Should we criminalize abortion? - 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 the largest online debate website globally by activity 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.


Communities

DebateIsland Referral Program: Get a Free Month of DebateIsland Diamond Premium Membership ($4.99 Value) Per Each New User That You Refer!

Should we criminalize abortion?

Debate Information

Yesterday (April 1, 2021), Happy_Killbot and I (Keal192NXQ2) went on the Reformation Discord Server (an instant messaging VoIP platform).
We debated on the topic of "Should we criminalize abortion?"
The person in question that was being debated goes by the name of "CriminalizeAbortionNow". 

Now, why did I need to go on DebateIsland? 
Instant message debates were something I have not liked and will not like, 
long, forum messages are easier to analyze, dissect, and discuss. 
It's very easy to gloss over something in instant messaging.
The debate also ended 10+ hours ago.

But I want to ask you, Debate Islanders, what do you think?
--
Here's what I think. 

In 1978 the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) implemented the "One-Child" Policy program as a response to the population size of the People's Republic of China (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/120114/understanding-chinas-one-child-policy.asp). It only allowed families to have one child (with exceptions to certain minorities, some of which could have up to four). This is important because if abortions were not allowed (illegal) you will have an overpopulation problem. "The goal of China's one-child policy was to make sure that population growth did not outpace economic development and to ease environmental and natural resource challenges and imbalances caused by a rapidly expanding population." (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/120114/understanding-chinas-one-child-policy.asp) If you criminalize abortion, you'll have many people fighting over resources long-term, whether that be food, water, or work, you would've been causing more suffering than if you were to abort. A lack of life is tenfold times better than a suffering one.

Before we go any further, let's make this very clear.
No one wants to kill anythingHuman baby, animal, or not.
I am not forcing people to abort children, only to let them have the leisure to.
However, there is a point where a person's right of having a normal life needs to be enforced, and that just so happens to be abortion.
The fetus is essentially just a microscopic ball of cells at that point, not a human being.
The mind defines us, not our cellular structure. Masturbation would be genocide otherwise, as it kills millions of cells every go. (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110624141735AAnljs7)
Speaking of which, we'll get into the "person-hood" aspect of this topic.

From what I see, the "personhood" argument states if a fetus is just in fact an immature person, then there is no reason that we can deny it the right to life. (http://www.beckyclay.com/philosophy/essays/personhood-abortion/#:~:text=The personhood argument is one that states if,does not mean that it is not “human.”)
From what "CriminalizeAbortionNow" told me, this personhood argument has been used in support of slavery and other immoral practices. 
The difference between a fetus and a slave (in this context, a grown human) is that the mind of those individuals clearly differs in intellectual and emotional ways. If we defined people based on their physical features, the disabled, the ill, and the old would be considered lower-valued or maybe discriminated against.
It would be best to define the mind as; rational self-awareness and/or sentience as that is what the mind in this context is. 
To support the personhood argument; humans are defined by their mind, not by their cellular structure. 

What about the fact that we would be destroying the fact of potential life (not even acknowledging if they're in a position, a setting, where resources are scarce in which the lack of life is better than a suffering life)?

Well, what about the fact that the woman (the middle man, or woman) here would be risking her health and freedom to unwanted pregnancy? The value of an actual life heavily outweighs any potential life. 'Unless there is a social need for more children, a potential life is simply unneeded. People who are proponents of the "potential" of a fetus are called Aristotelians. The Aristotelian view leads us to see contraceptives as being just as morally reprehensible as an abortion. This would be an unacceptable conclusion for most people in societies where contraception is widely used and generally seen as being morally unproblematic. The Aristotelian view also leads us to regard spontaneous abortion as being just as tragic as the death of a post-birth human being. Yet sociologically, we do not mourn the death of a fetus in the same way we mourn the death of a grown person (aged 40+). The Aristotelian view would be counter-intuitive.' (https://www.ogmagazine.org.au/20/2-20/ethically-speaking-is-a-fetus-a-person/#:~:text=In one view, the fetus is a person,and privileges as a fully developed human being.)
LiamThePerson



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • DeeDee 3940 Pts   -  
    Abortion is a decision for each woman to decide for herself  and not for others to decide for her. All arguments against the right of a woman to abort are to me totally irrelevant as they miss the one main point by granting a fetus this “right “ to life you are denying a citizen her right to bodily autonomy in favour of the unborn , this is undemocratic and totally unjust 


    As regards ..........No one wants to kill anything. Human baby, animal, or not 

    Certainly people want to kill others as in euthanasia and if a baby or child had a dreadful illness I’m all for eliminating them and their suffering  , also war etc, etc and we slaughter animals by the billions ever year 
    Happy_KillbotKeal192NXQ2ZeusAres42NomenclatureTreeMan
  • anarchist100anarchist100 491 Pts   -   edited April 1
    @Dee
    If you cared about Bodily Autonomy then you wouldn't support mandatory vaccinations.
    LiamThePersonDeeTreeManPlaffelvohfenOakTownA
  • Keal192NXQ2Keal192NXQ2 242 Pts   -  
    @Dee All arguments against the right of a woman to abort are to me totally irrelevant as they miss the one main point by granting a fetus this “right “ to life you are denying a citizen her right to bodily autonomy in favour of the unborn , this is undemocratic and totally unjust.

    Yes. I even evidenced how the right of the woman is more valued more instead of a fetus.

    Certainly people want to kill others as in euthanasia and if a baby or child had a dreadful illness I’m all for eliminating them and their suffering  , also war etc, etc and we slaughter animals by the billions ever year 

    I mean, no one wishes suffering (at least not the mentally sane) and we only do euthanization in accordance with a lack of life is better than a suffering one. When the possibilities and the future of a person's life are grim, it is justified why you can see they would partake in euthanasia. Usually, people don't do this and it's very uncommon, but it isn't impossible.
    DeeHappy_KillbotZeusAres42
  • DeeDee 3940 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100

    If you cared about Bodily Autonomy then you wouldn't support mandatory vaccinations.

    WOW! My post is up 5 seconds and my stalker pounces 

    A woman having an abortion does not in any way affect my health a selfish i-diot like you who thinks of only himself could 
    NoahFlynnTreeMan
  • anarchist100anarchist100 491 Pts   -   edited April 1
    @Dee
    If your vaccination works so well, why does it matter to you if I get vaccinated? Also the covid vaccine isn't safe,
    TreeManOakTownA
  • DeeDee 3940 Pts   -  
    @Keal192NXQ2

    Yes you covered all the points in fairness I was just putting my hat in the ring most know it by now 

    When the possibilities and the future of a person's life are grim, it is justified why you can see they would partake in euthanasia. Usually, people don't do this and it's very uncommon, but it isn't impossible.

    I actually think euthanasia should be available for all citizens from childhood up , I say this from experience as I worked when I was a student for a summer in a government facility for the severely handicapped who lived lives of utter misery and suffering even though the people who cared for them were kind people , their lives were totally joyless and they were only kept alive on account of my countries strict adherence to religious nonsense and sense of morality all founded on christian dogma 

    One of societies biggest taboos is daring to suggest that lives of abject suffering should be addressed through euthanasia indeed the label “Hitler” is put on people like me who suggest it all to appear to appease some societal “moral “ need to pretend all life is precious 
    OakTownA
  • DeeDee 3940 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100

    If your vaccination works so well, why does it matter to you if I get vaccinated?

    It doesn’t matter, once  I get vaccinated you can excercise  your right to get it actually I hope you do 


    Also the covid vaccine isn't safe,

    Tell that to the millions who have got it  .....so please go ahead and catch it and let us all know how much fun it is 
    ZeusAres42TreeMan
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4916 Pts   -  
    Personally, I believe that the decision to criminalize anything or not is fundamentally going to come down to the ethical standard by which one uses to make that decision. In the US and Europe, that ethical standard is neoliberalism which is the status quo political organization. This ethical framework holds that individual liberty is of the utmost importance, espouses free-market capitalism founded on individual property rights as its economic system, and holds that all ought to be treated equally by the law. To decide if something should be illegal, the system uses a heuristic that might be described as follows: "Everyone is free to do as they please, provided it does not hurt another person". I will be relying on this heuristic as a foundation of my argument.

    First off, we might need to consider if a fetus is considered a person. Personally, I think that this is something which is fundamentally subjective and open to one's personal interpretations. Needless to say, if a fetus is not considered a person, then abortion is clearly justified on the grounds that it does not hurt anyone. However, if you do consider a fetus to be a person, then a more detailed analysis is required.

    From the perspective of the mother, the unwanted fetus is taking her blood & nutrients against her will. If we assume that one's property rights extend to her body, then this would imply that the fetus is in fact doing something which harms another person, specifically violating her property rights, and therefore this is something which ought to be disallowed based on neoliberal ethics. The mother would be operating well within her rights to protect her property in removing the fetus from her body.

    We might put that into a syllogism as follows:

    p1:Property is anything that belongs to a person which they have sole right to use as they see fit

    p2: A person's body is their property

    => A person's body belongs to that person which they have sole right to use as they see fit

    p3: It is permissible for someone to defend their property from another person with up to and including deadly force

    => It is permissible for someone to defend their body from another person with up to and including deadly force

    p4: A fetus is a person which grows inside a mother's body

    => It is permissible for someone to defend their body from a fetus with up to and including deadly force

    Thus, not only should we not criminalize abortion, but in fact it would be more reasonable from the standpoint of a neoliberal ethic to do the opposite: We should criminalize the use of another person's body without their explicit consent.

    One common objection to this is that the fetus did not have any intention to do so, however this is irrelevant since this ethical framework does not provide an escape clause for intentionality. (i.e. if you kill someone on accident, it is still murder)

    Another common objection is that the mother's womb is structured in such a way to accommodate child rearing based on human biology. This however can be dismissed as an appeal to nature fallacy, which assumes that because nature has made something a certain way that it is right for it to be used in that way. If this line of reasoning were taken seriously, then viruses and parasites ought to feed on your body because they are designed to have that function.

    One variation of the previous objection is that when a woman was first impregnated, that she accepted the responsibility for the fetus. This however makes an assumption that the mother owes life to the fetus due to her role in creating it which would violate the egalitarian principals of neoliberalism, as it unfairly allots responsibility to the mother and none to the father. In order to rectify this, the father would need to take a role in the carrying of the child, but this is biologically infeasible. This objection would once again be making a naturalistic fallacy as it relies on the biology for justification. It would also fail to justify making certain types of abortion illegal, for example rape where the mother had no choice in the impregnation.
    Keal192NXQ2LiamThePersonDeeAlofRITreeManOakTownA
    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.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @Dee
    If your vaccination works so well, why does it matter to you if I get vaccinated? Also the covid vaccine isn't safe,

    Well, it's a whole lot safer than LSD man!
    DeeNoahFlynnTreeMan



  • @Keal192NXQ2

    This rationality brings Warren to the conclusion that unless there is a social need for every possible child, that any laws restricting abortion or even limit the period of which a pregnancy can be terminated is “wholly unjustified” and a violation of a woman’s moral and Constitutional rights."
    Your not saying anything as a common defense to the general welfare on a more perfect union between women, a united state of pregnancy termination, and consitutional principle. Pregnancy abortion in America has already been found by the supreme court to be a violation of a consitutional right to privacy, after 1973 the use of the words abortion in a medical process for treatment of women was not only a violation of medical privacy it was is a violation of the law. The law was never enforced as the complex nature of fraud and perjury had never been found as the allegation of a possible united state of murder was always believed to be true.

    A United State in consitutional principle that is right for women is female-specific amputation as what could be a more perfect union and at no point ever was pregnancy abortion ever a consitutional right or suitable attempt at the more perfect union as a united state with all woman. This due to the significant amount of self-incrimination it created by the very words pregnancy and abortion be held together by women.
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1390 Pts   -  
    We should criminalize undue force on women to turn their lives over to the wishes of others. Their bodies, their choice, their lives, their choice. Religiously driven people should leave any punishment for abortion "up to God" (whichever one is objecting ... if they are). 

    It seems if a GOD doesn't like something, the best way to stop it is to do his/her/its punishment so it can be SEEN! But then, we only have centuries-old hearsay and NO PROOF, (often considered "myth"), that that ever happened. It's hard to believe if a "god" could do it THEN, why not NOW??
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1390 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    @anarchist100

    If your vaccination works so well, why does it matter to you if I get vaccinated?

    It doesn’t matter, once  I get vaccinated you can excercise  your right to get it actually I hope you do 


    Also the covid vaccine isn't safe,

    Tell that to the millions who have got it  .....so please go ahead and catch it and let us all know how much fun it is 
    Penicillin isn't safe for some people .... apparently many MORE people than this vaccine. Penicillin has saved millions of lives! These vaccines will/have save millions of lives. I've had mine (two), and I'm still here. Those who don't get it are MOSTLY from the same ideological group. That will mean there will likely be more deaths within that group. Sad, but that could be a plus for the country, going forward.
  • @AlofRI
    I'm not debate anything other than a women's failure to delegate a united State as a consitutional right that creates all women equal. There is better reason to build a united state between all women when dealing with the termination of pregnancy than a women's body and her struggles to control it. A woman has an obligation to medical find a description that provides ample amounts of privacy in line with the medical profession, that some 50 years after a finding in the American supreme court finding pregnancy abortion to be illegal by its clear invasion of privacy. A grievance as precedent is medical research uses the fertilization and destruction of embryos as a way to genetically increase the success of life. 
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 605 Pts   -   edited April 2
    @Keal192NXQ2

    Criminalising abortion would be an unmitigated disaster for the human species. There is already vast overpopulation and economic inequality. Banning abortion would greatly exacerbate these already serious problems. I have yet to meet any sane person who proposes this course of action. It seems to be a purely religious belief.
    OakTownA
  • Keal192NXQ2Keal192NXQ2 242 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature Funny enough, the person who was mentioned at the top of the description was a religious person. I assume their motive for criminalizing abortion (at least advocating for it) is to reinforce their beliefs. All in all, I agree with you. 
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 605 Pts   -  
    Funny enough, the person who was mentioned at the top of the description was a religious person.

    In my experience it's always the far Christian right buddy. The Old Testament, fire and brimstone guys.
    NoahFlynn
  • @Nomenclature
    Criminalising abortion would be an unmitigated disaster for the human species.
     Doesn't that depend on who is the criminal conducting the crime? What you are trying to do is negate the advancements of the state of the union to create a more perfect union with a united state consitutional right. The risk is that we can never be allowed to prove that using admission to a crime to create controversy is a bad and dangerous way to address basic principles to establish the best union to form the largest united state between women who are pregnant and are at risk.

    At this point, we are using martial law in the form of executive order to keep the admission from being addressed in the courts as to if admissions to a crime are illegal if it is not true. We are not criminalizing abortion we are asking why the perjury that violates a consitutional right to privacy is not proven in a court. I am given no reason why medically a person has to receive an abortion and not had gotten a female-specific amputation. It's been 50 years and no connection to the illegal invasion of privacy? Really? No wonder people decided to call marijuana a narcotic and seize private property based on that perjury there is consistent negligence taking place. So who decided to call a female-specific amputation an abortion?
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 605 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

     Doesn't that depend on who is the criminal conducting the crime? What you are trying to do is negate the advancements of the state of the union to create a more perfect union with a united state consitutional right. The risk is that we can never be allowed to prove that using admission to a crime to create controversy is a bad and dangerous way to address basic principles to establish the best union to form the largest united state between women who are pregnant and are at risk.
    In actual fact no, because we have seen precedent for such informal gatherings through the disestablishment of the benign rights of figs, and furthermore it cannot be considered an absolute right of unionism to criminalise that which controversially is principled upon the best advancements of pregnancy!!!!
  • @John_C_87

     Doesn't that depend on who is the criminal conducting the crime? What you are trying to do is negate the advancements of the state of the union to create a more perfect union with a united state consitutional right. The risk is that we can never be allowed to prove that using admission to a crime to create controversy is a bad and dangerous way to address basic principles to establish the best union to form the largest united state between women who are pregnant and are at risk.
    In actual fact no, because we have seen precedent for such informal gatherings through the disestablishment of the benign rights of figs, and furthermore it cannot be considered an absolute right of unionism to criminalise that which controversially is principled upon the best advancements of pregnancy!!!!
    Disagree, as fact, a woman is a united state with all other women as posterity, and while this descendent of humanity lives and breaths she comes before constitution with certain united states which are inalienable from all women other women as a united state. Of these rights at no point is an accusation to criminal actions part of those consitutional united states. A woman does not become pregnant she is a border to the future generations of posterity, as this basic right, no person by law can ensure the union of crime built around all women to exceed her own desire of self-preservation in that creation of posterity.

    Those who vote to assume liberty of control over the crossing of a border that lives as part of the women, pose upon themselves the risk of prosecution of the murder for a child, or mother who may not knowingly live the process of birth. Those who insist on the use of admission of crime such as murder by united state of common defense can be held accountable by women for that same risk, their murder or the child to which they are the legal guardian. Abortion of pregnancy was found to be illegal in 1973 by the Supreme Court by its exposure to loss of privacy and the admission is made as a prediction and fact set as a united state on all women.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 605 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    Disagree, as fact, a woman is a united state with all other women as posterity, and while this descendent of humanity lives and breaths she comes before constitution with certain united states which are inalienable from all women other women as a united state. Of these rights at no point is an accusation to criminal actions part of those consitutional united states. A woman does not become pregnant she is a border to the future generations of posterity, as this basic right, no person by law can ensure the union of crime built around all women to exceed her own desire of self-preservation in that creation of posterity.

    Ah, I see where you have gone wrong. It is not de facto true that posterity must always be defined through the criminal actions of the offending states, and in fact pregnancy often negates this entirely through the acquisition of aliens which then must be assured union between self-preservation and the constitutional right to play golf. Indeed, no person by law may impregnate said aliens for fear of future criminal actions and the dilemma this would create for the descendants of humanity.

    I hope I have clarified acceptably.

  • @Nomenclature

    Well Okay, you have no idea where that had gone...
    The general consensus of abortion is arguing it is good to connect every woman in the world by an accusation of a crime regardless of truth, abortion in relation to assuming control over a pregnancy is describing a murder. Female-specific amputation is describing a common good placing all women in the world in a group as a united state on basis of the creation of prosperity in the form of citizenship and its risk to become lethal, FYI not united states, like the United States of America. The United States as unions built around basic legal precedent, precedent in that "An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances."

    Legal as in not based on the principle of crime, a legal precedent, an act or instance that is used as an example and is not based on dealings with crime only similar circumstances the united state is the subsequent similar instance shared by all women who are created equal.


    Legal precedent - definition of Legal precedent by The Free Dictionary
  • NoahFlynnNoahFlynn 80 Pts   -  
    You keep saying that it's the mother's choice whether to abort the baby or not, But that doesn't mean it's the right choice! Abortion is murder. no way around it, it is wrong. I mean it's wrong to murder someone right? so why can you kill a unborn baby? and don't say that technically it's not a baby yet, a baby is a baby from the beginning. and so yes it is wrong, babies are people. and people have rights!
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfenOakTownA
  • Keal303NXQ3Keal303NXQ3 54 Pts   -  
    @NoahFlynn I literally addressed that. You're using appeal to emotion rather than facts. 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • NoahFlynnNoahFlynn 80 Pts   -  
    No, the facts are the we in America have laws against murder, but the problem is that some people don't think that babies are actual people <---fact, another fact, we do have rights as citizens of America, why should it be different for babies?  What are your facts? huh.  
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfen
  • Keal303NXQ3Keal303NXQ3 54 Pts   -  
    @NoahFlynn ;

    No, the facts are the we in America have laws against murder, but the problem is that some people don't think that babies are actual people

    America has states that allow women to abort if they choose. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States_by_state)

    <---fact, another fact, we do have rights as citizens of America, why should it be different for babies?  What are your facts? huh.  

    Everybody is gonna agree with you; killing a baby or anything that can potentially become a person is unfortunate. However, what everybody doesn't agree on is favoring a baby over a grown person. Again, just like Jeffery you obviously don't read because anything over 5 words is considered unreadable. Please, read up. 
  • NoahFlynnNoahFlynn 80 Pts   -  
    Another thing, if people don't want babies, then they shouldn't have sex outside of marriage, then they wouldn't have to resort to such gruesome acts, and another thing! instead of killing babies by aborting them, why not consider adoption, what's wrong that? but no, people would rather just kill baby! In the Declaration of Independence it states: ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. that doesn't mean just men, but women, children, black, white, African American, and babies, surly you can't disagree with that.
    PlaffelvohfenOakTownA
  • NoahFlynnNoahFlynn 80 Pts   -   edited May 4
    And that's the cruel truth, we are sinners, we do wrong things, but we must try to do something about it, how would you feel knowing your mother could have aborted you? dose not seem fair dose it? well that's the truth, those are the facts. The democrats want you to think it's ok, but it's is nothing morel anymore? I mean come on, Let me put it very simply, babies are people, murder is wrong, abortion is murder. 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Keal303NXQ3Keal303NXQ3 54 Pts   -  
    @NoahFlynn ;

    Another thing, if people don't want babies, then they shouldn't have sex outside of marriage,

    Hey, ever heard of rapists and accidents? There are birth control pills and abortion is a last resort. It's not something that can be easily done in 1, 2, and 3. 

    instead of killing babies by aborting them, why not consider adoption, what's wrong that?

    The problem is; you'd be making them suffer more long-term. In 1978 the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) implemented the "One-Child" Policy program as a response to the population size of the People's Republic of China (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/120114/understanding-chinas-one-child-policy.asp). It only allowed families to have one child (with exceptions to certain minorities, some of which could have up to four). This is important because if abortions were not allowed (illegal) you will have an overpopulation problem. "The goal of China's one-child policy was to make sure that population growth did not outpace economic development and to ease environmental and natural resource challenges and imbalances caused by a rapidly expanding population." (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/120114/understanding-chinas-one-child-policy.asp) If you criminalize abortion, you'll have many people fighting over resources long-term, whether that be food, water, or work, you would've been causing more suffering than if you were to abort. A lack of life is tenfold times better than a suffering one.

    (copy-pasted that since you didn't read it.)

    ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. that doesn't mean just men, but women, children, black, white, African American, and babies, surly you can't disagree with that.

    But a baby isn't a man as much as it is a bunch of cells. Again, the difference between a fetus and a man (in this context, a grown human) is that the mind of those individuals clearly differs in intellectual and emotional ways. If we defined people based on their physical features, the disabled, the ill, and the old would be considered lower-valued or maybe discriminated against.
    It would be best to define the mind as; rational self-awareness and/or sentience as that is what the mind in this context is. 
    To support the personhood argument; humans are defined by their mind, not by their cellular structure. The fetus is essentially just a microscopic ball of cells at that point, not a human being. The mind defines us, not our cellular structure. Masturbation would be genocide otherwise, as it kills millions of cells every go. (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110624141735AAnljs7)

    (copy-pasted that since you didn't read it.)


  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4916 Pts   -  
    @NoahFlynn ;
    No, the facts are the we in America have laws against murder, but the problem is that some people don't think that babies are actual people <---fact, another fact, we do have rights as citizens of America, why should it be different for babies?  What are your facts? huh.  
    Read my argument where I argue for abortion assuming the fetus is a person. It's still justified morally.
    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.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • bjinthirtybjinthirty 71 Pts   -  
    Abortion should be a court trial with the women always at a steady 68% ownership in leverage against the other party. Why? because its their life they risk not the other partys. It should be regulated not criminalized. They should also open up a regulated market for men who want babies to link up with women who want babies and a facility as the arbitrator and mediator arranging the agreement between both parties in terms of negotiations over the baby. Since the problem might arise by men who secretly yank the condom off to fill her up without her knowing. Or whatever reason it may be. A program like this is worth a try
  • NoahFlynnNoahFlynn 80 Pts   -  
    That might seem like a good idea but, 68% ownership? I get the baby is "her" baby but we are talking about a living being, also you said it's their life they risk, it's not, it's the babies life they are risking.

    And the problem with the yanking the condom off, well that should not a possibility, women should not have sex outside of marriage to prevent these things. 

    Now don't get me wrong you have a great idea, but maybe they should focus on adoption, a safer, humane way of dealing with this.
  • NoahFlynnNoahFlynn 80 Pts   -  
    Is that your best insult? <------ oh!  look I was replying and there is a six letter word. what do you know! that was sarcastic, oop! there is another one! ha ha ha ha! you have know idea the words I can comprehend <------ and another. that just me typing.@Keal303NXQ3
  • NoahFlynnNoahFlynn 80 Pts   -  
    Let me give you a lesson, back in the old days man didn't just mean man it ment men, women, children, and even babies! and babies are not just a bunch of cells, they are a person and have a soul, you aren't a bunch of cells and nether is a baby.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4916 Pts   -  
    @NoahFlynn ;
    Let me give you a lesson, back in the old days man didn't just mean man it ment men, women, children, and even babies! and babies are not just a bunch of cells, they are a person and have a soul, you aren't a bunch of cells and nether is a baby.
    Everyone is a bunch of cells, cells that are constantly growing, dying, splitting it two, carrying out life functions, metabolism, eating, interacting, and even killing. Your body has a natural "killer T" cell that searches out dead or diseased cells and then poisons them, killing them before the sickness can spread or the viruses inside can reproduce. When nerve cells work together, they can send the signals that tells the rest of the body when to move or what is being experienced. They form the brain which creates all thought and experience. With this in mind, what even is the soul?
    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.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • NoahFlynnNoahFlynn 80 Pts   -   edited May 4
    Can you read? I said Babies aren't  JUST cells, we ALSO have souls, do you know what just means?
    Plaffelvohfen
  • NoahFlynnNoahFlynn 80 Pts   -  
    Now, let me ask you a question, why should Abortion not be Criminalised?
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4916 Pts   -  
    @NoahFlynn ;
    Now, let me ask you a question, why should Abortion not be Criminalised?
    Read my argument above. Anyways, in the US we don't white list laws, we black list them meaning that we don't make things "legal" we make things "illegal" so you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it should be legal. You don't have to argue that eating ice cream on a Saturday at 10:07 is legal, but you do have to prove that stabbing someone who is eating ice cream and otherwise minding their own business should be illegal.

    Also, learn to tag people either by hitting "reply" (bottom right of a comment) or by typing " @ " followed by their username.
    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.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4916 Pts   -  
    @NoahFlynn ;
    Can you read? I said Babies aren't  JUST cells, we ALSO have souls, do you know what just means?
    No. What is a soul and can you prove it exists?
    Plaffelvohfen
    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.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • NoahFlynnNoahFlynn 80 Pts   -  
    Actually I can't, but you can't prove evolution, among other things. your just a kid looking to sound smart, take a closer look at your theory and you'll see why.
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfen
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4916 Pts   -  
    @NoahFlynn ;
    Actually I can't, but you can't prove evolution, among other things. your just a kid looking to sound smart, take a closer look at your theory and you'll see why.
    Evolution is one of the most well-evidenced theories in existence, only being beat by some other physics theories like Einstein's theory of relativity. Anyways, if you think that evolution can't be proved you are in for a rude awakening as it is basically already know to have happened, and it is irrelevant to this thread anyways.

    Your hubris will be your downfall.
    Plaffelvohfen
    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.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • NoahFlynnNoahFlynn 80 Pts   -  
    Listen to this, you say there was a Big Bang, what physical evidence is there? and not just some assumption like you evolutionists do constantly do,that is all I hear from you kids. 
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfen
  • NoahFlynnNoahFlynn 80 Pts   -  
    and work on your grammar son
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4916 Pts   -  
    @NoahFlynn ;
    Listen to this, you say there was a Big Bang, what physical evidence is there? and not just some assumption like you evolutionists do constantly do,that is all I hear from you kids. 
    This thread is about abortion, not the big bang. You should read my argument above (the long one with the syllogism) and reply to that.

    Also, learn to tag people either by hitting "reply" (bottom right of a comment) or by typing " @ " followed by their username, otherwise they will not get pinged.
    Plaffelvohfen
    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.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Keal303NXQ3Keal303NXQ3 54 Pts   -   edited May 4
    @NoahFlynn ;

    "Oh, I can't prove my own claim.
    I know! I'll just say something irrelevant to the subject matter and say I win!
    Haha, I'm SUCH a genius."

    Seriously? You're arguing like a 5th grader. Fallacious arguments. Not to mention, you're committing ad hominem fallacies.
    You aren't welcome here. 

    Listen to this, you say there was a Big Bang, what physical evidence is there? and not just some assumption like you evolutionists do constantly do,that is all I hear from you kids. 

    <says irrelevant things>
    <commits an ad hominem about sounding smart>
    <also tries to sound smart>

    Aside from that, here's evidence for the Big Bang. 

    The ‘Big Bang’ is the model for the formation of our Universe in which spacetime, and the matter within it, were created from a cosmic singularity. The model suggests that in the 13.7 billion years since the Universe began, it has expanded from an extremely small but incredibly dense and hot primordial fireball, to the enormous but cold and diffuse Universe we see around us today.

    In other words; this is a retracing of all our quantum and physical knowledge of the laws of the universe. Not an absolute beginning. It's not creation ex nihilo.

    According to Big Bang theory, the journey from primordial fireball to the present-day Universe involves several stages linked to the temperature of the Universe at the time. From the moment of the Big Bang up until about 3,000 years after (the radiation-dominated era), the density of radiation in the Universe was greater than the density of matter. However, in an expanding Universe, the radiation density falls faster than the matter density and the Universe became matter-dominated. The temperature of the Universe continued to fall through expansion until, after about 300,000 years, it had reached temperatures below 3,000 Kelvin. At this point, the photons no longer had sufficient energy to stop electrons and atomic nuclei from binding to form hydrogen and helium atoms, and the process of recombination began. Ever since this epoch of recombination, the astronomical structures we are familiar with today (planetsstarsgalaxies) were able to form, and the Universe has continued to expand.
    The Big Bang model is supported by three important observations:

    1. The expansion of the Universe as deduced from the distance-redshift relationship for galaxies and described by the Hubble law. Extrapolating the observed expansion backwards in time, one reaches the conclusion that at some time in the distant past, all matter in the Universe must have been contained in a small region of space.
    2. The abundances of the lightest elements (hydrogen, helium, deuterium, lithium) are consistent with their creation in a Big Bang event and not via subsequent nucleosynthesis in stars. In particular, the abundances of helium (the total amount is much larger than could have been produced by stellar nucleosynthesis) and deuterium (stars can only destroy deuterium) strongly suggest their synthesis in the Big Bang.
    3. The cosmic microwave background radiation. As a result of the expansion of the Universe, it was predicted that radiation from the Big Bang would have cooled to about 3 degrees Kelvin at the present epoch. The microwave background radiation, with a wavelength dependence extremely close to that a perfect blackbody, permeates the Universe at 2.725 Kelvin. This is completely consistent with a fireball event in which the radiation field was in thermal equilibrium, and is perhaps the most convincing evidence for the Big Bang.

      Spectrum of the cosmic microwave backgroundbigbang2jpg
      (https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/B/Big+Bang#:~:text=The microwave background radiation, with a wavelength dependence,the most convincing evidence for the Big Bang.)

      (https://www.schoolsobservatory.org/learn/astro/cosmos/bigbang/bb_evid)

      (https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang)

      In other words; there have been observations that allowed us to infer a time where everything went from a singular point in space. To say we need observations and ignoring all the other ways Science finds and secures knowledge (via testing, hypothesis, observations, and etc...) is... well, ignorant.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • NoahFlynnNoahFlynn 80 Pts   -  
    Well thanks for the technical advise, but I have to disagree.
  • Keal303NXQ3Keal303NXQ3 54 Pts   -  
    @NoahFlynn Facts don't care about your feelings.  :#
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfen
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 806 Pts   -   edited May 4
    @Keal192NXQ2

    "Before we go any further, let's make this very clear.
    No one wants to kill anything. Human baby, animal, or not."

    How so?  Seems pretty evident to me they do want kill it.  Whether you think it's a person or not is one thing, but they still want to kill it. When you look at why people want abortions it's usually related to they don't want the responsibility to take care of it, it messes up career/future goals, they don't think they can support it ect.  Those don't go away if the go through with the pregnancy.

    "It would be best to define the mind as; rational self-awareness and/or sentience as that is what the mind in this context is."

    So what if your sleeping, unconscious, ect.  Also I'd argue that babies don't have rational self awareness. I'd argue there are many animals that higher awareness than babies. 
    Can we kill babies, and should certain animals be considered human?
  • Keal303NXQ3Keal303NXQ3 54 Pts   -   edited May 4
    @MichaelElpers ;

    How so.  Seems pretty evident to me they do want kill it.  Whether you think it's a person or not is one thing, but they still want to kill it. 

    Imagine someone points at you within shooting distance, "Kill your mother and father with your own hands." Tell me, would you want to do it? For the sake of your life, you'll comply. Does this mean you WANTED to kill your mother and father? No. Of course not. However, you needed to. 

    For the same logic, in order to preserve a woman's life, we must end a potential life. We aren't monsters who wish for infanticide.

    Those don't go away if the go through with the pregnancy.

    A baby would make things worse, and since they wish that this not be the case, they choose abortion. 

    So what if your sleeping, unconscious, ect.

    When a person is sleeping or unconscious, that doesn't mean they never had a sense of awareness. Fetuses, on the other hand, never experienced a sense of awareness; sentience. Context matters.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 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