Ever wonder why Liberals are pro life for mass murderers & pro death for viable babies? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Ever wonder why Liberals are pro life for mass murderers & pro death for viable babies?
in Politics

Can there be anything more backward than this misplaced compassion from the Left?

First thing they always say when fighting for a mass murderer's right to life is that there have been innocent people executed in the past. EVERY UNBORN BABY IS INNOCENT!

Next thing they will say is that we are no better than the murderers if we execute them. If that is true, why do you support executing viable unborn babies for any reason when voting for politicians who vow to keep No Restriction abortions legal?

This truly shows the misplaced priorities of the Left.

Their so called compassion only applies to those who do not become burdens on their lives. Unwanted babies are an inconvenience so therefore their lives are expendable. We have this thing called birth control if you do not want to get pregnant! In the rare chance the birth control fails, there are millions of parents looking to adopt newborns.

If you are so worried about the rare chance an innocent person is executed, put your efforts towards new laws that would only allow the death penalty when 100% of guilt is assured.

One thing we know for sure. 100% of all unborn babies are innocent of any crime. Try holding a midnite vigil for them just once in your life.
PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42piloteerAlofRIHappy_Killbot



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 1134 Pts
    edited February 7
    You really need to learn the difference between the far left and liberalism.

    And if you think all abortion cases are murder because of the potential for life then you better give up sex completely. Because each time you engage in intercourse or any other sexual related activity  you are using something up of your body that that may have had the potential to make life!
    PlaffelvohfenDeeWe_are_accountablesmoothiepiloteerkenpageAlofRI









  • AmpersandAmpersand 743 Pts
    edited February 7
    You mean fetuses. You have to be born to be a baby.

    Fetuses have no personality, sapience, ability to feel pain (before the third trimester which is the USA cut-off for abortions anyway) or any of the other key features that we share as humans and which serve as the basis for why we treat each other with dignity, respect and worthy of the basic human rights that everyone shares. As such, why would we care about aborting fetuses if we don't happen to be part of a religious sect that insists on it? 
    DeePlaffelvohfenZeusAres42We_are_accountablepiloteerAlofRI
  • DeeDee 1491 Pts
    ***** Unwanted babies are an inconvenience so therefore their lives are expendable. We have this thing called birth control if you do not want to get pregnant! In the rare chance the birth control fails, there are millions of parents looking to adopt newborns.

     Unwanted fetuses are not wanted so therefore their lives are expendable

    Funny you’re all for birth control which is to prevent  a potential birth taking place just like abortion 
  • That's because Progressive-Democrats have the mind of Satan.
    smoothieAlofRIkenpage
  • You just spewed pure deception.

    Fetus is the medical name for an unborn baby! The name has nothing to do with the pronouncement of life.
    Science has declared that life begins at conception! Are you a Science denier?
    The Democrat Party supports No Restriction abortions which includes LATE TERM babies that DO feel pain!

    Try learning the facts about issues you address.@Ampersand
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfenpiloteerAlofRI
  • Science has stated that life begins at conception.
    You must be another Science denier.@ZeusAres42
    Happy_KillbotpiloteerZeusAres42AlofRIsmoothie
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 1125 Pts
    edited February 7
    @We_are_accountable

    Have we had this discussion about the consequences of calling a fetus a person because it is alive?

    If a fetus is a person, then you commit suicide millions of times a day, because your body has natural killer cells that destroy unhealthy and damaged cells.

    On top of this, it would imply that stillbirths and miscarriages are murder.

    How about instead of appealing to science  as a fallacy, you except that science doesn't tell you what you are supposed to do only what is true.
    PlaffelvohfenDeepiloteerAlofRIreubunny123
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 1134 Pts
    edited February 7

    Read closely and try to comprehend: if you think all abortion cases are murder because of the potential for life then you better give up sex completely. Because of each time you engage in intercourse or any other sexual related activity  you are using something up of your body that may have had the potential to make life!

    Also, please point me to the scientist or scientists that say life begins at conception. Oh, and good luck finding them.
    PlaffelvohfenDeepiloteerHappy_Killbot









  • @We_are_accountable

    An unborn baby is not yet a baby, just like an un-assembled car is not yet a car, or your un-issued paycheck is not yet a paycheck.

    Would be nice if it was the other way around and I could cash in on all my future paychecks right now... "Hey, guys, I am happy to be a customer of your bank. See, I will make a billion dollars 20 years from now, but I want to take the billion right now. Please hand it over to me right now; I believe that you are not pro-robbery and hence will treat me with respect. Thanks, and pleasure doing business with you!"
    Happy_KillbotsmoothieDeepiloteer
  • @Dee. Wrong, we're for birth control because it prevents a life from being created.

    Abortion ends the life of a human that already has been created.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 183 Pts
    edited February 7
    @MayCaesar. Except the development of a paycheck is different than the developement of a human.

    A human is not fully developed until their 20s, so are they not yet a human until then either.  The comparisons you made dont match.
    Plaffelvohfensmoothie
  • DeeDee 1491 Pts
    @MichaelElpers


    ****  Wrong, we're for birth control because it prevents a life from being created.

    You’re preventing a potential child from being born,  abortion does the very same thing 
  • You just spewed pure deception.

    Fetus is the medical name for an unborn baby! The name has nothing to do with the pronouncement of life.
    Science has declared that life begins at conception! Are you a Science denier?
    The Democrat Party supports No Restriction abortions which includes LATE TERM babies that DO feel pain!

    Try learning the facts about issues you address.@Ampersand
    Name one thing I said wrong?

    For the first point you seem to agree with me!. You're right, the name has nothing to do with the pronouncement of life: It's called a fetus regardless and you were wrong to say babies to try and evoke a cheap emotional response. Regardless of life, it's a stone cold fact that we're talking about fetuses here.                                                                                                                                 

    Also "life" is irrelevant here. In my explanation did I at any point reference "life" or did I give the basis of my rationale as revolving around "personality, sapience, ability to feel pain"? It was the latter, so please don't strawman me because your argument here does nothing to rebut my points. If you can't answer my points then concede, don't pretend that I talked about how fetuses aren't alive when I said no such thing - it makes you look deranged and desperate.

    As for the "life" argument, as you bring it up: a bacteria has life. A carrot has life. A chicken has life. To have gotten to the age you are, thousands if not millions of living things have had to die often just for your convenience rather than any real need (think any piece of clothing you've ever had that's used leather). Life by itself is meaningless and doesn't matter, that's no reason to stop the abortion of a fetus just like the death of hundreds bacteria is no reason not to clean your kitchen with anti-bacterial spray after it's got in a mess. There have to be more qualifiers than life before we care - such as the ones I mentioned and which fetuses lack.

    Lastly, as for the democrat part - I'm not a democrat or even a liberal and didn't reference them at any point, so again my "pure deception" is completely imaginary and only exists in your head because you'd rather rant then actually engage with my argument.  But I assume you're buying into the Republican lies about babies feeling pain at 20 weeks when that actually only occurs in the 3rd trimester (e.g. from 27-28 weeks onwards). Time limits on abortion are a state matter, not federal, and the vast majority of states have limits at either viability or 20-25 weeks. Although in some states abortions can occur after 30 weeks, a pregnancy is only 40 weeks long and almost all abortions occur well before  fetus can feel pain - so just for the record as "pain" is your issue, are you saying you're happy with the 99+% of abortions which occur before 30 weeks old (the point where fetuses develop the ability to feel pain)
    PlaffelvohfenpiloteerWe_are_accountable
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 183 Pts
    edited February 7
    @Dee
    An anthlete can win fair and square or by cheating.  Either way they are winning, but one is right and the other wrong.

    Having the same outcome doesnt mean all of the means are equivalent.
    PlaffelvohfenDee
  • DeeDee 1491 Pts
    edited February 7
    @MichaelElpers

    *** An anthlete can win fair and square or by cheating.  Either way they are winning, but one is right and the other wrong.

    A dreadful analogy we are not talking about athletes or cheating 

    *****Having the same outcome doesnt mean all of the means are equivalent.

    It’s pretty clear cut to me , both options are preventing a birth taking place this you cannot deny  can you?
  • @MayCaesar. Except the development of a paycheck is different than the developement of a human.

    A human is not fully developed until their 20s, so are they not yet a human until then either.  The comparisons you made dont match.
    Paychecks are also not fully "developed" until you reach the age of approximately 50, when the pay amount tends to peak. There is a difference, however, between something being a not fully "developed" paycheck, and a non-existing paycheck.

    A paycheck appears the moment you can cash in on your money. Similarly, a baby appears the moment you give birth. There is no baby until then, and there is no paycheck until then.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 183 Pts
    edited February 7
    @MayCaesar A baby appears the moment you give birth...no it doesnt. 

    Your analogys here just arent good.
  • @Dee. How is it a dreadful analogy.  It proves the point that just because  an outcome is the same doesnt mean all the actions leading up to it are equivalent.

    Both prevent a birth, only one prevents a pregnancy. 

    Still besides the point.  The point is the end doesnt justify the means.  And not all means are equivalent in nature.
  • DeeDee 1491 Pts
    edited February 8


    ******. How is it a dreadful analogy. 

    I told you why 

    ****It proves the point that just because  an outcome is the same doesnt mean all the actions leading up to it are equivalent.

    The actions regarding contraception  are based on the one reason prevention of child birth , only it's more calculating with contraception

    ****Both prevent a birth, only one prevents a pregnancy.  

    So what? Both set out to do one thing 

    ******Still besides the point.  The point is the end doesnt justify the means. 

    It's very on point , who is one "justifying " to?

    Also that's just your opinion not shared by those involved 

    ***** And not all means are equivalent in nature.

    Why is "equivalency " important?

    As a Catholic are you for contraception?



    AlofRI
  • DeeDee 1491 Pts
    @MichaelElpers

    After the eighth week and until the moment of birth, your developing baby is called a fetus.
  • @Dee. Ive already answered the contraception question before...yes as long as it prevents conception and not implantation.

    What it is called was irrelevant to what we were arguing, but The baby and the fetus remain the same person/entity their entire life. Im not looking to argue the main abortion argument as weve done that before.

    Again the main point i was arguing was that your sentiment that because something produces the same outcome, any actions producing that outcome must have the moral value is obviously wrong.
  • DeeDee 1491 Pts
    @MichaelElpers

    *****  Ive already answered the contraception question before...yes as long as it prevents conception and not implantation.

    That to me is illogical 

    ***What it is called was irrelevant to what we were arguing, but The baby and the fetus remain the same person/entity their entire life. 

    Really ? Ok . So what?

    ******Im not looking to argue the main abortion argument as weve done that before.

    Yes 

    ****Again the main point i was arguing was that your sentiment that because something produces the same outcome, any actions producing that outcome must have the moral value is obviously wrong.

    I never mentioned moral value as that’s merely a subjective opinion and has nothing whatsoever to do with I’m saying.

    You also said ...... The point is the end doesnt justify the means. 

    I asked justify to who? You never answered

    Why is "equivalency " important?

    As a Catholic are you for contraception?


  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 183 Pts
    edited February 9
    @Dee. The morality is what is important, i usee equivalent just to say they arent equal.

    Not sure how my view on contraception is illogical of i believe life begins at conception.

    Justify to who... i guess a moral society that gives people the right to live. Someone might feel justified to kill or steal from someone, that doesnt mean they are.


  • Are you serious? You are comparing bacteria to a living human life? How can any rational person have an intelligent argument with that type of thinking? That would be like putting sperm on the same level as a person after they are born! GET REAL!

    Why do you continually talk about the medical name of a human life? We all know the answer, you want to dehumanize that unborn human life by using it's medical name.

    You keep talking about 3rd trimester abortions where babies feel pain and deny that babies can feel pain at 21 weeks. Try reading some facts please...

    https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-science-of-fetal-pain/

    Do you konw how many abortions are performed a year in the US? Approximately 900,000.
    So if there are approx. 1 to 2% late term abortions per year, that would be approximately 1000 abortions of babies that do feel pain!

    The Democrat Party has not found an unborn baby at ANY STAGE worth protecting. When the GOP tried to compromise and pass a 20 week abortion limit (still allowing exxtreme cases), Democrats voted it down!
    Did you see the Democrat Party compromising and giving a 3rd trimester limit to abortions? NO!
    They are tied at the hip with radical Pro abortion lobbies and absolutely refuse to protect any baby at any stage for any reason! NOT ONE!

    If you vote for these extremists, you are culpable for a thousand babies, WHO DO FEEL PAIN, being killed.

    How many viable babies, that do feel pain, are you OK with killing?
    One? 10? 100? Why is it that people such as yourself do not demand that all Policians set limits on killing our viable babies?

    I am not happy with any baby being killed regardless his age. Science has determined that a human life begins at conception. I am not a Science denier.
    The only abortions I support are life of mother. The reason I speak to late term abortions is because that separates the Democrat Party from the GOP.@Ampersand
  • Firstly, how exactly do you murder a zygote? A mass of cells with no brain and no nervous system. let's examine exactly what is going on with this.  You likely think that an invisible man in the sky waves his magic wand and inserts a soul at conception. Therefore aborting this mass of cells equals murder.  And you likely think this despite the lack of a shred of credible evidence that either this invisible man or souls exist (let alone proof). In a rational world, we would be justified in calling you a lunatic. But no, we live in a world where this kind of madness has been normalized and sanctioned. We can laugh at those who claim abduction by aliens by not at those who believe in an invisible sky-god. Profess to have talked with fairies and ridden on unicorns and you might wind up institutionalized. In my country, say you talk to God every day and believe a man rose from the grave and not only will you be thought normal, but you might also wind up President.

    My point is that if that is your argument, you have a lot of work to do finding enough evidence to make that argument valid (note you would not only need to present evidence that God exists. You would also have to present evidence that your particular wand wielding super sky-magician (presumably Christian) God existed). 

     By the way. I could counter by saying that right-wingers only care about life before birth. Afterward, they couldn't give a . 


    You really do reveal your extremism by using  "Mass-murderers" in your headline. So far I have refrained from calling Republicans mass-murders for deaths that have occurred due to holding an entire population hostage to for-profit health care, deaths due to GOP opposition to and elimination of environmental protections, work safety regulations and other deregulation, deaths resulting from starting an unnecessary war under false pretenses, deaths that will result from the GOP's climate change denial... So how about returning the courtesy. 
  • NopeNope 359 Pts
    We_are_accountable
    The problem with the current political landscape is that unrelated ideas get put together in one party causing a lack in focus. A change to the voting structure could allow for the creation of more major party's. I suppose I am getting of topic. There are many ways at looking at the issue of abortion. If we choose to look at abortion though a pure science prospective there are many implications that banning abortion may have. First we should question how we value life. A fetus in the late stage of development is likely capable of some level of feeling, thinking and remembering. If we are to make the statement that the life of fetuses should be protect almost always we should consider how this applies to other animals. Many other animals are capable of the same and more advanced cognitive functions and are killed by humans. There is an argument that killing animals for food or hunting is of more importance then many abortions are, weather it be because of a economical, cultural or other element. There is also the argument that abortion but also these other animals should be protected. Another prospective relates to the potential of a fetus. This is not the same argument that relates to protecting future generations as that argument often assumes that the future generations will for sure exist. This argument is based on the idea that the potential alone is justification for protecting fetuses or "possible future humans". Then there is the idea that something separates a human from other animals even in there early stages of development whether it be a "soul" or "cultural superiority". This is perhaps the most complicated idea to debate as there is less scientific evidence on this subject and a wide range of ideas that lead to this argument that are part of a bigger debates then abortion. It is possible (likely even) that I am falling to acknowledge some other argument or point of view or oversimplify these ideas to the point of hurting them but I am going to stop here.
    We_are_accountable
  • First of all, Science says a human life begins at conception, so when you call an unborn baby "potential life" you are denying Science.

    Most animals do not kill their young, so humans have devolved into this self absorbed place whereby convenience supercedes a life.

    If you watch nature shows, you will see that most living creatures kill other creatures for food to survive. If you believe in evolution, then this is how nature is suppose to be.

    If you believe in evolution, then the so called human animal has evolved to a point whereby it rebels against the natural roles of males and females. Feminists rebel against the natural roles of mothers and fathers. Mothers have breasts meant for breast feeding newborns, but Feminists deny these natural roles and say that men can be stay at home moms as well. Men are physically stronger to provide for their family, but Feminsists say no!
    LGBT groups rebel against the natural Biological design of our bodies.

    So I guess I'm saying that human beings are more selfish and barbaric toward our offspring then animals. Animals do not rebel against their nature and instinct. People do!@Nope
    smoothie
  • AlofRIAlofRI 462 Pts
    @We_are_accountable

    Have we had this discussion about the consequences of calling a fetus a person because it is alive?

    If a fetus is a person, then you commit suicide millions of times a day, because your body has natural killer cells that destroy unhealthy and damaged cells.

    On top of this, it would imply that stillbirths and miscarriages are murder.

    How about instead of appealing to science  as a fallacy, you except that science doesn't tell you what you are supposed to do only what is true.
    I have to disagree with you here, Happy. FW (@We_are_accountable), obviously has no "natural killer cells that destroy unhealthy and damaged cells" …. she's still here. :smirk:
  • NopeNope 359 Pts
    We_are_accountable
    The belief in evolution has no relation to a belief in how things are supposed to be. The belief that natural evolution should be the guiding principle in how people should behave holds a personal ideal element. A belief in evolution is a conclusion drawn from analysis with no personal ideal element involved. 

    Humans evolved under a relatively slow changing world and as such are well suited for life 12,000 years ago. If assume that the most popular scientific theories are accurate then humans have only been constructing building and farming for 12,000 years. If we consider the projected human birthrate over that last 12,000 years as well as how often Genes are alter between generations then there has been insufficient time for humans to evolve to be suited for are current state of development. Human development is currently progressing faster then genetic evolution. If the well being of people and the human races is the primary concern then how humans have evolved in the past is of little concern compared with how humans are now.

    The problem with looking at the average male and female in the ways you have is that you take statements like "Men are physically stronger" and apply it to a massive population of people with many overlaps. This view creates a structure to rigid to optimized the outcome for all involved as it is not accurate or relevant enough.

    "LGBT" groups do not rebel agents there instinct. What gender you are sexually attracted to is instinctual. One can argue these instincts are a genetic defect and thous these instincts should be ignored however I see little reason why. This group is insignificant enough to have a real effect on the continuation of the human race if that is the concern. What behavior is allowed and expected of the "LGBT" group may however have a effect on there mental state in negative ways which would be my primary concern.

    In many ways humans behave more barbaric and selfish toward many animals then animals do.
    Do you believe there is any reasons we should only worry about young humans or are you agents humans treatment of many other animals as well?
    We_are_accountablesmoothie
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2803 Pts
    edited February 9
    @We_are_accountable

    The natural role of humans is to run around with spears, hunting animals, pick berries and sleep in makeshift tents made of leaves. Is this how you live? I guess not, otherwise you would not be able to post here.
    Wanting everything "natural" makes no sense, as virtually all progress we have achieved has been a result of us breaking away from the hundreds million years of natural evolution and taking the matters into our own hands.

    It is good to acknowledge the natural biological roles of males and females and that statistically most people are going to be happier fulfilling those roles than not doing so - however, thinking that preserving this natural order is inherently a good thing just because it is natural is fallacious.

    As for what animals rebel against or not, be careful there... Ever heard about the spiders among which females eat males alive after sexual intercourse? I would venture it is more barbaric than anything humans in the First World nowadays are considering legalising. Or how about sharks which reproduce via eggs, the overwhelming majority of babies of which die in the first few days since hatching, literally abandoned by the parents to evolve on their own?
    Barbaric treatment of pre-babies and babies runs in nature. Humans are actually the least barbaric ones, as we have developed methods to make the abortion process virtually painless for both the host and the fetus. This is not something that happens often in nature.

    This whole vilification of humanity happening today in virtually all parts of the political spectrum has never made sense to me. By pretty much any reasonable metric, humans are the least brutal animals on this planet. All the wars we have ever had pale in comparison to what happens in nature on the everyday basis. Animals are constantly killing each other in very painful and ruthless ways; they leave their babies and peers to die, fleeing without a fight; they prioritise stronger members of herds and allow others to die; they do not tend to the wounded or disabled and leave them to die; they constantly physically fight over fertile females, afterwards group-forcing themselves on these females, not caring about their well-being and sometimes killing them in the process...
    Be glad to be a human. Should you happen to be a different animal after reincarnation, you will miss your human days a lot.
    smoothie
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 1134 Pts
    edited February 9
    @We_are_accountable I take it you couldn't find any scientist or scientists that state life begins at conception? Well, let me make it a bit easier for you. Life actually begins way before conception. Eggs are alive, sperm is alive and so much more is alive way before the time a couple even considers having a baby together.









  • Another Science denier.

    I can't debate people who refuse to accept the natural order to life. No one is saying to denegrate LGBT people. We are telling you to stop indoctrinating our children to deny the natural Science of Biology. Chldren should be taught the natural normal design of our bodies, not be indoctrinated with people having disorders.

    You would rather indoctrinate our children to deny Science rather than having LGBT groups feeling insecure about themselves. You would rather raise up an entire generation of children with lies and deceptions rather then accepting reality. We already know that many Transgenders who have gone through all the surgeries and lifelong drugs, feel no better about themselves. THEY HAVE DISORDERS!

    I guess you would also want Pedophiles, who also say they are born that way, feel better about themselves. They also say they have no choice in their attractions for children, but would not break the law.@Nope
    smoothie
  • @We_are_accountable

    Define "natural order of life". Humans have evolved naturally and then used the result of evolution to systematise certain natural behaviors under the LGBT label. What is that mysterious "Science of Biology" that is a tautology, and what exactly does it say about something being natural or unnatural? Link some peer-reviewed papers if you please.

    And you are right, pedophilia also natural, and as long as pedophiles do not act on their feelings, there is no issue. You are making the argument for yourself, and it leads you to the place you do not accept. You should accept logic, buddy, even if it leads you to a conclusion you dislike. That is what logic is like: it does not care about your feelings.
    smoothie
  • NopeNope 359 Pts
    We_are_accountable
    Science refers to conclusions and theories that relate to the state of things derived by observation and analysis. The "natural order" is a matter of philosophy not science. It relates to moral and ideals which are project by people onto the world. Personal ideals have no relation to science. "Male and female sexes have reproductive organs suited for procreation with each other " is a scientific statement. "This is the natural order" is not a scientific statement as it holds no relation to science.

    I require information on how you think children are being indoctrinated.


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 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
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch