatterGeorge_HorseDrCerealZombieguy1987
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -  
    Cameron said:
    It goes against my religious beliefs to wage war. That means the US has to disband the military for my religious beliefs, because I don't want money going to something I don't believe in. This is why secularism exists, and is the better than theocracy.
    This falls under the fallacy of inconsistency and is a false equivalency.  The two subjects that have been stood side by side are incomparable in that they share more inconsistencies than similarities and serve as a false or erroneous representation of logic and rationale.  Waging War in the case of the United States is not similar to committing one's unborn child to death nor is the redistribution of wealth from a Religious demographic for the cause of abortion similar to the redistribution of wealth from any demographic in the United States for the cause of funding the Military. 

    In any case, abortion should indeed not be free.  Abortion, while I disagree with the practice wholly, is a non-essential medical procedure and to provide it for free suggests a total subsidization of the service from the American taxpayer for something that, in the vast majority of cases, is not life threatening.  We can argue all day about the absolute minority of cases where rape, incest, underage pregnancy is the cause or we can discuss the vast and overwhelming majority of the cases in the United States (Where sex education is better and more prominent that it has ever been) where the simple cause of the pregnancy is "Oops I didn't mean to get pregnant while willingly engaging in the act of reproduction".
    DrCerealGeorge_Horse
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    @DrCereal Thank you. That really is all I am trying to say.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -   edited July 2018
    DrCereal said:
    Vaulk said:
    This falls under the fallacy of inconsistency and is a false equivalency.  The two subjects that have been stood side by side are incomparable in that they share more inconsistencies than similarities and serve as a false or erroneous representation of logic and rationale.  Waging War in the case of the United States is not similar to committing one's unborn child to death nor is the redistribution of wealth from a Religious demographic for the cause of abortion similar to the redistribution of wealth from any demographic in the United States for the cause of funding the Military.
    The original post's point was that someone's taxes should not be used to fund things that violate their beliefs.
    Cameron wasn't trying to equivocate the two scenarios, and thus didn't make a fallacy, but was attempting to demonstrate the flaw in the original post's reasoning.
    I'll bite.  I didn't say, infer, suggest or otherwise insinuate in any way, shape or form that Cameron equivocated anything.  I'm honestly not sure who you're arguing with on this one, is it possible you might've mixed my argument up with someone else's?  I went as far as to check several sources and also couldn't find any such requirement of an equivocation in order to be guilty of a false equivalency.  This word "Equivocate", it doesn't mean what I think that you think it means...lol.  I don't know of any supreme authority on logical fallacies however, this is what I normally use and depending on where you look, some are loosely defined and the meanings can crossover.

    The OP Stated that their Religious beliefs were the premise for their conclusion that they should not have to pay for Abortions for other people.

    Cameron responded by offering: 
    Cameron said:
    It goes against my religious beliefs to wage war. That means the US has to disband the military for my religious beliefs, because I don't want money going to something I don't believe in. This is why secularism exists, and is the better than theocracy.
    While the statement comes off as clearly sarcastic, it is taken as an attempt at mocking the OP's premise by presenting the same premise for justification only changing the topic to War and the Military in an attempt at showing how the logic doesn't work.  In this case, while it's not direct, a clear assertion of equivalence has been made by Cameron and his argument becomes subsequently a logical fallacy as the OP's topic and the topic Cameron has used are incomparable but presented as if they are.
    DrCereal
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 493 Pts   -  
    @Vaulk I don't see a false equivalency here. OP does not want their tax money going towards abortion because their religion says that is murder. A Quaker would be equally justified in saying they don't want their tax money going to the military because their religion beliefs, which are formed from the very same Bible, tells them to be pacifists. It's a perfect equivalency, same religious text, both acts are considered immoral murder, both acts have their taxes paying for them.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -  
    @WordsMatter

    I'm not sure how long you served in the Military however, funding the Military is not funding "Murder" as you've clearly asserted.  However this is a good example of a false equivalency again, one is Abortion...one is War...neither are comparable.
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 493 Pts   -   edited July 2018
    @Vaulk I don't see how my personal experience with the military is relevant at all in this discussion. OP is asking to be exempt from having their taxes go to anything that supports abortion. This is equivalent to Quakers being against war. We actually have precedent with the Quakers. They are exempt from ever being drafted or required to serve in the military on religious grounds. OP is asking to be exempt from having their taxes go towards supporting abortion on religious grounds. If OP can get that then Quakers should as well but for the military. The precedent with the Quakers, when applied to OP, would be that the government can't force them to actually perform or get an abortion themselves on religious grounds. To the Quakers war is murder therefore funding war is funding murder. Please explain in detail how this is a false equivalency. The Quaker religion literally says that war and conflict go against gods wishes.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -   edited July 2018
    @WordsMatter

    OP is asking to be exempt from having their taxes go to anything that supports abortion. This is equivalent to Quakers being against war. 
    Then I'll kindly ask for your premise on this matter.  I understand what you're saying, I understand what the OP said and I understand what Cameron said.  So how did you reach the conclusion that a Religious preference to not financially support Abortion is the equivalent of a Religious preference to not financially support the Military AND a subsequent requirement to: 

    Cameron said:
    That means the US has to disband the military for my religious beliefs, because I don't want money going to something I don't believe in. This is why secularism exists, and is the better than theocracy.
    You've successfully identified yourself as a defender of Cameron's statement here and you made it crystal clear:
    @Vaulk I don't see a false equivalency here. 
    And so I'm ready and willing to hear how you've reconciled the equivalency of a Religious preference against financially supporting Abortions and a Religious preference against financially supporting the U.S. Military as a whole and a total and complete disbandment of the Military as a result of Cameron's religious beliefs.

    Thank you in advance for your participation.
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 493 Pts   -  
    @Vaulk My mistake you are correct that Cameron provided a false equivalency. An actual equivalency, in terms of the tax issue, would be that Quakers taxes shouldn't go to the military. In terms of requirements, seeing as how precedent has been set for the Quakers to be exempt from any forced active contribution to a war effort (they can contribute if they wanted, many did as medics) then I see it as reasonable that Catholics should be exempt from forced active participation in abortion (however they can participate if they wish). Reasonable?
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -  
    @WordsMatter

    I respect all Religious groups' preferences in regards to participation or support for certain things.  There are limits of course.  The topic of the debate here isn't really about whether or not someone CAN participate but rather...whether or not aspects of participation can be forced upon someone when those aspects violate their Religious practice.

    From my limited point of view I don't really see this issue as a Religious matter.  We could probably all agree that in the rarest of rare cases of abortion being caused by rape, incestuous relationships, statutory rape and in cases where the pregnancy stands as a significant medical risk (Life or death) to the Mother then (While still borderline) it's acceptable to expect tax funded healthcare services to step in and see to the Mother's need for abortion.  No one asks where the funding for a rape kit comes from do they?  Of course not, it's just expected that no one will take issue with the tools, equipment and services that are necessary to see to it that, in these rare cases, the victim is taken care of.

    That said, we could also all probably agree that the vast, vast, vast, vast overwhelming, staggering majority of abortions are based upon (While simplified) "I didn't mean to get pregnant".  In these cases...I'm afraid that in the United States where sex education is higher than it has ever been before...there is simply no excuse for this.  Irresponsibility, poor decision-making, actions without thought to consequence for something that's been causing pregnancy since the dawn of Human Beings is not something I personally think should be paid for with tax-payer dollars.  

    TL;DR: In rare cases of a victim needing an abortion...sure.  In cases where people are with their choices...absolutely not.


    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    Not having to pay for things based on one's religious beliefs would give every citizen a way to avoid having to pay for anything whatsoever, since nobody can pick their brain to see what they truly believe in, and everybody can claim upon every financial operation - "Paying for this goes against my religious beliefs" - making people able to obtain a limitless number of services for free. I should not elaborate on the consequences of such a state of affairs for the economy.

    What if I believe in an alien God that states that a modern vehicle is every person's natural right? I can come to a car dealership, pick a $200,000 car and say, "My religious beliefs state that I do not have to pay for this car". According to your logic, the dealer should give the car to me for free, based on my beliefs. I just single-handedly destroyed car business, making it impossible to generate profit by manufacturing and selling cars.

    You would have to present a more realistic argument, than "It is against my religious beliefs", in favor of reducing your tax burden. A belief is a belief, it does not exist outside of you and it does not affect the world, including other citizens, in any way. While the US does have a clause giving certain benefits to people based on their religious views, there is an opinion that it is a very outdated clause and should be abolished in the modern world. You being a Christian should not give you any privileges that non-Christians do not have.
  • DrCerealDrCereal 193 Pts   -   edited July 2018
    Vaulk said:
    I'll bite.  I didn't say, infer, suggest or otherwise insinuate in any way, shape or form that Cameron equivocated anything.
    I have since edited the post to say what I meant.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • DrCerealDrCereal 193 Pts   -   edited July 2018
    @Vaulk
    Let me demonstrate Cameron's argument. I'll begin by writing the OP's:
    1. Abortion violates my religious beliefs.
    2. I should not have to fund things that violate my religious beliefs [with my taxes].
    3. Therefore, I should not have to fund abortion [with my taxes].

    Cameron's response was the following:
    1. The military violates my religious beliefs.
    2. I should not have to fund things that violate my religious beliefs [with my taxes].
    3. Therefore, I should not have to fund the military [with my taxes].

    As you can see, there are no "false equivalencies" being made here. Cameron was in no way trying to say the military is comparable to abortion; he was simply replacing one concept with another in the same argument to demonstrate a flaw.


    Bis das, si cito das.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -  
    @DrCereal

    You've failed to include the critical portion of Cameron's argument that solidly rests it as a false equivalency.  Cameron said:
    It goes against my religious beliefs to wage war. That means the US has to disband the military for my religious beliefs, because I don't want money going to something I don't believe in. This is why secularism exists, and is the better than theocracy.
    Cameron's conclusion that the United States as a whole must completely unravel and dissolve the U.S. Military as a whole solely because of his Religious beliefs and his alone is...well it's absurd and doesn't make any sense.  His attempt to "Replace one concept with another" as you've so clearly stated has resulted in two incomparable things being stood side by side.  The OP is not advocating for the complete removal of Abortion in the topic...she's stating that she shouldn't have to pay for it.  Whether or not she's wrong is irrelevant in regards to Cameron's attempt to "Replace one concept with another" as he's gone far outside what would be considered a rational comparison.

    If you disagree then I'm going to need to hear you try to reconcile the comparison between "I shouldn't have to fund things that violate my religious beliefs" and "The United States as a whole must completely disband the U.S. Military solely because of my Religious belief".
    DrCereal
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @Vaulk

    The problem is, the federal tax redistribution is performed by centralized authorities. Cameron pays taxes, and the taxes are spent on the military - hence, regardless what what Cameron wants or does not want to pay, the current system of military funding forces him to pay. His argument probably was a bit exaggerated, but the principle is still there: the current military organization in the US is incompatible with the principle "My beliefs make me unwilling to pay for X, so I do not have to pay for X". So, indeed, the US military the way it is organized now has to be disbanded, if the OP's logic is to be followed consistently.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -   edited July 2018
    @MayCaesar

    Following Cameron's logic, the U.S. must completely disband the Military for his religious preference and his religious preference alone.  Mind you that his logic is not that everyone feels this way...it's his religious preference alone that determines that the Military must be disbanded....and you're in agreement that this specific statement from him is comparable to the OP's argument that She (Exclusively) shouldn't have to pay for something that violates her religious preference?  So then I'll ask you as well, please, how is it that you're reconciling these two things?
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @Vaulk

    1. Cameron pays federal tax.
    2. Federal tax funds the US military.
    Hence, Cameron pays for the US military.

    If Cameron's religious beliefs are to void his responsibility to pay for the US military, either 1 or 2 has to become false. So there are two possible scenarios:
    1. (I had not considered this one.) Cameron should not be required to pay federal tax.
    2. The US military has to be reorganized in order to not be funded from the federal tax. The scope of such a reorganization would be enormous, hence effectively would lead to disbandment of the US military in its current form.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -   edited July 2018
    @MayCaesar

    1. Cameron isn't only person in the United States that pays FICA
    2. FICA does pay for the Military...but not just Cameron's
    3. Cameron is not the only person who pays for the U.S. Military.
    4. Hence, disbanding the U.S. Military because Cameron's Religious preference clashes with the ideology of Waging War does not stand up to scrutiny.  Even assuming that he's right, that Cameron shouldn't have to financially support waging War...this doesn't somehow logically equate to disbanding the Military.

    A. The U.S. Military doesn't strictly wage War.
    B. Medical Professionals don't strictly provide abortions.

    Therefor 1). Concluding that the entire Military should be disbanded because you don't support waging War is 2). The equivalent of concluding that all doctors should be fired because you don't support abortions.

                                                                                 Literal Side By Side Comparison
                        Yeshuabought                                                                                                                  Cameron
    Abortion is against my Religious beliefs                                                             Waging War is against my Religious beliefs
    I should not have to pay for other people's abortions                                        The entire Military should be disbanded

    I'm honestly baffled at how anyone...anyone could possibly see this as a legitimate comparison.


    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch