Should abortion be Legal? - 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!

DebateIsland.com is a globally leading online debate platform that is transforming the online debating experience. DebateIsland enables anyone to civilly debate online, casually or formally, with five fun debating formats: Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas. With DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use, online debate website, users can debate politics, debate science, debate technology, debate news, and just about anything else in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free while improving your debating skills with the help of Artifical Intelligence on DebateIsland.


Communities

DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Using DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use online debate website, you can debate politics, debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free using DebateIsland, a globally leading online debate website that is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.

Should abortion be Legal?

Debate Information

I'd like to hear your thoughts, and I hope to have rational and civil discussions.
JeffreyBlankenship
«13456



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -  
    Abortion should not be legal, since you are killing another human being, and if it should be legal, so should murder.
    AlofRIxlJ_dolphin_473Plaffelvohfentsukki_xpxWe_are_accountable
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2025 Pts   -  
    Abortion should be legal on demand and without restrictions (As is the case in Canada).

    Abortion is first and foremost a moral question, and therefore an individual choice... We should not conflate moral and legal issues... 
    AlofRItsukki_xpxWe_are_accountableStarlord616
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -  
    Yes, abortion is a moral choice, and the most moral answer, frankly, is not to kill another human being, unless the baby threatens the mother's life, since the woman has no right to kill another human being, even if it is dependent on her.
    We_are_accountable
  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen Why should abortion be legal and without restrictions, so you support killing a fully functional human being, simply because the mother does not want to go through childbirth or pregnancy.
    We_are_accountable
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1111 Pts   -  
    Decisions of life and/or death should not be made by "A" religion in a freedom of religion country .... or anywhere else. It would be one thing if the "right-to-life" people were interested in the right to life, they are only "selectively" interested. The lives of others involved are irrelevant. The life they ARE interested in isn't even a "life", it's a "reproduction-in-progress". The "life" is the one walking around, the one with responsibilities, friends, relatives, spouses. If it is reasonable to stop the reproduction, if it is necessary TO THE PERSONS INVOLVED to stop what THEY started, they should have that right.
    Debater123We_are_accountable
  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -  
    @AlofRI So you are actively denying the fact that a fetus, baby, child, whatever you want to call it, is not alive, or is not a human being, which over 95% of biologists have refuted, if this is true, you are actively denying science and what biologists say, experts in this. Also, it is not a woman chooses to kill another human being, even if it is unborn, so also, you are justifying death with the fact that the baby has no memories, if that were true, then it is justifiable to kill a man who has lost his memory in a car crash, and just got out of a coma since he has no memories, friends, or spouses. Lastly, it is a woman's choice whether or not to have that child in most cases, and they know the risks. That child should not die for a woman's foolishness, stupidity, arrogance, sluttiness, and choice, to have sex, nobody should die just because a woman feels horny, and acts on her desires frankly.
    We_are_accountableAlofRI
  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -  
    @AlofRI So you are actively denying the fact that a fetus, baby, child, whatever you want to call it, is not alive, or is not a human being, which over 95% of biologists have refuted, if this is true, you are actively denying science and what biologists say, experts in this. Also, it is not a woman chooses to kill another human being, even if it is unborn, so also, you are justifying death with the fact that the baby has no memories, if that were true, then it is justifiable to kill a man who has lost his memory in a car crash, and just got out of a coma since he has no memories, friends, or spouses. Lastly, it is a woman's choice whether or not to have that child in most cases, and they know the risks. That child should not die for a woman's foolishness, stupidity, arrogance, sluttiness, and choice, to have sex, nobody should die just because a woman feels horny, and acts on her desires frankly.
    We_are_accountableAlofRI
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2025 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    @Plaffelvohfen Why should abortion be legal and without restrictions, so you support killing a fully functional human being, simply because the mother does not want to go through childbirth or pregnancy.
    No, I don't care about the reasons a woman might have for an abortion, a fetus although a developing human being is not a "born alive person" and thus should not have any rights at all... 

    Murder is not illegal because it is deemed immoral but because it is detrimental to societal integrity...  Again, we should do our best not to conflate moral and legal issues...
    We_are_accountableAlofRI
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen A fetus is still a human, and it is still alive. So it should have the same rights eligible to any child/minor.
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRI
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    @Plaffelvohfen A fetus is still a human, and it is still alive. So it should have the same rights eligible to any child/minor.
    No, because realistically, fetuses and children have different needs. The UN Convention for the Rights of the Child, which includes everyone under 18, includes the right to a name, which a fetus does not have or need. It also includes access to adoption, which is impossible for a fetus, and many more.
    To conflate the rights of children and fetuses is harmful and misleading.
    piloteerWe_are_accountableAlofRI
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -   edited November 11
    @Debater123
    @Plaffelvohfen Why should abortion be legal and without restrictions, so you support killing a fully functional human being, simply because the mother does not want to go through childbirth or pregnancy.
    So we’re going to start calling fetuses ‘fully functional human beings’ now, are we?
    I’m all for debate but misuse of terms like this is just misleading.
    Plaffelvohfentsukki_xpxWe_are_accountableAlofRI
  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 Needs are irrelevant in this argument, as is the UN, a fetus occupies all 7 rules that make life, life. I am also sure many parents name their child before childbirth, which makes that argument irrelevant, also, the right to be able to be adopted, does define whether or not you are a child or living, fetuses are alive, and human, that's a fact, ignoring scientific facts does not justify abortion, or in other words, the killing of another human being which is dependent on you, and which is kin.
    We_are_accountable
  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -   edited November 11
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 Early on a fetus develops limbs, a heart, lungs, and many other essential organs.
    We_are_accountable
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2025 Pts   -  
    @Debater123

    I think the mere fact of being "human" is irrelevant, humans die that is what they do...  I would (and do as an anti-natalist) argue that the very act of reproduction is in itself immoral, since it's the willful creation of a new conscience that will inevitably experience multiple forms of suffering and die... Stated otherwise, reproduction is a death sentence for the unborn... 

    The rock bottom fact is that it's ultimately a moral dilemma that can only be resolved internally by every single individual... You don't want an abortion, fine don't... You want one, no one should stop you from having one... There is no valid reason for the government to make it illegal, at least in a society that claims to be secular and democratic...

    It's not the place of a democratic State to try and legislate morality...

    If you want to live in an authoritarian theocracy, then sure go ahead, any reason can be valid for theocratic regimes...
    Debater123AlofRIWe_are_accountable
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 Early on a fetus develops limbs, a heart, lungs, and many other essential organs.
    So? Why should having essential organs mean that killing it is immoral?
    Debater123We_are_accountable
  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen Reproduction is not immoral, it anything it is the most moral act, to make another human being, and then leave your mark on the world, and carry on the next generation, as in the end, we all need to procreate, or else life has no meaning since no-one else will continue your species legacy. You also contradict yourself, you say that it is immoral to give birth since you let a child experience the world in its own accord, and have its own choices whether or not to live in the world. And experience pain, you should not make that choice, abortion is painful for a fetus, it's a fact, you subject it to death, but you don't want human beings to experience pain or death? So then why do you support abortion? You let women have the choice of killing their own children.

    We_are_accountable
  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 I don't care if it has organs or not, it is a human being, and human life, the woman should not choose whether or not kill it, it's not her body, not her choice, not her life, not her mind, and not her right.
    We_are_accountable
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 I don't care if it has organs or not, it is a human being, and human life, the woman should not choose whether or not kill it, it's not her body, not her choice, not her life, not her mind, and not her right.
    Why is it not her right, though? You have given no evidence. No reasons. No explanation. Therefore, your argument has no credibility.
    We_are_accountable
  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 I have given evidence, reasons, and explanations, I'm sorry you haven't accepted them or refused to see them, a fetus is a human being, a living human being at that, there is no reason why a mother should kill a fetus except if the fetus threatens the mother's life.
    We_are_accountable
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2025 Pts   -  
    @Debater123

    I get that you put an intrinsic value on "life", but I don't, and all opinions being equal...

    I'm an absurdist and as such have existential nihilistic sympathies (I'm not an epistemological nihilist though), I accept the fact that there is no actual point or purpose to existence and that any possible moral value can only be locally generated by sentient agents. 

    Don't get me wrong, your position is absolutely a valid one but then so is mine... As I have no right to force you to adhere to my beliefs, neither do you have the right to force me to adhere to yours... Freedom of thought, right? 

    The decision whether to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision, a matter of conscience. I do not think there is or can be any dispute about that.

    The question then becomes: Whose conscience? Is the conscience of the individual to be paramount or the conscience of the State? Be careful what you wish for here...

    I believe that in a free and democratic society it must be the conscience of the individual. What do you think? 
    piloteer
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 I have given evidence, reasons, and explanations, I'm sorry you haven't accepted them or refused to see them, a fetus is a human being, a living human being at that, there is no reason why a mother should kill a fetus except if the fetus threatens the mother's life.
    I have given you reasons why that is not the case: the right to life applies to people, and a fetus is not a full human.
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRI
  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen You talk as though it is the state infringing onto the rights of the person, but it is not, woman do not have the right to kill a child, since that infringes on other people, so therefore the state cannot be infringing onto them.
    We_are_accountableAlofRI
  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 So since any non-full human can be killed, would it be right for me to kill a man born without an arm. Since after all, he isn't a full human.
    AlofRI
  • Starlord616Starlord616 209 Pts   -  
    Abortion should not be legal, since you are killing another human being, and if it should be legal, so should murder.
    what like:
    euthanasia?
    death penalty?
    hunting?
    warzones?
    self-defence?
    Plaffelvohfentsukki_xpx
  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -  
    Also, if you believe that the right to life only applies to people, why are you pro-choice, since fetuses are people(humans) there is no denying that fact.
    AlofRI
  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -  
    @Starlord616 I don't support euthanasia, its immoral 100%, for self-defense, it's justified, since it's you are the other guy, and you should choose you, in case you're wondering I also support abortion if the woman life is threatened, a death penalty is a form of the ultimate karma, and for that reason I support it. Hunting isn't wrong since you are killing something inferior, beneath you, to either live or for pleasure, animals are not eligible for the same rights as you. Lastly, I don't support war unless they attack first.
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1111 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen Why should abortion be legal and without restrictions, so you support killing a fully functional human being, simply because the mother does not want to go through childbirth or pregnancy.
    A "fully functional human being" is not fully functional until it is breathing air (the breath of life) and no longer depending on another body or machine to  "live".
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -  
    @AlofRI So then killing a man in a coma is justifiable, since he relies on the doctors and their machines to survive.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2025 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    @Plaffelvohfen You talk as though it is the state infringing onto the rights of the person, but it is not, woman do not have the right to kill a child, since that infringes on other people, so therefore the state cannot be infringing onto them.
    Oh, but it is the state infringing on a person's right... There's no good reason to give personhood to a fetus because a "potential" is not the same as an "actual"...   

    What would you answer to this question: Is the conscience of the individual to be paramount or the conscience of the State? Be careful what you wish for here and please do take the time to think about it before answering... Everything I argue here follows from that single point...

    If you can somehow demonstrate that the conscience of a state actually is paramount to any individual's, I might have no other choice but to change my position to be coherent with myself... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1111 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen You talk as though it is the state infringing onto the rights of the person, but it is not, woman do not have the right to kill a child, since that infringes on other people, so therefore the state cannot be infringing onto them.
    I agree. Killing a child is murder. A fetus is a parasite living off the body of a woman until it is BORN. It is a part OF that woman's body until it can live on its own. It is NOT a child and can't be killed ... just terminated.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen Everybody has infinite rights, except those rights which infringe on other people. Which includes abortion.
  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -  
    @AlofRI A fetus is a child, not a parasite. It's not her body, even if it is connected by the umbilical cord. Therefore, since it is justifiable to kill a fetus since it is reliant on the mother according to you, would it be justifiable, for a doctor to kill a person in a coma, not the person, hell, not even the family chooses if he dies or not, the doctor, and by your logic, the doctor can choose to kill the person since the person relies on the doctor for his survival.
    AlofRIPlaffelvohfen
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2025 Pts   -  
    @Debater123

    Please answer my question, the answer is the fundamental point from which all my arguments follow...

    Is the conscience of the individual to be paramount or the conscience of the State?
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -   edited November 11
    @Plaffelvohfen The state has no conscience, it is an entity, not a person, whatever 'conscience' it may have through its laws, which are dictated by the founders and their population, so yes, the conscience of the individual is paramount to the conscience of the state.
  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen Also answer this question, why does a mother's right override the rights of her fetus, to the point where she has full control over whether it lives or dies when it cannot make that choice for itself, when it can, it can choose to die, the mother should never make any choice like that.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2025 Pts   -  
    @Debater123

    Great, that's a starting point... So consequently, we can affirm that the state has no legal right to impose a specific morality or belief on its citizens, correct?

    Same is actually true with abortion, we already agreed that it is a moral dilemma (which the state, by its very nature, cannot resolve). It is not the place of a democratic and secular state to legislate morality and any attempt to do so is an attack on the right to freedom of thought (a defining right of secular and democratic states)...

    The only valid reason a secular and democratic state has to legislate anything must relate in some way to societal integrity (hence why murder is actually illegal, not because most people deem murder immoral). Now, if we're talking about authoritarian and theocratic states, honestly, anything goes legally speaking... 

    For instance, hypothetically, even if a majority of citizen in your state, come to actually believe that exposing your hair and face in public is immoral, the state would still have no right to make a law prohibiting walking around in public without a veil or full face helmet, correct? Because it would infringe on the rights of actual, living persons, right? The only way a secular and democratic state could have grounds for such laws would be by demonstrating that walking around bare-headed is actually an existential threat to society...  Good luck with that...

    Therefore, unless you can actually demonstrate that an abortion is an actual existential threat to society, you would have no grounds to make it illegal (in a secular and democratic society that is...).

    Keep in mind that I'm not asking you to believe as I do, your position that abortion is immoral is a valid one, I'm not contesting that at all...  But the idea of "sanctity of life" is just that, an idea, it's an abstract personal belief that you are absolutely free to hold (as you do), or not (as in my case)... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2025 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    @Plaffelvohfen Also answer this question, why does a mother's right override the rights of her fetus, to the point where she has full control over whether it lives or dies when it cannot make that choice for itself, when it can, it can choose to die, the mother should never make any choice like that.
    I don't believe fetuses have any rights at all, them not being "born alive persons" (my country agrees with me)... As I said, the idea of "sanctity of life", is an abstraction and governments should not legislate abstractions...

    What is the point of giving personhood to fetuses?  What actual tangible purpose does it serve other than giving some people a very subjective feeling of self-righteousness?? 
    AlofRI
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -  
    Plaffelvohfen said:
    @Debater123
    @Plaffelvohfen Also answer this question, why does a mother's right override the rights of her fetus, to the point where she has full control over whether it lives or dies when it cannot make that choice for itself, when it can, it can choose to die, the mother should never make any choice like that.
    I don't believe fetuses have any rights at all, them not being "born alive persons" (my country agrees with me)... As I said, the idea of "sanctity of life", is an abstraction and governments should not legislate abstractions...

    What is the point of giving personhood to fetuses?  What actual tangible purpose does it serve other than giving some people a very subjective feeling of self-righteousness?? 
    First off, we aren't discussing the point of parenthood, secondly, why should fetuses not have rights, they are people, and they are alive, you denying this means you are denying the fact, and as far your country agreeing with you, that's irrelevant. Also, how is life not sacred, do you just not care about mankind? I honestly cannot argue with someone that does not value human life in any high regard, I can't, in that case, if life has no special meaning, then is not murder justifiable? And anarchy the best ideology, after all, people don't matter, and neither does our species, or anything or anyone. For that matter.
  • @Debater123
    Pregnancy Abortion is legal when a woman does not accept an offer of vaginal intercourse on the grounds of possible pregnancy. A woman does not have, receive, or can honestly say she ordered an abortion by a doctor, a pregnancy termination when seeking medical attention is by fundimental truth, not pregnancy abortion. For no other reason than common defense to general welfare the term Female-specific amputation The argument is women should not have been granted the right to vote till a clear understanding of the creation of all women as equal had been established by a right to independence in pregnancy.

    The nature of this discussion has a lot of legal precedents globally in the past of connected to arranged marriage. 

  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen One last thing, considering the fact you are a natalist, would it be justifiable to kill a random person on the street, since you are making them not feel any more pain, and alleviating any future or current pain by that act?
  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 So since any non-full human can be killed, would it be right for me to kill a man born without an arm. Since after all, he isn't a full human.
  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen 'The only valid reason a secular and democratic state has to legislate anything must relate in some way to societal integrity (hence why murder is actually illegal, not because most people deem murder immoral). Now, if we're talking about authoritarian and theocratic states, honestly, anything goes legally speaking... ' Firstly, individuals do not dictate morals, since morals are not subjective, and are dictated by our religion and culture, not individuals, if this was the other way around, then all crime is morally justifiable, since in the criminal's eyes, what they did was right. And as for laws, the government bases its laws on its culture's ethics, or a certain religion (such as Christianity), or a group of religions(such as Hebrew-Christianity), all laws are based on ethics, or in other words, morals.
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRI
  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 I see both sides when it comes to rape and sexual assault, but honestly, I think the baby should not die, since after all if someone were to die as a result of this assault, it should be the rapist, not the baby.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2025 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    Plaffelvohfen said:
    @Debater123
    @Plaffelvohfen Also answer this question, why does a mother's right override the rights of her fetus, to the point where she has full control over whether it lives or dies when it cannot make that choice for itself, when it can, it can choose to die, the mother should never make any choice like that.
    I don't believe fetuses have any rights at all, them not being "born alive persons" (my country agrees with me)... As I said, the idea of "sanctity of life", is an abstraction and governments should not legislate abstractions...

    What is the point of giving personhood to fetuses?  What actual tangible purpose does it serve other than giving some people a very subjective feeling of self-righteousness?? 
    First off, we aren't discussing the point of parenthood, secondly, why should fetuses not have rights, they are people, and they are alive, you denying this means you are denying the fact, and as far your country agreeing with you, that's irrelevant. Also, how is life not sacred, do you just not care about mankind? I honestly cannot argue with someone that does not value human life in any high regard, I can't, in that case, if life has no special meaning, then is not murder justifiable? And anarchy the best ideology, after all, people don't matter, and neither does our species, or anything or anyone. For that matter.
    Woah, you're going all over the place... To have a civil and honest debate, let's try not to get ahead of ourselves and go at it step by step...

    First, it's not "parenthood", but personhood (the theory supporting the concept of person)... This notion is unavoidable when on the subject of abortion...

    Second, I simply don't hold the belief that fetuses are people (you're free to believe so though), to me they are just clumps of human cells and are as "alive" as a liver or a sperm is alive... And like it or not, my belief is as valid as yours... Both are personal beliefs protected under Freedom of thought... 

    As an absurdist (not anarchist, you assume too much), I'm compelled to be a humanist so of course I care about humans just not in the same way you apparently do... You wrote : if life has no special meaning, then is not murder justifiable? I already addressed that, murder is absolutely justifiable, we do it all the time with death sentence, wars, self-defense, etc... It's not because murder is immoral that it is illegal, but because unregulated murder is an existential threat to any society, nothing more, nothing less.....

    It's very important not to conflate Morality and Legality, 2 different yet overlapping concepts...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Debater123 ;
    okay here is some constitutional separation which is the opposite of a united state created with constitutional priciple.
    1. A sexual assault that takes place, that resulting in pregnancy is no longer by law sexual assault it is attempted murder, no longer being by law just a rape. To create all women equal a woman who chooses to create a posterity for the human race is placed under the same risk of danger as a woman who was sexually assaulted and became pregnant. There are many reasons that this becomes the more perfect union in constitutional principles basic truth and legal history.

    Women by demand a United States constitutional right to vote can be placed in the best-united state between all women before consitution states are to be created. You have heard the saying all men are created equal? When preserving, protecting, and defending the united state consitution it is the state of the union which describes the connection. The United States are many connections to a history of basic law. By the people, for the people.
    AlofRI
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2025 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    @Plaffelvohfen One last thing, considering the fact you are a natalist, would it be justifiable to kill a random person on the street, since you are making them not feel any more pain, and alleviating any future or current pain by that act?
    Again, read my answers carefully and make sure you understand what I'm writing (ask for precision if you need it but take your time, we won't settle this here anyway...) 

    I'm not a natalist, but an anti-natalist, I hold the belief that reproduction is immoral, as it only needlessly creates more pain, suffering and death... But since I understand that it's a personal belief, I also understand that I have no right to use the government to impose this belief on others, you won't see me demanding that reproduction be made illegal, it's as ludicrous as asking for abortion to be made illegal... 

    And again (I hope this particular point will not come back, it's irrelevant...) no, under my absurdist and anti-natalist view, it would not be justifiable to kill a random person on the street, it's ludicrous to suggest it... 
    John_C_87
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2025 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    Firstly, individuals do not dictate morals, since morals are not subjective

    What??? Objective morality cannot exist... It's like a round square, it's an impossibility even if a god exists... Tell me, are you a proponent of the Divine Command Theory?? How can you assert that Morality is objective?? 

    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen Without god(s), why and how would we exist, morality is objective, moral subjectivity justifies all crime.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen But since you are ending their life early(a life which should not have existed), you are alleviating any pain and suffering they may have further in life or currently since they have died, so, therefore, by alleviating them from any more pain, you are giving them death, an end to this pain and suffering which they have endured and to which they will continue to endure.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Debater123Debater123 127 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    @Plaffelvohfen One last thing, considering the fact you are a natalist, would it be justifiable to kill a random person on the street, since you are making them not feel any more pain, and alleviating any future or current pain by that act?
    Again, read my answers carefully and make sure you understand what I'm writing (ask for precision if you need it but take your time, we won't settle this here anyway...) 

    I'm not a natalist, but an anti-natalist, I hold the belief that reproduction is immoral, as it only needlessly creates more pain, suffering and death... But since I understand that it's a personal belief, I also understand that I have no right to use the government to impose this belief on others, you won't see me demanding that reproduction be made illegal, it's as ludicrous as asking for abortion to be made illegal... 

    And again (I hope this particular point will not come back, it's irrelevant...) no, under my absurdist and anti-natalist view, it would not be justifiable to kill a random person on the street, it's ludicrous to suggest it... 
    Sorry, I mistyped, I apologize for calling you an anti-natalist rather than a natalist.
    Plaffelvohfen
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2020 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch