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 is wrong

24567



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • EmilyRouseEmilyRouse 29 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne ;And many infants will die early in age; this is an atypical fact. To say you can kill a vast majority of babies and deny moral because of a minority of miscarraiges is irrational. Not all of the babies aborted would be miscarried. Very few would. Statistics may say some will, but does that mean you can kill any? Kill the ones who certainly would have survived and lived?
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne Gold Premium Member 1628 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @SkepticalOne ;And many infants will die early in age; this is an atypical fact. To say you can kill a vast majority of babies and deny moral because of a minority of miscarraiges is irrational.
    No one is saying "babies should be killed because of miscarriages". Not only is that an attempt to poison the well (zygote/embryo/fetus =/= "baby"), it is taking my objection to the basis of your argument out of context.

    Do you have a solid foundation for 'abortion is wrong'? Because what you suggested was a "moral fact" (a fetus will become a life) was not actually a fact because... miscarriages are a thing.
    PlaffelvohfenDee
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne

    A fetus is a term used for an unborn baby.

    A baby is reffered to a bay for all of stupidity sake until it's born.

    So doesn't a baby have to be a baby before it's born? How else would it be a baby?

    A fetus is a medical term that defines a BABY. Your not LISTENING, that is unborn.

    The medical sciences recognize a baby is a baby that is unborn and reffered to as a fetus.

    Therefore all fetus are babies.

    Jesus is Lord.
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne Gold Premium Member 1628 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @jesusisGod777

    When average people think of a baby, they think of an infant being held in its mother's arms while nursing (or some other serene conception). 

    If you remove an infant from this scenario and replace it with a fetus or embryo, it becomes a scene from a horror movie.

    jesusisGod777PlaffelvohfenDee
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne

    Gestational age is a measure of the age of a pregnancy which is taken from the beginning of the woman's last menstrual period

    Age: the length of time that a person has lived or a thing has existed.

    So considering that age determines or evaluates the length of 

    1. A person
    2. Their lifetime

    Explain to me how a fetus is

    1. Not a person
    2. Is not alive?

    You do realize that the entire medical community based on it's own definitions defines a fetus as a living person.

    Jesus is Lord.
  • @EmilyRouse ;
    Do not fear the American United State Constitution is near. "When I say medical abortion I mean an abortion in which the mother and or child will die or be seriously injured without one, such as an ectopic pregnancy."  It is not abortion that takes place when the mother/child union have complication by the event of pregnancy, it is female specific amputation the verbal details are controlled by three outside influence, reasons. 1. The Medical hypocritic oath. 2. In the United state created by the definition of what makes any translation of constitutional presumption of innocence. 3. Whole truth which in pregnancy describes the start of all life at the creation of egg for all woman. In order for that truth to be objected to as a united state successfully it must be proven that a woman without an egg can create life. Science, Medicine must also provide basic fact that conclude otherwise. Even with the help of knowledge, and study science and medicine has never set facts that without an creation of egg to change in any way, human life can not start. Therefore. Life begins in one united state at that point for all woman.

    As united state the one woman's pregnancy is an abortion on female ovulation as it is applied to all woman. The process of human egg creation. The United state is for all woman as they are created equal by unions made on this principle. the individual Pregnancy's themselves are not aborted they are terminated, stopped, as United state all woman terminate pregnancy at the stage of ovulation not during pregnancy. This is where in a measurement of duration a pregnancy abortion can be legally proven to be official stopped by a woman. Death is still the result. She is by whole truth in control, she is the supreme authority, she acts alone in the agreement with nature to take part in the termination of a child with all other woman who share the same responsibility. During the progression of pregnancy there is no united state where all woman official stop pregnancy other than birth. Woman as united state performs a pregnancy abortion when giving birth, or when abortion ovulation. 

    The argument made on Female specific amputations limitation outside of medical is on creation of a citizenship of the nation to which the woman is citizen. A child born in United State has a union of some kind created by the outside influences. Those topics can be separated and addressed on the basic principle of union's that are identified a part of grievance filed, there is a order in the arrangement of grievance as a line starting the assembly is in a range of the most basic united state, to any an all relevant states thereafter.


    I am not here to ask you to trust me. I am here to tell you clearly Pregnancy abortion is an admission to a described crime. Are you sure all woman should be united by self-incrimination to crime when it removes them from the process of  United State Constitutional right?

  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne Gold Premium Member 1628 Pts   -   edited August 2019

    Explain to me how a fetus is

    1. Not a person
    2. Is not alive?

    You do realize that the entire medical community based on it's own definitions defines a fetus as a living person.

    Jesus is Lord.
    It seems you're under the misapprehension that I hold a fetus to be dead (which is absurd) and undeserving of human rights during every stage of development. Where did I say any of this? 

    Also, appealing to the "medical community" (which performs abortion procedures) as a source to back an argument stating "abortion is wrong" is quite ironic, imo. Besides, assuming what you say is true (no citation), the medical community in general is in no way a valid authority on legal issues such as 'personhood'.

    To the point, we don't generally define things on what they're not. If you think a fetus should be considered a person then the burden is on you to make and support that argument before there is any need for this notion to be refuted. 
    PlaffelvohfenDee
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • MartinGocicMartinGocic 57 Pts   -  
    @Dee
    Can never argue with a liberal American
  • @SkepticalOne ;
    Do you have a solid foundation for 'abortion is wrong'? Because what you suggested was a "moral fact" (a fetus will become a life) was not actually a fact because... miscarriages are a thing. 

    The basic principle of life beginning in a united state for all woman by science standard is at the creation of human egg made by the woman. All woman who create an human egg perform a pregnancy abortion which ends in the loss of life as a united state. A woman as united state can only order a woman to have an abortion in two conditions, Condition 1. To not become pregnant by having sexual intercourse. 2. To have the baby created by sexual intercourse, thus officially ending the pregnancy under her powers of stopping what has official started. The termination of a pregnancy under united state is a female specific amputation. As united state this also applies equally to miscarriage.

    It should be understood a woman's egg is alive, then dies all taking place as united state inside the woman's body under normal condition. A woman does not share a United State with a male and their sperm unless under medical care. The egg must be amputated from the woman's body to be independent of her.


    Another condition of moral wrong which is relevant. A court ruling has been made on privacy, does a person as a united state have a right to argue the common knowledge of fact shared, when she herself takes part in tell of the fact?

  • EmilyRouseEmilyRouse 29 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne A fetus will TYPICALLY become a life. You cannot decide to kill a majority based on a minority. The moral fact still stands true. Although miscarriages exist, they aren't all pregnancies. You have no way of knowing if the aborted fetus would have been miscarried or not. You cannot say "fetuses will not become alive". Perhaps a better way of putting it is this, rather then fetuses will become alive is; "Fetuses will become alive unless stopped by a miscarriage or abortion". A  miscarriage is preventing that life, similar to an abortion, except a miscarriage isn't induced by humanity. To say that because miscarriages exist that means a fetus isn't alive is like saying because abortions exist the fetus isn't alive. You can't say the fetus isn't alive or at least won't become alive just because it has the capability of dying. Does this clarify what I'm saying better?
  • @SkepticalOne

    Gestational age is a measure of the age of a pregnancy which is taken from the beginning of the woman's last menstrual period

    Age: the length of time that a person has lived or a thing has existed.

    So considering that age determines or evaluates the length of 

    1. A person
    2. Their lifetime

    Explain to me how a fetus is

    1. Not a person
    2. Is not alive?

    You do realize that the entire medical community based on it's own definitions defines a fetus as a living person.

    Jesus is Lord.

    In short. No religion can dictate by demand to a woman under American United State Constitution she must be placed at medical risk for the posterity of religion. A united state all woman shares including the religious is the death of a nation’s posterity.

    A woman who is married or in civil union is under different guidelines by law in obligations to creation of a citizen of the united state between mother and nation. In other words woman have failed at all unconstitutional attempts as of yet to create all woman as equal under the union made between woman and pregnancy.



  • EmilyRouseEmilyRouse 29 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 Again I'm not sure I understand. The overly complicated text is a bit uneccessary and confusing. An abortion is not an "amputation". It is a termination of a pregnancy. An abortion is the ending of an unborn life, not an amputation. The child is not a part of the womans body. It has it's own motor skills, own blood type, own genetic code. In no way is it a part of the mother.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • EmilyRouseEmilyRouse 29 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 So, by this logic, you are saying the umbilical cord must be cut to be an independent being? What about conjoined twins? Are they not independent beings just because of a flap of skin connecting them? Despite their individual brains? Individual organs?
    An egg may be alive by a basic standpoint, but it is not an individual until united with sperm. By uniting with the sperm the baby develops its own genetic code, that code which allows it to grow and develop eventually into a fully fleged adult. You have the same code now as you did when you where an embryo-- but the egg had only half your code. The sperm, the other half. Thus, the egg and sperm are not human beings, where the embryo is.
  • EmilyRouseEmilyRouse 29 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 Religion doesn't aim to force women into medical risks! If you need an abortion for your health by all means! I'm not going to stop you, that should be legal. A hard decision nonetheless, but legal.

    If you're saying pregnancy is a medical risk; The woman chose to have sex, and thus, got pregnant. And, instead of killing the child, why not improve our healthcare, as more than half of all pregnancy complications are preventable.
  • @SkepticalOne A fetus will TYPICALLY become a life. You cannot decide to kill a majority based on a minority. The moral fact still stands true. Although miscarriages exist, they aren't all pregnancies. You have no way of knowing if the aborted fetus would have been miscarried or not. You cannot say "fetuses will not become alive". Perhaps a better way of putting it is this, rather then fetuses will become alive is; "Fetuses will become alive unless stopped by a miscarriage or abortion". A  miscarriage is preventing that life, similar to an abortion, except a miscarriage isn't induced by humanity. To say that because miscarriages exist that means a fetus isn't alive is like saying because abortions exist the fetus isn't alive. You can't say the fetus isn't alive or at least won't become alive just because it has the capability of dying. Does this clarify what I'm saying better?
    I think I understand your point well. You believe the common outcome of a pregnancy is an individual human life. This pattern, in your view, is axiomatic. My objection is merely that the pattern you perceive to be ...doesn't exist.

    Natural pregnancy includes failure in all stages even *WITH* modern technology and our best efforts to avoid it. The pattern of pregnancy, in general, is 1 in 5 of *known* pregnancies will not make it, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. As much 60% of all fertilized eggs fail to achieve the pattern you hold as a blueprint of humanity. 

    So, if 'pregnancy equals life' (or "a fetus will become life") is the basket you've put all your eggs in (no pun intended) then there is a serious problem when the basket goes away.




    Plaffelvohfen
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • @John_C_87

    I'm sorry, John, but I am having difficulty understanding if you are for or against the proposition. Kudos to you for taking on this challenging subject in (I assume) a language which is not your primary. 
    PlaffelvohfenDee
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @MartinGocic
    Can never argue with an American liberal


    To brand one a liberal is a compliment as It combines ideas of civil liberty and equality with support for social justice and a mixed economy all the things the majority of so called “Christian “ Americans are against , incidentally I’m not American and not a Christian and unfortunately have yet to see even one such entity put forwards regarding a half  decent argument on any topic so far 
    MartinGocic
  • MartinGocicMartinGocic 57 Pts   -  
  • EmilyRouseEmilyRouse 29 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @SkepticalOne And I'm saying, even with that 60%, you have no way of knowing if the fetus that is about to be aborted will be of the 40% or the 60%. To say because many fetuses die you can choose to terminate them doesn't work from a logical standpoint. I'm aware of miscarriages. A miscarriage is something, that, like an abortion, stops the fetus from being born. That doesn't mean a fetus won't be alive, or doesn't have that potential. You can't say that the fetus won't be born until it hasn't been born. Until it has been miscarried or aborted, the fetus will become alive. Does this clarify my point better? Even if not all of the unborn will become fully fleged individuals, we have no accurate way of knowing. So, what gives us the right to kill them, for our own selfish reasons, just because they MIGHT die. It's like a doctor saying to a patient with a 50/50 chance of living or dying "We're going to euthanise you now". Anyone has a chance of death. Death is the absence of life. You have to first have life to have death. This doesn't mean the fetus won't sustain life, or isn't an individual.
  • Dr_MaybeDr_Maybe 138 Pts   -  
    Jesus is Lord.

    If jesus is god that would mean jesus got his own mother who was also one of his own children, pregnant.


  • Dr_MaybeDr_Maybe 138 Pts   -  
    Actually,i think it can be easily proven that abortion is wrong. First of all,the majority of women who have aborted a child suffer from mental health issues as a result of that abortion. It creates a collosal chemical imbalance in her and ruins her mental and as a result physical health. Secondly, legalizing abortion means encouraging people to be careless and get into a situation such as having an unwanted child. Someone who is a grown-up and knows how to control and respect himself will never end up in a situation like that. Thirdly,sex is not a necessary human need like eating or drinking water. Many genious people have actually lived their lives without it and managed fine like Nikola Tesla for example. So, it is a matter of human lust and carelessness when an unwanted pregnancy occurs. And finally, killing a living human organism that has not yet fully formed is still murder. That child has been denied life,a chance to debate like us,a chance to experience having a family,job,love. It is killed,it will never feel anything ever.



    You suffer from the assumption that people are somehow special when what they really are is insignificant and inconsequential.




    Plaffelvohfen
  • @John_C_87 Again I'm not sure I understand. The overly complicated text is a bit uneccessary and confusing. An abortion is not an "amputation". It is a termination of a pregnancy. An abortion is the ending of an unborn life, not an amputation. The child is not a part of the womans body. It has it's own motor skills, own blood type, own genetic code. In no way is it a part of the mother.

    The overly complicated text is a bit unnecessary and confusing. An abortion is not an "amputation". It is a termination of a pregnancy. An abortion is the ending of an unborn life, not an amputation.

    A bit unnecessary No, confusing yes, the simple statement is the amputation is a removal on an abortion of ovulation, the united state of murder all woman share equally. The truth is all woman even so called Virgin’s kill babies as a united state by Pregnancy abortion. When the word abort is applied to all its proper context. All woman allow a living egg to die. Life starts at the egg and if not fertilized it dies. Men allow sperm to die in the same way this is a united state of America and other Nation’s in the world. There is a great deal on this state of the union so yes it is complicated even as basic principle.

    The complication is necessary as the detail is a description of the legal story of woman as they are connected to human pregnancies in a single specification. This single group is called a United State. Understand this correction and how it effects a woman’s constitutional right? A Female specific amputation is something only a woman can have done, Why? It starts with female. She might due it herself this is even different than saying female specific abortion. While yes, a baby’s life is ended the life lost is equal to the many lives all woman bear during their fertile life by allowing ovulation to continue as a new egg is to be created and destroyed, this is a female specifically aborted. This by all woman as a United State in truth.

    Two reasons exist that make a word such as amputation different from abortion in relationship to pregnancy. Self-incrimination is the biggest difference and is the legal precedent by standard of constitutional legislation. Pregnancy abortion is stating quite clearly as united state an official stop of life by all woman using the word. Justifying this process does not in united state fit all applications by the objection of woman.

    When assembling a formation of constitution we look for whole truth in a string of events that take place. Amputation is a fact, a truth to what takes place at a moment by what is known as general knowledge in united state with all woman. Woman as a United State have an obligation to the Supreme Court for describing a whole truth as it is discovered not desired. An amputation might be proven as an abortion as information is presented but the legal argument of entry into a Nation still exists.

    As a woman your argument with other woman is over the introduction of a citizen as a united state to the nation shared to live by all under the guidance of respective law. This is a United State all woman hold as a basic truth that is not self-incriminating. The death of a baby continually lives and dies inside them, a woman has one life a male has thousands of lives. Welcome to a United States of America and constitutional separation.

    The basic principle of woman in a united state that the balance that is created between single woman and married woman with pregnancies. In all maters of pregnancy the woman who has had a relationship with a male has benefit to discovery of information she may understand to be enough to deny the crossing of her border into her nation of residence. It is not a murder when the object of removal is to return the immigrant to their original port of origin and destination. This is a United State that all woman share.


  • @John_C_87

    I'm sorry, John, but I am having difficulty understanding if you are for or against the proposition. Kudos to you for taking on this challenging subject in (I assume) a language which is not your primary. 
    Correct, I do not speak or write fluent female. I am also not going to be limited by a system of operation which is unconstitutional in its grading process to its importance of communication as basic principle. My mother was a English teacher there was two ways that could have work out in a future, I obviously write the way words are still a human art not textbook. By the way it is the topic you do not understand, as a writer I simple bring a lot of the topic details that are not represented clearly.

    I am American we have a Declaration of Independence for England, and English common law remember?
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    As long as some people hold the (unfounded) belief that morality is objective, this debate will continue...

    I think one of the biggest problems with the abortion debate is that the two sides aren't in direct opposition. The pro-life movement seeks to force their moral beliefs on others - grounded in their own religion or personal philosophy. The pro-choice movement, as a whole, doesn't make claims on the morality of abortion - it leaves that as an individual choice for every woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy. If they feel abortion is wrong and they want to give their child up for adoption, or keep it, pro-choicers will support their decision. Pro-life people say "Abortion is wrong;" , Pro-choice only say "Abortion is." .

    Making abortion illegal won't stop abortions from happening, it will only stop them from being safe. 

    The single most important factor for women's advancement in society is their ability to control their fertility. Without that, they are trapped by the realities of pregnancy, childbirth and childbearing; rather than a privilege and a gift, these aspects of being female become an unbearable burden. Attempts to limit women's reproductive freedom are no more than a gambit to keep women "in their place"-- a gambit in the guise of religious moralism.

    True, the guise can run deep, and many so-called "pro-lifers" genuinely believe that killing a fetus is equivalent to killing a human being. But such religious feeling has no place in the public policies of a country that claims to separate church and state. In the words of supreme court justices O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." 

    Too many people avoid the core issue here... Does the right to life (A) creates (B) a right to use someone else body without continuous consent?.

    If one answers yes, he must be prepared and able to demonstrate the logical steps that allows us to absolutely infer B from A... 
    If B doesn't follow from A, then it's a settled matter and the right to abortion cannot be infringed upon... 

    All the rest are red herring, deflections, special pleading, fallacies and avoidance... It's as simple as that... 
    SkepticalOne
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @MartinGocic

    Thank you for demonstrating you have no arguments of any substance as you’re yet another typical bible thumping cretin 
  • MartinGocicMartinGocic 57 Pts   -  
    Dee
  • MartinGocicMartinGocic 57 Pts   -  
    @Dr_Maybe
    I would say rather imperfect
  • To say because many fetuses die you can choose to terminate them doesn't work from a logical standpoint.
    Agreed, but I've not said this. You have mistaken an objection to your reasoning as a counter argument using the same flawed reasoning. 
    Plaffelvohfen
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @MartinGocic

    Hey thanks for your new profile photo have you got one with your wife and kids as well?


    MartinGocicPlaffelvohfen
  • To say because many fetuses die you can choose to terminate them doesn't work from a logical standpoint.
    Agreed, but I've not said this. You have mistaken an objection to your reasoning as a counter argument using the same flawed reasoning. 
    First sorry for how the statement on misunderstanding went. You should note it is not me you do not understand it is the united state of crimes which is formed that you are making a claim of being incapable to understand. Pregnancy abortion is a lie as basic principle. How do we no this is fact a lie. It is instantly said to be untrue by way of alibi for the lie told.

     Yes, to say because many lives die does in fact work from the logical standpoint, allowing a power as existing president to stand as a state of liberty to woman is not murder. When the woman as a United state first chooses to kill children as unwed, unsexual active females the legal precedent held in not stopping known death in ovulation, there is a liberty be expectance set as legal precedent. A woman is being ask in basic principle to bring a person across the Untied States border at risk to her own safety. Even a male who helped conceive then turns to accusation a female of murder unless evidence of vindictive intent is obvious. Needs to show why a female alone must bear the weight of death on immigration precedent as united state. 


    The 2nd amendment right to bear arm is to Unite all woman as equal in the issue of pregnancy as united state. This includes with a Nation she lives as well.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • EmilyRouseEmilyRouse 29 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @Dr_Maybe
    No. They are all God, but they are all seperate persons.
  • EmilyRouseEmilyRouse 29 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 But an egg or sperm on its own isn't a life. It cannot become a life. On its own, an egg will NEVER become a individual human being. But when an egg is combined with a sperm, unless prevented, the embryo will become an individual human being. You see, abortion cannot be compared to a period or a spermicide, because individuality begins at conception. The individual genes are developed then.
  • EmilyRouseEmilyRouse 29 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen But abortion should never have been made necessary. I think abortion is wrong. Awful. But I don't want to suddenly make it illegal. That isn't the best solution. My argument is founded in morality, but I also gave the reasons people have abortions and why they shouldn't be necessary. Instead of fighting to make abortion legal, why not fight for better birth controls? Better health care? Better sex ed and financial aid for mothers? A better adoption system?
    If you saw this as murder, you'd understand.
    And, if the life is provided by the person hosting the life, does that not count as consent? After all, the woman had sex, causing her to concieve. Is that not consent for the child to be concieved? The unborn did not force its way into the womb, it was placed there by a process.
    And to say that an individual has a right to choose what is right and wrong isn't exactly the best decision. That being said, I don't choose that either. But I do know this; Because of abortion millions of people aren't here today. Because of abortion many babies where never born. Many futures now don't exist.
    You see? If something is morally wrong, how can I stand by and just let it be, when I know there are better options?
    I can't. I can't sit and watch this mass genocide.
    There are better ways to have woman's healthcare.
    There are better ways to have woman's rights.
    We don't NEED to kill our children. So why do we?
  • EmilyRouseEmilyRouse 29 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne
    So then how is my reasoning flawed? Because a fetus is already an individual, and will become an individual capable of thought and emotion as they are born and age? Miscarriage is an exception. A fetus that dies before it is ever able to achieve such things. Abortion is wrong because it forcefully prevents that life.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @EmilyRouse
    After all, the woman had sex, causing her to conceive. Is that not consent for the child to be conceived?

    No it's not... This notion is anchored in archaic religious puritanism...

     But I do know this; Because of abortion millions of people aren't here today.

    And your point is? 55.3 million people die each year, 151,600 people each day, 6,316 people each hour and by the time I finish typing this sentence more than 105 people will have died... People die, that is what they do... I could argue that giving birth is factually condemning someone to die, just at an arbitrary later time...

    Now, that said, I'm all in favor of better education & better healthcare as these would reduce the number of later term abortions as I do think that the sooner you decide to abort or not, the better... Not for some subjective notion of right or wrong but because later term abortion are more invasive and more of a trauma to the pregnant person...

    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne Gold Premium Member 1628 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @SkepticalOne
    So then how is my reasoning flawed? Because a fetus is already an individual, and will become an individual capable of thought and emotion as they are born and age? Miscarriage is an exception. A fetus that dies before it is ever able to achieve such things. Abortion is wrong because it forcefully prevents that life.
    A fetus is not an individual. If it were, it could go somewhere without mom. Also, it could be said condoms 'forcefully prevent life'. Nonetheless, they're good. ;-)
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • MartinGocicMartinGocic 57 Pts   -  
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @MartinGocic


    Excellent photo of what it means and to be American and a Christian you American Christians make hard line Muslims look almost normal such is your rabid hatred of everyone who’s not Christian and American
    Congrats about coming out of the closet regards your homosexuality,  I know how tough it must have been for you as an American Christian as you guys pretty much hate everyone and everything that’s different ......well done you .....
  • MartinGocicMartinGocic 57 Pts   -  
    @Dee
    lol
  • EmilyRouseEmilyRouse 29 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen
    Wait... so you're telling me.... sex... doesn't lead to pregnancy? Because that's what it does. And that's what it's always done for as long as humans have been alive. So having sex isn't consent to becoming pregnant, despite the fact that it is a process of procreation? I'm not seeing the issue here. It's like speeding in an area you know you'll get a ticket. Even if you don't want a ticket, you did what was necessary to get one. Why should the child be punished for the womans irresponsibility?
    And yes, you're correct, many people die. But are these deaths murder? Are they as easily preventable as abortions? Death is complex, and awful. Death's existence isn't exactly a justification for killing more people, however.
    PlaffelvohfenSkepticalOne
  • EmilyRouseEmilyRouse 29 Pts   -  
    @Dee
    I'm sorry. This just.. isn't true. American Christianity isn't a rabid hatred. I'm sorry if that's what's been shown through media. The problem is, people only see the crazy Christians. Because they are crazy. They make themselves seen.
    In all honesty? Most of us greatly dislike such people.
    Because American Christianity is about love.
    And as much as I may have used harsh words in this thread, I don't want to hold abortions against people. When I say I want abortion illegal, I don't want to punish woman for it. After all, does the woman preform the abortion? No. She is a victim of circumstance. Of emotion.
    It's a huge missconception that we are all hatred and anger. We do have opinions, they may be unpopular, but they are founded in love of the people. Because, from our minds, without such things you'll burn in hell. And we HATE that. I HATE the idea of people burning in hell.
    And I hate the people who make it seem like certain sins are worse then all the others.
    Murder is the same as lying; They're both evil.
    To condemn and hate isn't what we want.
    Christianity is about love; Love of everyone. For me, that includes the unborn.
    PlaffelvohfenDee
  • EmilyRouseEmilyRouse 29 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne
    But... a fetus IS an individual. They have unique genetic code that no one else has. 
    And a paralyzed person is dependent, as are people with other disabilities. Does this make them not individuals?
    Condoms do not prevent a life that has already begun. Condoms prevent fertilization. Fertilization is when life happens, or, at very least, the process of becoming life begins.
  • @John_C_87 But an egg or sperm on its own isn't a life. It cannot become a life. On its own, an egg will NEVER become a individual human being. But when an egg is combined with a sperm, unless prevented, the embryo will become an individual human being. You see, abortion cannot be compared to a period or a spermicide, because individuality begins at conception. The individual genes are developed then.
    In basic principle it is not a life?

    All that has been ever said in complex principles is a human egg is not a completed life. There is a great deal of effort made to ignore the basic principle of start. In all pregnancies a start takes place at the beginning of life. A united state is allowed to be shown in all woman as equal, even when some woman refuse to do so when preserving American United States Constitution. Do woman have a dually elected Presadera who will take the stand in a court of law, under oath and so swear/affirm that a beginning is not at the start of when all things take place?

    Other then cloning there is no documented records that life starts for a human any other way from woman as united state. Human Egg?
    In basic principle what is being argued is that a woman has a United State Constitutional right to share with all Nation not just America a use of lethal force to defend their nation from wrongful trespass as united state. The ending of life is not a murder when the plan is to return the person to a place of original origin. This is a united state for all woman.
  • Dr_MaybeDr_Maybe 138 Pts   -  
    @Dr_Maybe
    No. They are all God, but they are all seperate persons.
    So your argument is because a fairy-tale says so?

    Plaffelvohfen
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    @EmilyRouse
    Wait... so you're telling me.... sex... doesn't lead to pregnancy? Because that's what it does.
    Nope... You're reading what you want to read here, not what is actually written... What I wrote is that having sex is consent for sex, not for pregnancy... The fact that having sex may lead to pregnancy (on average 78 intercourses are needed for that) is irrelevant. This idea that a "life" begins at conception or that soul exists are religious fabulations that have no place in any non-theocratic country that established a wall of separation between State and Religion...
    Death is complex, and awful.
    Why would you say that? Death is quite simple, one moment you're alive and the next you're not, simple enough imo... As for it being "awful", that's a subjective claim as it is neither good nor bad, it just is...
    Because, from our minds, without such things you'll burn in hell. And we HATE that. I HATE the idea of people burning in hell.
    Then stop believing in that nonsense... Hell is a religious fabulation that exist only in your mind at the moment, it has no anchor in reality...
    Dee
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @SkepticalOne
    But... a fetus IS an individual. They have unique genetic code that no one else has. 
    And a paralyzed person is dependent, as are people with other disabilities. Does this make them not individuals?
    Condoms do not prevent a life that has already begun. Condoms prevent fertilization. Fertilization is when life happens, or, at very least, the process of becoming life begins.

    Genetic uniqueness makes no difference. If it did then identical twins which develop from a single fertilized egg (and share the same genotype) would be an individual. A huge quantity of clones would also be an individual. This is a distortion of what it means to be an individual.

    Dependency on other humans makes no difference either. Being an individual is about the capacity to be singular or separate. A paralyzed person has this capacity.

    Condoms have the same effect as abortion: A new person continues to not exist. Speaking of fertilization, are you aware some types of birth control stop implantation rather than fertilization...is this abortion in your eyes?
    PlaffelvohfenDee
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @EmilyRouse

    I'm sorry. This just.. isn't true. American Christianity isn't a rabid hatred. I'm sorry if that's what's been shown through media. 


    Really? This site has a large proportion of American Christians and most of the posts from such are nasty , petty and vicious as they demonize anyone who doesn’t accept their particular world views.

    Most American Christians on here are also Trump supporters and how anyone can actually think that if Jesus walked the Earth again how in anyway way he would find Trump an admirable leader for Christians to follow is beyond me.

    American Christians seem to think that Jesus would be in favour of Christians carrying a gun , denying fellow humans Universal health care , denying social welfare and social housing to the unemployed yet favoring spending billions on a military machine , I’m an Atheist yet in favour of all these measures as I see myself as a humanist yet American Christians brand me a commie for holding such views.

    You guys have reinvented Jesus his message and his image into a gun toting all American ignoramus who despises anyone who dares suggest any social policy that may alleviate the suffering of fellow humans 

    Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @EmilyRouse

    Condoms do not prevent a life that has already begun. Condoms prevent fertilization. Fertilization is when life happens, or, at very least, the process of becoming life begins.


    To use your logic condoms  prevent a potential life coming into being , to be consistent how do you logically defend such?

    I used to be a Catholic at least they were consistent in the view that the use of contraception was morally wrong and the use of codoms was banned in Catholic countries 

    Plaffelvohfen
  • EmilyRouseEmilyRouse 29 Pts   -  
    @Dee Because a condom prevents the sperm from reaching the egg. Sperm on it's own cannot become alive just as an egg on its own cannot. A person cannot be born without both egg and sperm. Thus, condoms aren't abortive, because sperm are not individual living beings, and neither are eggs.
  • EmilyRouseEmilyRouse 29 Pts   -  
    @Dee
    I'm again sorry this is your experience. As for Jesus' values on modern issues; I don't know what he'd say. But I do know he'd do everything in love. Even when I hold different views, I'm not here to hold views against people. I just want to discuss problems and topics of interest so I can have a better understanding of peoples issues and possible solutions to such problems.
    But at it's heart, TRUE Christianity is love.
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