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.





Would reversing abortion laws bankrupt the U.S.?

2



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian
    Many reproduction accidents are also irresponsible.  At least 50% of unwanted pregnancies do not use any contraception.

    Show one.  My parish specifically sponsered a women.  My brother in laws family let a woman live with them for several years rent free.  You can search charities for this problem, most of the ones that come up are christian.

    Trying to change someones thinking doesnt make an inquisition.  You may think its idol worship but they do not.  They arent forcing you to believe it, that is what makes something facist.
  • @GnosticChristian ;

    Yes, the is self-incrimination stays even when conducted in nations where abortions are legal. As abortion is not legal, the laws which are criminal are simply not prosecuted when undertaken. The claim made by self-incrimination is not able to be simply said to be legal.  By a Supreme Court ruling, the creator of crime was the invasion of privacy not the lie of murder that is said to take place. Had a proper state of the union been made with the wording a different legislated outcome would have taken place without a careless practice of negligence. Female-specific amputation is not abortion. Prejudice between women is to be as important as the prejudice between men and women.

    I was not using accident for the abortion. Our friend introduced the word for the accidental pregancy.
    You are not considering any crime the united state created form invasion of privacy either.
    You are not using the united state of illegal immigration created by pregnancy either. As it is the woman's life that is exposed to danger by this immigration alone.
    GnosticChristian
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian
    Many reproduction accidents are also irresponsible.  At least 50% of unwanted pregnancies do not use any contraception.

    Show one.  My parish specifically sponsered a women.  My brother in laws family let a woman live with them for several years rent free.  You can search charities for this problem, most of the ones that come up are christian.

    Trying to change someones thinking doesnt make an inquisition.  You may think its idol worship but they do not.  They arent forcing you to believe it, that is what makes something facist.
    Your first shows the stupidity and irresponsibility of those engaging in those sex acts, --- and you want such and irresponsible childish people to raise their children. IOWs you want incompetent and irresponsible children to raise children, --- and think that that would be their best end. Give your head a shake my friend.

    Your parish sponsored a woman. Great. How many abortions came out of your parish because the parents would not step up to help?

    I have personally known a couple of kids whose parents turned their backs completely and disowned their children. Yes, they were Christians. Regardless, such anecdotal rendering are nothing compared to the stats.

    To your saying most help comes from Christians is too un-informed for me to bother with. You forget that most abortions are to Christians in your country, so if we are going strait statistics, atheists and non-believers should pay less than you Christians, because you abort way more babies than the non-believers.


    To your last.
    Trying to change the minds of people by force of law and that violence, because Christians do not have decent moral arguments or help to change the girls mind, is exactly what an inquisition is all about. If you do not like that analogy then think of the witch burnings your religion did as perhaps a better analogy given that your religion targeted women and murdered many with tests that were impossible to pass. 

    Nice that these days, you and your religion cannot just murder us the way most Christians would still like to do.

    Be proud of your bloody murderous heritage, genocidal god and homophobic and misogynous satanic religion.

    Regards
    DL




     







  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian. I think the children would rather be raised by them or adopted then killed.  Its hilarious that people always use this argument but i have yet to see all the people committing suicide because they were born into misfortune, seems like theyd rather live.

    I only gave you anecdotal evidence because you specifically asked me to cite where ive seen it.  Meanwhile you act like you have stats on your side while not citing a single one.

    "Ive personally known christian parents who have turned their back on their children"...Anecdotal is it not?  Also i never claimed all Christians are perfect, in fact none of us are, but a lot of these people claim to be Christian but dont practice it at all, and that is not the message sent out by Catholicism at least and most Christian religions.

    How many abortions have came out of my parish...i havent heard of any.

    We do have decent moral arguments, in fact when i argue against abortion i never cite religion, its just harder to convince people when staying ignorant makes your life easier.  Just like slavery, there were plenty of good arguments against it, but it is easy for those who want to keep their way of life to disregard them.

    Lol yes we want to murder everyone, you got me.
    GnosticChristian
  • @GnosticChristian ;

    Okay. so you do not agree a united state can take place in legislation making a crime transferable between any number of nations, the agreement is not necessary. If crime can not hold a united state then why is the argument of murder described by abortion even an international issue,  Why, is it because we recognize the basic idea the self-incrimination said in writing murder may be true, and that is the only reason? The argument of who might pay for female-specific amputations will go on without the self-incrimination set upon all women, abortion and the abolishment of the prejudiced inside the issue would not change the direction of the Supreme Court ruling at all. The direction taken by interpretation was wrong after 1973 and a moral compass is being used to address that correction.

    The religious argument is a fallacy to hide and allow the wrongful practice of law.

  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
     seems like theyd rather live.

    You may not be aware of the epidemic of suicide of children that has many worried and working on solutions to so many young taking their own lives.

    That happens a lot more in the lower classes that will grow if abortion laws are reversed.

    Regards
    DL

  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    @GnosticChristian ;

    Okay. so you do not agree a united state can take place in legislation making a crime transferable between any number of nations, the agreement is not necessary. If crime can not hold a united state then why is the argument of murder described by abortion even an international issue,  Why, is it because we recognize the basic idea the self-incrimination said in writing murder may be true, and that is the only reason? The argument of who might pay for female-specific amputations will go on without the self-incrimination set upon all women, abortion and the abolishment of the prejudiced inside the issue would not change the direction of the Supreme Court ruling at all. The direction taken by interpretation was wrong after 1973 and a moral compass is being used to address that correction.

    The religious argument is a fallacy to hide and allow the wrongful practice of law.


    Every nation has it's own set of laws so I cannot give a blanket agreement. I have not compared all the laws.

    Some nations have implemented theistic laws and outlawed atheism and I see that as the wrong practice of law.

    As to calling abortion murder; foolishness.

    If a pregnant woman goes skating and falls and kills her fetus, she is not charged with murder by neglect. Even if a woman aborts herself purposely, no murder charge is laid.

    the inappropriate use of the word murder in our discussion makes me hesitate to say much more on your views.

    Regards
    DL


       
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian

    Im not aware because it doesnt exist.  Suicide rate is highest among middle aged white men.  Suicide rate in U.S. is slightly trending up but it is hardly a pandemic. 

     Suicide rate among the white community is higher than in the black community.

    If you are a mother the liklihood of commiting suicide is also lower.

    Also if you look at suicides by country you can see suicide rate is often higher among the wealthier countries than the more impoverished ones.

    Anyways you dont have stats to back up that statement.  I guess the number of suicides may increase because their be more people that had the ability to do it, but abortion automatically kills them so the death rate is 100%.

    https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/

    https://www.gulfbend.org/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=13737&cn=9

    https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/suicide-rate-by-country/
    GnosticChristian
  • @GnosticChristian ;

    As to calling abortion murder; foolishness.
    No, it is not foolish. The idea is backward and not calling any admission to murder anything but murder itself without a trial is foolishness.  To call Female-specific amputation a murder is foolish.

    Every nation has it's own set of laws so I cannot give a blanket agreement. I have not compared all the laws.
    Ah, yeah you can give a blanket agreement, you, in fact, have been doing just that all along up till this question. Using the words all laws describe a practice of avoiding the very understanding created with abortion already taking place. A crime can hold a united state between nations as countries share levels of murder along with many other laws by legislation, even when they do not share the idea of returning people to other counties to allowing trials to take place.

    The inappropriate use of the word murder in our discussion makes me hesitate to say much more on your views.
    Not my view at all, it is your view. The inappropriate use of the word abortion in any debate makes you hesitate to say much more on the view created by the official stop a rephrased idea of lethal force claimed in the process of authority when aborting.

    The only thing inappropriate is a 50-year wait for women or men to create equality by the creator of the united state taking place between pregnancy and birth. I am clear, my view is clear, female-specific amputation is clear of self-incrimination, it is well clear of murder. It simply does not say it is murder from the beginning of any official action taken. This isn't an Abbot and Costello comity routine, who's not on first and in fact who has been sent to the dugout with the pitcher prejudice.
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
    M E

    There is a lot of information against you and for my side in terms of statistics.

    This link speaks to the cause of the large increase in suicide.



    This link was working for me but my new system does not seem to want to work on it.

    It has links that show how seriously the skyrocketing rates in on young are being taken.

    https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/30816-sadhguru-on-50-suicide-nihilism-and-self-help/

    Your stats show an escalation of suicide rates and helped make my case. Thanks.

    Regards
    DL
  • @GnosticChristian
     
    To be clear. People who believe that all termination of pregnancy is abortion and not female-specific amputation are telling a lie. The lie is used to invade the privacy of women as a united state, all women can be created equal by the union made between them of pregnancy and birth. I agree it did not have to be the phrase female-specific amputation, I disagree it in any way had to be an abortion.
    GnosticChristian
  • @GnosticChristian ;
    That happens a lot more in the lower classes that will grow if abortion laws are reversed.
    I just want to understand this clearly. The reason that a reverse that should have never taken place must be allowed to continue is so fewer people will be brought into a nation by way of immigration as birth. Meanwhile, the governing over the regulation of immigration is simply restructured to removed discrimination that takes place between all women as a whole. Abortion laws have been legislated backward all along so they are reversed right now as legislated by the different states.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian. A small increase is far from a pandemic or sky rocketing rates.  My big gripe was that you assumed people who are normally aborted (assuming they are born into poorer families) are far more likely to commit suicide.  Even in your citation you can see the comments below that criticize the data.

    Also your argument here is there may be more likely to commit suicide or hate their life, so im going to make the decision for them that theyd rather be dead.
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    @GnosticChristian ;
    That happens a lot more in the lower classes that will grow if abortion laws are reversed.
    I just want to understand this clearly. The reason that a reverse that should have never taken place must be allowed to continue is so fewer people will be brought into a nation by way of immigration as birth. Meanwhile, the governing over the regulation of immigration is simply restructured to removed discrimination that takes place between all women as a whole. Abortion laws have been legislated backward all along so they are reversed right now as legislated by the different states.
    I do not track every state in your poor political system, but to say they are going the right way if they are returning to older, and more ways is discouraging, and those states will keep their jails full or your dole suplyers busy as their reward for not paying to have those unwanted children reach their best end.

    Regards
    DL
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian. A small increase is far from a pandemic or sky rocketing rates.  My big gripe was that you assumed people who are normally aborted (assuming they are born into poorer families) are far more likely to commit suicide.  Even in your citation you can see the comments below that criticize the data.

    Also your argument here is there may be more likely to commit suicide or hate their life, so im going to make the decision for them that theyd rather be dead.
    You are making a decision that is non of your business, unless you are willing to bear the costs.


    There is more than the fetus that is being interfered with but thinking of only the potential baby has you ignoring the impact on the mother.

    If you think a child can be happy with a miserable and poor mother, then you are wrong.

    Your lower echelon poor and even middle class are already not feeding their children properly and that task is being taken up by schools in some areas.


    You want to add children to those ranks, while the tax payers are not interested in bearing the costs. 

    Regards
    DL





  • @GnosticChristian ;

    I do not track every state in your poor political system, but to say they are going the right way if they are returning to older, and more ways is discouraging, and those states will keep their jails full or your dole suplyers busy as their reward for not paying to have those unwanted children reach their best end.

    We are talking about the united state of law, not a Countries States of governing by law such as Texas, New York, Philadelphia, and etc. Murder is a united state inside a list of laws consisting of categories, also known as states of lethal force. 1st degree, 2nd degree,  felony murder, so on, and so forth, attacks have united states as a crime that links them from threats to the use of lethal force. A group of women in advance making threats to kill is an issue abortion is that threat and is clearly not female-specific amputation.

    Even Countries such as North and South Korea hold some united states in law, every Nation in the world does. By direction, it is the legislation of abortion which contradicted the Supreme Court ruling on the state of the law written in Texas. A wrong practice taken up by other is also malpractice, the bad practice performed to exploit a week legal position when not creating all woman as equal. 

    if they are returning to older, and more ways it is discouraging.
    The attempt to return was simple to stop a crime as quickly as possible, however, the malpractice goes much deeper in prejudice than just a single crime. There are multiple crimes attached to the prejudice between women. There are the women who despise the woman who will use sex to gain nothing more than the friendship and trust of a man, or the women who will use a trust to harm men. The basic idea of all men are created equal by their creator is not the same as saying all men are equal. All women can be created equal by their creator, all women simply choose not to find the cause right for the creation which created them as all equal. The choice was wrong, that choice was to be President and is created a greater hurdle of prejudice. The harm caused to nations has been too great intervention is a necessity female-specific amputation creates all women equally.

    Why? Because they failed to do so themselves. The choices made which held me from addressing this issue sooner no longer exists.


    https://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/violent_crimes/degrees.murder.htm
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
    Plaffelvohfen
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian. Thats not true if the fetus is a person.  I can think it is wrong to kill homeless people for example, but that doesnt mean im responsible for the well being of all homeless people.

    Im not completely ignoring the impact on the mother, merely stating the fact that she made a choice that put her in that situation while the fetus didnt.  Unless the impact is permanent damage or life, i dont believe you have the right to kill something you were responsible for creating to make your life easier.

    I said im willing to help bear costs for the children. I'm glad youve decided for the child that it is better to be dead than live in a poor situation.
  • @GnosticChristian ;

     The analogy is to legal malpractice not murder in abortion and is made as follows. When a surgeon said that they had taken out necessary part, only a woman has, as a woman, to stabilize, to ensure a chance of life to continue, with that woman, they are not say anything was remove in a general sense to medical treatments everyone has, men and women alike, by this process female-specific amputation as a medical process, only women have this one part that might have a need to be removed.

    Abortion is the expression that addresses murder in the womb.

    When a lawyer writes a law the is to allow a crime under the legislation it is malpractice of law. The law was to stop the crime not allow immunity. In America 1973 the Supreme Court said the law written in Texas was malpractice of law. That legal malpractice should be stopped and corrected after the ruling, not exploited by other states of law like our criminal law system. 

    My use of amputation and murder holds no united state like the connection between abortion and murder form, so all that is weird is the prejudice that is negated between all women by the abolishment of abortion in writing of legislation. America has had a long history of legal malpractice with Europe, it has had a long legal history of legal malpractice of its own. The basic principle of the argument of a woman's Constitutional Right is about Change dramatically. Mark those words and measure well twice their true depth.


  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian. Thats not true if the fetus is a person.  I can think it is wrong to kill homeless people for example, but that doesnt mean im responsible for the well being of all homeless people.

    Im not completely ignoring the impact on the mother, merely stating the fact that she made a choice that put her in that situation while the fetus didnt.  Unless the impact is permanent damage or life, i dont believe you have the right to kill something you were responsible for creating to make your life easier.

    I said im willing to help bear costs for the children. I'm glad youve decided for the child that it is better to be dead than live in a poor situation.
    If a fetus was a person, we would not call it a fetus. I use the term potential person when speaking of zygotes when I say that I hate seeing one not reach it's best end.

    No one indicated that you were responsible for all the homeless, but collectively, it is our duty given that the tax system creates them.

    You have every right to think what you want for yourself, but you have no business trying to force people to do as you like. Especially when you know for a fact that the type of child we are talking about does so poorly statistic wise. You qualified your reply with "Unless the impact is permanent damage", and I see that with every child that pops up in those poor stats.
     

    You speak of the responsibility of the woman but did not say anything of the responsibility of the men. That attitude may be why 50% of all households in the U.S are manned by single women.

    How much of an increase in that stat are you willing to live with and supposrt with your tax dollard because so many men shirk their duty to their offspring. You might have noted how many want a tas break and not a tax increase. Especiaslly when the ones getting hit are all but the rich.

    Your last is a lie. I am just showing conditions that are real as arguments for my choice of not forcing my views on women and forcing them to have unwanted children.

    Regards
    DL
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:

    Abortion is the expression that addresses murder in the womb.


    noun: abortion; plural noun: abortions
    1. 1.
      the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.
      "concerns such as abortion and euthanasia"
      h
      Similar:
      termination
      miscarriage
      feticide

    Either start using the proper English vocabulary and terms or expect to get ignored.

    Regards
    DL
    Plaffelvohfen
  • If a fetus was a person, we would not call it a fetus. I use the term potential person when speaking of zygotes when I say that I hate seeing one not reach it's best end.

    A medical doctor might not say person, but the common defense states it is, in fact, a person. As no-one has ever proven including science it can turn to something else other than a person as it grows.

    To be blunt this is only attempting to support legal malpractice using a scientific interpretation of life. Medical and legal malpractice yet have not been held a single state united by law. It does not mean there will not be the first time. It did not mean it could not happen now. The idea is an invasion of privacy that is created by legal malpractice of law. 

    For the sake of debate, the women exposed to radiation during issues in both Fukushima and Chernobyl as drastic examples, though not American, these women as part of a united state with all other women in no way had an abortion. The pregnancy, the life was in fact terminated without prejudice.

  • @GnosticChristian ;

    Abort verb

    1 : to bring forth stillborn, nonviable, or premature offspring

    2 : to become checked in development so as to degenerate or remain rudimentary

    3 : to terminate a procedure prematurely

    Transitive verb

    1a : to induce the abortion of or give birth to prematurely

    b : to terminate the pregnancy of before term

    2a : to terminate prematurely: cancel abort a project abort a spaceflight

    b : to stop in the early stages abort a disease

    Noun

    the premature termination of a flight ( as of an aircraft or spacecraft) a mission, or action or procedure relating to a flight.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abort

    Either start using the proper English vocabulary and terms or expect to get ignored.

    You do realize that ignoring fact and law is what has been taking place for the past 47 years. Why would suddenly be discouraging?

    The English definition describes anything which is to be aborted is done so with authority and responsibility of control, something that is not present in female-specific amputations. Please, by all means, remain silent it is a council that is protected by the malpractice of law, not us. The debate argument has zero merits to addressing the grievance of loss of privacy. None.


    GnosticChristian
  • @GnosticChristian ;

    This is what appears you do not understand in the change described in different words. In order of command and authority, there is a leader and followers. Abortion is the appointed leader, the leader was found incapable of command in 1973 meaning abortion could no longer hold the position assigned to it by the House of Representatives, here in America. Female-specific amputation has relived abortion of its assigned command out in the field of operation. Because an order never came down. Terminations of birth will still take place as before, only the basic principle has changed for why the termination is argued publicly. A woman is not forced to risk her life to support citizenship. The invasion of privacy came at a price, the price paid can be limited.

    A young woman tried to explain it to me like this once, sending a woman from pregnancy to birth is equal to sending a man from a war into combat. Men may die while in the Armed Services of their Country but men will die in combat as it is in the line of duty. A woman may die being sexually active before pregnancy, women will die from pregnancy before giving birth. A select group of people trying to perceive death by birth to be in the line of duties for women. It's not, and it is that simple.
    GnosticChristian
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:

    1 --- If a fetus was a person, we would not call it a fetus. I use the term potential person when speaking of zygotes when I say that I hate seeing one not reach it's best end.

    A medical doctor might not say person, but the common defense states it is, in fact, a person. As no-one has ever proven including science it can turn to something else other than a person as it grows.

    2 ---To be blunt this is only attempting to support legal malpractice using a scientific interpretation of life. Medical and legal malpractice yet have not been held a single state united by law. It does not mean there will not be the first time. It did not mean it could not happen now. The idea is an invasion of privacy that is created by legal malpractice of law. 

    For the sake of debate, the women exposed to radiation during issues in both Fukushima and Chernobyl as drastic examples, though not American, these women as part of a united state with all other women in no way had an abortion. The pregnancy, the life was in fact terminated without prejudice.

    1. Grammatically, no one can call an unborn potential person, a person, till they are born. 

    2 If the law, there is no malpractice.

    I am not sure what you are saying in your last. Are you talking a miscarriage? If so that would be better English.

    Regards
    DL
  • 1. If the law,  then it is legal malpractice.
    2. If medical, then it is medical malpractice.
    3. If both it is medical and legal malpractice.
    4. if no insurance there still malpractice.
    5. The egg in a woman unfertilized is a person, what else does the structure of the English language expect it to be once released from the egg's creator, a woman? Anything other then that is nonsense.
    6. Without the use of prejudice between women, all women terminate life at the earlier stages of human development. They do so without any help or with help, so the invasion of privacy ruled on by Supreme Court is first capitalized on by who? Not all women? Only who?
    7. The gamble made was that the United States of Constitution could not be presented in order to create all-women equal by the issue of lethal force used to reinstate menstruation. The nature of this type of immigration into a nation is to blame for the use of lethal force, not the women.

    8. When taking the side that an egg is not living and does not die by the command of a woman over the egg supports a prejudice. The discrimination takes place between the woman who is in greater physical danger killing and the women who are at greater risk of harm and choose to terminate a person's immigration. The zygote is the name for a minor, only presumed innocent and not emancipated.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian. Your first doesnt disqualify it as a person.  Baby, child, adult are all separate terms that are all people.

    How does the tax system create homeless people? (unless you are refering to potentially overwhelming taxes like CA).

    I agree that we harsher penalties for fathers who dont pay child support.  If people would follow a Christian lifestyle, which you abhor, we wouldnt have these single motherhood rates.  It is the progressive attitude towards having relations whenever you feel like it that drives this, digging us deeper and deeper into a hole as having 2 parents is the greatest indicator of a child having success.

    Regardless of the stats on a group of people (which you overexaggerate) i wouldnt justify killing a group falling under a stat where 1 out of every 1000 was positive.  You must treat everyone as an individual.

    I am only forcing views I deem to be infringement on others.  Just as slavery, the right of women to vote, and murder may not have anything to do with me, it is my duty to weigh in on their legality.  In the future i believe most will view abortion in this way.


  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:

    5. The egg in a woman unfertilized is a person, 
    As I said above. you are hard to read and if this is an example of your use of English and logic, we are done.

    Regards
    DL
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
     1   @GnosticChristian. Your first doesnt disqualify it as a person.  Baby, child, adult are all separate terms that are all people.

    2   How does the tax system create homeless people? (unless you are refering to potentially overwhelming taxes like CA).

    3   I agree that we harsher penalties for fathers who dont pay child support.  

    4  If people would follow a Christian lifestyle, which you abhor, we wouldnt have these single motherhood rates.  It is the progressive attitude towards having relations whenever you feel like it that drives this, digging us deeper and deeper into a hole as

    5 having 2 parents is the greatest indicator of a child having success.

    Regardless of the stats on a group of people (which you overexaggerate) i wouldnt justify killing a group falling under a stat where 1 out of every 1000 was positive.  You must treat everyone as an individual.

    I am only forcing views I deem to be infringement on others.  Just as slavery, the right of women to vote, and murder may not have anything to do with me, it is my duty to weigh in on their legality.  In the future i believe most will view abortion in this way.


    1The terms you offer are persons that are born. A fetus is not born. If you cannot see the difference ---

    2 The poor are overtaxed as a % of income as compared to those in higher income levels. There are many reports showing tha VATs hit the poor more than the rich. Here is just one.  https://www.bbc.com/news/business-12111507

    3 I do not recall calling for that and to nail a person for a default and make it harder for him to do his future duty sounds foolish. I would not have a blanket policy and would leave it to a judge to decide the best path forward.

    4 ??? Most abortions in the U.S. are Christians., so I don't see how their Christian lifestyle has helped them. 

    5 I agree and that is a part of why I would not force a single mother or even a married one to abort.  

    Regards
    DL
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian. So your saying a person is someone that is born...so a 25 week old that is born is a person but 38 week old in the womb is not even though is more developed on a human level...makes sense.

    On taxes why did you post something looking at the british tax system, i was refering to Americas.  And wealthier people pay a higher income tax.

    So you complain about single mothers and say i dont hold fathers responsible, but then disagree that there shouldnt be harsher penalties for a father leaving a mother child...that doesnt make sense either.

    They may identify themselves as a christian, but they arent following the lifestyle.  I.e abortion and sex before marriage are both exact opposites.

    GnosticChristian
  • John_C_87 said:

    5. The egg in a woman unfertilized is a person, 
    As I said above. you are hard to read and if this is an example of your use of English and logic, we are done.

    Regards
    DL
    It is an example of the malpractice of law. We only just got started and it was 47 years overdue.
    GnosticChristian
  • @GnosticChristian ;
    As I said above. you are hard to read and if this is an example of your use of English and logic, we are done. (The egg in a woman unfertilized is a person, the person is a minor. The minor has not been emancipated.) 
    Good! I'm growing tired of addressing two crimes murder and fraud instead of just the use of lethal force.

    To be clear.
    GnosticChristian argument in basic states, let's just say the use of lethal force is not lethal at all. Sound like proper English is the argument? really?

    John_C_87 is saying the use of lethal force is a necessity, the court proceedings in this matter set the legal precedent of loss of privacy that is placed as a guide. Martial law is the use of tribunal for privacy. Saying clearly mind your business, when the time comes, when the matter of female-specific amputation concerns you, a person will then be assigned their place in the tribunal and then say and vote will be counted, then only. No need for the fraud created by questioning when life begins.


    I'm not trying to stop any termination addressing only the privacy. You give no information required necessary for the choices you ask of the public.
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian. So your saying a person is someone that is born...so a 25 week old that is born is a person but 38 week old in the womb is not even though is more developed on a human level...makes sense.

    On taxes why did you post something looking at the british tax system, i was refering to Americas.  And wealthier people pay a higher income tax.

    So you complain about single mothers and say i dont hold fathers responsible, but then disagree that there shouldnt be harsher penalties for a father leaving a mother child...that doesnt make sense either.

    They may identify themselves as a christian, but they arent following the lifestyle.  I.e abortion and sex before marriage are both exact opposites.

    In the womb makes a huge difference. You are so eager to take our sanctity of the person away from women and do not care about much else. I call that chauvinism.

    I gave you a  British piece showing the logic behind the reasoning that V A T are regressive taxation. If you want to find a U.S. report, go ahead as I am sure it exists. You complain of the source while ignoring the logic. Cheep.

    I did not disagree that some men should be penalized for delinquency. I said a judge should decide and he should not be hindered by laws that would hinder the fathers from catching up to their debt. Again, you distort what I said. Dishonest that.

    I agree that Christians do not walk their talk. That is nothing new. Hypocrisy is deep into Christian thinking.

    Listen to the end of this song and see my views.

    http://www.secularmusic.org/Wiki/index.php?title=Keep_Your_Jesus_Off_My_Penis

    Regards
    DL
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian
    In what way does it make a difference? You cant tell me how a more advanced human inside the womb is not a person while a born child is.  That doesnt make sense.
    Im not eager to take it away, im just not willing to allow them to kill a person they created with their own decisions.  If i wanted to take it away id argue for other regulations on body.  In fact as a libertarian conservative there are very few regulations that i want at all, while generally pro choice people agree with big government.

    Your taxation source doesnt apply because the U.S. doesnt use a VAT tax system.  This show income tax by bracket 
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-brackets.aspx/amp/

    A judge bases their judgements on the law.  And i didnt distort what you said, you just didnt say what you meant.

    Some are.  I think most declare themselves christian, but arent actually christian.  You cant be a part of a culture while not following any parts of it.  Just because they declare it doesnt make them so.

    GnosticChristian
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian
    In what way does it make a difference? You cant tell me how a more advanced human inside the womb is not a person while a born child is.  That doesnt make sense.
    Im not eager to take it away, im just not willing to allow them to kill a person they created with their own decisions.  If i wanted to take it away id argue for other regulations on body.  In fact as a libertarian conservative there are very few regulations that i want at all, while generally pro choice people agree with big government.

    Your taxation source doesnt apply because the U.S. doesnt use a VAT tax system.  This show income tax by bracket 
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-brackets.aspx/amp/

    A judge bases their judgements on the law.  And i didnt distort what you said, you just didnt say what you meant.

    Some are.  I think most declare themselves christian, but arent actually christian.  You cant be a part of a culture while not following any parts of it.  Just because they declare it doesnt make them so.
    A born baby is a person who, as a citizen, is guaranteed security of the person. An unborn baby is a potential person without security of the person, and is not protected the same way in laws.

    The Federal courts are slow to deal with legislation and have basically two different sets of laws, as they have separated the willful abortion issue, from the criminal abortion via the murder of the mother issue.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

    You are incorrect on the U.S. not having a V A T, which is the same as sales taxes. I did not think I had to point that out but I guess I was wrong. Apologies if it looks like I am moving the goal posts. Not all U.S states have sales taxes but most do.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/taxes/2018/03/27/states-highest-and-lowest-sales-taxes/452512002/

    I agree that most Christians are not really Christians.

    Even if they were, the only good Christians are Gnostic Christians because we have rejected Yahweh/Jesus as a moral and worthy god, while the vast majority of other bad Christians idol worship a genocidal satanic Yahweh/Jesus.

    Regards
    DL 


  • In the womb makes a huge difference.

    It makes no difference. The child is still a minor. The minor is a suspect in a murder, wait to be called on to serve as part of any tribunal, female-specific amputation is not abortion. The whole idea that a termination of a child that makes a public admission to do so for the cause of only self-interest is religious fraud. The changes and prevention of legalizing abortion had nothing to do with religion as is claimed. No equal protection under constitutional law then so be it.

    When given no courter, no courter shall be returned. All women are created equal by their creator. As all men are created equal by their creator.
    GnosticChristian
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian. Good for you made a statement about how bkrn vs unborn are treated via law.  What you didnt argue is why it makes sense to treat them that way.

    A VAT is not the completely the same as a sales tax. You can look up whether the U.s. follows a Vat tax system, we do not.  Only a small portion of our taxes come from sales tax.

    In what way was jesus ever satanic/genocidal.  You cant be a gnostic christian, its an oxymoron. 
    GnosticChristian
  • Would reversing abortion laws bankrupt the U.S.?
    No, it was legal malpractice in America after 1973. The International laws spoke of using abortion where set in the wrong direction in the first place to be held as a united state with all nations.
    GnosticChristian
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    1 ---@GnosticChristian. Good for you made a statement about how bkrn vs unborn are treated via law.  What you didnt argue is why it makes sense to treat them that way.

    2 ---A VAT is not the completely the same as a sales tax. You can look up whether the U.s. follows a Vat tax system, we do not.  Only a small portion of our taxes come from sales tax.

    3 ===In what way was jesus ever satanic/genocidal.  You cant be a gnostic christian, its an oxymoron. 
    1 -- It makes sense because it is not the pregnant woman making the choice to abort. The killer takes that away from her and he has no right to do so. He not only violated fer security of the person, he also denied her her  choice.

    2 --- The amount in total tax collection does not negate that a sales tax or V A T, same thing to me, are regressive taxes that hit the poorer harder than the richer. The rich already get a lower tax rate and ther is no reason to give them an even greater advantage than they have already written into legislation for themselves via their political slaves.

    3 --- Did Yahweh not use or order genocides? Yes he did. 
    Does Christianity tie Yahweh and Jesus at the hip with their Trinity concept that Constantine forced down it's throat when he bought the church? Yes they have. That makes Jesus just as genocidal as Yahweh.

    Not to mention that scriptures say that Jesus will have all non-believers killed when he returns. That fits the more story of the Rapture, when Jesus still ends in murdering whoever is left.

    Your last on Gnostic Christians is too for me to bother with.

    Regards
    DL

     
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    John_C_87 said:
    Would reversing abortion laws bankrupt the U.S.?
    No, it was legal malpractice in America after 1973. The International laws spoke of using abortion where set in the wrong direction in the first place to be held as a united state with all nations.

    It was indeed, but have you look back at the history of orphanages and convents that housed pregnant girls and how many of those Christian establishments murdered and buried in their back yards who knows how many babies?

    Reversing abortion laws will revive all that immorality and criminality that you want to fight.

    Regards
    DL
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian. Your first i dont even know what your talking about.  It is not the pregnant woman choosing to abort.  How so? The killer takes that right away from her...this doesnt make any sense, what killer are you talking about?

    It may be the same to you but to everyone else it is not.  The rich already get a lower tax rate...that is just a plain lie. Look at the tax brackets.

    How can you be Christian (believe in jesus as the savior) and be gnostic (belief that it is unkown whether a god exists).
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    How can you be Christian (believe in jesus as the savior) and be gnostic (belief that it is unkown whether a god exists).
    You show that you know nothing about Gnostic Christianity with your initial comment. 

    In ancient days, there were dozens of various thinking systems built around the then Jewish scriptures as that is where Christians usurped their immoral views of Yahweh. Christians, for instance, reversed the Jewish view of Eden as where man was elevated to a moral to the story that man fell.

    Elain Pagel's Gnostic Gospels speaks to those days with eloquence and accuracy if you are interested. 

    Listening to this will help as well as it shows the ancient thinking and how Christianity went by starting to read their myths literally.

    I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental efforts that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.

     

    https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

     

    Further.

    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

     

    Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

     

    Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.

     

    "Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

     

    Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

     

    This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.

     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D

     

    Regards

    DL


  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @GnosticChristian. Your first i dont even know what your talking about.  It is not the pregnant woman choosing to abort.  How so? The killer takes that right away from her...this doesnt make any sense, what killer are you talking about?

    It may be the same to you but to everyone else it is not.  The rich already get a lower tax rate...that is just a plain lie. Look at the tax brackets.

    I was speaking to how the courts view the woman and fetus when the woman is murdered.

    Go get the tax information you are lying about before calling me a .

    That is how those with couth refute instead of an accusation with nothing to show.

    Now, if you would have something to refute this, I would give all due credit for your lie. 

    https://howmuch.net/articles/who-pays-more-taxes-rich-vs-poor

    Regards
    DL
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian

    Why are you talking about that, i never brought that up and thats nit what i asked you.  What i asked is WHY a born less developed baby is a person while the a more developed baby in the womb is not.  I dont want the current legal basis, i want logical reasoning as to why.

    What you posted taxes is only the tax based on the state, not the federal taxes which make up a much larger portion of how much a person pays in taxes.  Also the way they were comparing them is . Obviously looking at a sales tax that has more effect on a poor person if its the same item.  I mean what do you want a sales tax of 1% on a $1 pizza for someone who makes $10,000 and a sales tax of 1000% for a person that makes 1 million to even it out.
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian

    Why are you talking about that, i never brought that up and thats nit what i asked you.  What i asked is WHY a born less developed baby is a person while the a more developed baby in the womb is not.  I dont want the current legal basis, i want logical reasoning as to why.

    What you posted taxes is only the tax based on the state, not the federal taxes which make up a much larger portion of how much a person pays in taxes.  Also the way they were comparing them is . Obviously looking at a sales tax that has more effect on a poor person if its the same item.  I mean what do you want a sales tax of 1% on a $1 pizza for someone who makes $10,000 and a sales tax of 1000% for a person that makes 1 million to even it out.
    Someone asked about the murder of a pregnant woman and I spoke to it. 
    If not you, ignore it. I don't have time to re-read the thread.

    To your other issue. I don't think it is intelligent to say that a baby who is born is less developed than a baby who is still in the womb. The born baby decided it was ready to be born and the other has yet to develop enough to do so.

    I am not surprised that you do not like my source of statistics.
    If you have some other stats to offer, given that you affirm that the rich pay more as a % of income, do so.
    Unless you just pulled that out of the air.

    Regards
    DL
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian. You think a baby decides what week it is born?  Really lol.

    I provided a source.  It showed the federal taxation per income bracket.  Its not my fault you posted a bad source.
    GnosticChristian
  • John_C_87 said:
    Would reversing abortion laws bankrupt the U.S.?
    No, it was legal malpractice in America after 1973. The International laws spoke of using abortion where set in the wrong direction in the first place to be held as a united state with all nations.

    It was indeed, but have you look back at the history of orphanages and convents that housed pregnant girls and how many of those Christian establishments murdered and buried in their back yards who knows how many babies?

    Reversing abortion laws will revive all that immorality and criminality that you want to fight.

    Regards
    DL

    The short answer is you do not have the right to force people across an international border into American. Children die every day that can’t make it into the united states of America, men kill children as sperm every day, women kill children as embryos every month. The prejudice is used against those who have knowledge of any higher risk of danger and that is all. Man or woman, there is a Constitutional duty to create all women as equal by their creator. Interfering with the establishment of a process that creates all men to be equal before their creator is not a duty of an American.


  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian. You think a baby decides what week it is born?  Really lol.

    I provided a source.  It showed the federal taxation per income bracket.  Its not my fault you posted a bad source.
    That would be a laugh, I agree.

    Who wrote such a thing and why would you dishonestly apply it to me?

    Are you that bad of a sore loser?

    Regards
    DL
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
    John_C_87

    You do not seem to be speaking to what you quoted. 

    You have perhaps posted at the wrong place.

    Regards
    DL
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian

    No sore loser here, just dumb arguments from you.

    Heres your quote regarding 38 week old in womb vs 25 week old born:
    "The born baby decided it was ready to be born and the other has yet to develop enough to do so."

    Yes it is funny that you think a baby decides when it is ready to be born.


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