Is the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s View On Abortion and Right To Life Issues Correct? - 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 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.





Is the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s View On Abortion and Right To Life Issues Correct?

Debate Information



The Church of FSM’s position is that life starts before conception (somewhere around the point of seeing the boobs), and that sperms – as potential humans if allowed to develop – deserve the same protections as fetuses and fully grown people. Anyone who harms sperms is guilty of murder, including pushers of hot water Jacuzzis and tight-fitting underwear. We are all equal in the eyes of the Almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster.

So what is your view?
SkepticalOne



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • @JulesKorngold

    According to science life starts with the ovum and sperm if you are going to have science lie for you how do we know when the lies stop? The views on prolife and abortion are wrong the invasion of privacy does not save any of the lives from an admission to a crime which is describing only a medical treatment. The medical treatment is an amputation and not someone say, " I officially call this process which as officially started to stop." Most arguments state the lives in question have not been integrated enough to insist an immigration process must continue,

    The argument is that invasion of privacy cannot be the argument as that would mean legislation created an immunity by law against illegal invasion of privacy only and not the act of terminating pregnancy. Women began the preservation of united states constitutional rights destroying American constitution. That during this process they broke the law by participating in the invasion of privacy and possible the illegal admission made by the word abortion.

    The failure of women and men is not the failure of united states constitutional and right...The argument is not any longer over a women’s idea's it is over a perfect connection women could have made with a state of the union made for the preamble of American Constitution,  an argument between all women concerned and the abilities to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, promote general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity, ordain and establish United State constitution.

    There was a saying never bring a knife to a gun fight, well, it time to stop briing a lie to a fact finding judicial process.


  • @JulesKorngold
    Anyone who harms sperms is guilty of murder,

    Maybe it was the self-evident truth held by the legilsation of law by our defineiton to murder which needed to be improved as a constitutional state of the union. Same principle differet C___ what we write is perfect becuase we wrote it as a demcoracy and not republic.

    Your not just a spaghetti monster advertiser you are a spaghetti monster client as well…


  • dallased25dallased25 303 Pts   -   edited June 9
    My stance is simple. It doesn't matter if your opinion is that life begins at conception or before the sperm ever reaches the egg, which is silly, because then if you pull out, or using a condom, you are committing mass genocide? But I digress, my point is that the debate should center on the rights of the individual and the right to make medical choices over their own body (bodily autonomy). You take away that right from women, then it's a slippery slope that could be used in other areas, for example, if the standard is "protecting life", then what's to prevent religious law makers to start requiring people to give blood? Or donate their organs to someone who will die without it? I mean, those who are anti-abortion always go to "abortion is murder". Well if you deny giving bone marrow to someone who will die without a transplant, aren't you also committing murder? So if that argument was successful, it's not hard to imagine a state where you will get jail time if you don't donate that bone marrow and the kid dies. If the government is able and willing to take away bodily autonomy for women...which is half the human race...then for certain they can construct an argument to do it for men as well. Once they start talking about that, I'd bet the religious men who are so hardcore anti-abortion, will suddenly care about bodily autonomy! That's when the hypocrisy and the lack of caring about an individuals right to make medical choices over their own body will be revealed! 
  • @dallased25
     you are committing mass genocide?

    As fact, the whole truth dalased25 not being humanly capable to save everyone who might die is not the act of genocide. The argument between men and women though are very different as truth. A woman only has one embryo, most often, yet her life is at the highest level of risk. Are you trying to say honesty is not the best policy?


  • dallased25dallased25 303 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    I'm massively confused at your question at the end. My comment on "committing mass genocide" was in reference to the FSM's stance on Sperm that, "Anyone who harms sperms is guilty of murder". Well, technically pulling out or using a condom will kill all the sperm, unless you intend on freezing them and giving them to a sperm bank. Anyone else though under this logic is indeed committing mass genocide since you are intentionally putting all the sperm (not just one) in harms way, knowing they will all die. So any man who has sex for the purposes of pleasure, with no intention of making a baby, with every intention of using a condom or pulling out, is "harming sperm and guilty of murder". The rest of what you said on the difference in between men and women and your question at the end makes no sense, can you clarify? 
  • @dallased25
    My comment on "committing mass genocide" was in reference to the FSM's stance on Sperm that, "Anyone who harms sperms is guilty of murder".  First remember we share a common goal together as a cause we are looking for the more perfect union with justice using truth. Men are guilty of murder if convicted the issue is the definition of murder a state of the union  with the use of lethal force ending the life of sperm or is it imperfect and correction is needed. A human life does not begin in one place is a scientific arguement. Sperm is a living organism is  a scientific argument.

    Anyone else though under this logic is indeed committing mass genocide since you are intentionally putting all the sperm (not just one) in harm’s way, knowing they will all die. There is no one else but men under this logic as a united state this can be a point of finding of whole truth as to the statement all men are created equal by their creator in this matter. This matter alone, not one woman shares this state of the union of law under Constitutional states of address, in a truth sworn by oath regarding law. Anywhere in the world not just in America. The goal of global united state is a sign for argument that the state of the union is a perfect one as it includes the largest number of people together.

    I should not have to say this though sometimes obvious is not always enough representation when it comes to truth, having a condition that a majority approves of is not a more perfect state of the union. 

     The rest of what you said on the difference in between men and women and your question at the end makes no sense, can you clarify? I can only try to find the more perfect state of the union between what I see as truth, and how I as a person might explain that limit of truth clearly.

    Dallased25 please keep in mind pregnancy is an attempt at murder itself by basic prnciple as the risk of death is inalieanble to birth even at 99.999 % the arm brought to bear by man makes a state of this union twards posterity as truth, women die while conceving a child, men do not die during child birth, men play a part by neglect or abuse for the loss sometimes and do not share in the risk. The state of the consitutional union here is among things made between rape, medical fertilizations, and natuiral human intercourse and reproduction. The risk is still not a perfet state of the union between all of these truth that are influenced by facts that take place and we also can add will and can pratice in some way help a women's likelyhood to live through the process of birth. 

    I will not sell this short creating states of the constitutional union using a collection of carefully weighted self-evident truth is no simple task. By its monumental burdens to bear not even made easier with larger numbers of we the people working on the process, it remains unchanged in demand of human intuition, intelligence, and fortitude. Is honestly the best policy, is then simplistic expressions of honest better?


  • dallased25dallased25 303 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    I have to be honest...everything you said doesn't make sense. It's all just word salad. I'm sorry I read it through a couple of times, but I can't read crazy. 
  • @John_C_87
    I have to be honest...everything you said doesn't make sense. It's all just word salad. I'm sorry I read it through a couple of times, but I can't read crazy. 

    Sorry, I will really simplify the principle it is too much for you to comprehend.

     A man cannot commit genocide simple by killing living sperm in much the same way a woman does not kill an embryo by allowing it to die. They still do however use lethal force on living things.
    Women do not produce nearly enough embryos the be fertilized by natural acts of reproduction between men and women.                                                                                                                                                               A women's pregnancy is by facts an attempted of murder due to the fact women die giving birth it is a unavoidable risk, minimized.


    Legal Definition- Murder occurs when one human being unlawfully kills another human being. 

    Murder | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
    The flaw of lethal force and murder is in the united state of written law and self-evident truth to be held by American United States Constitution.
    Embryo and sperm are both human and it is their age and citizenship which hold them as different. 

    Abortion is a word used that creates the removal of benefit of doubt and excuses an illegal loss of privacy to the sperm which may be a murder weapon. It may only be as low as 0.001% of the women but it is still a murder weapon. It is a know fact Medicine through practice has made birth safer it is still life threatening.



  • BarnardotBarnardot 185 Pts   -  
    @dallased25 ;have to be honest...everything you said doesn't make sense. It's all just word salad. I'm sorry I read it through a couple of times, but I can't read crazy. 

    So are you done with him to. See you have to wonder why does every one except me lye and say salad things but you won’t be able to see that because if your on a giant soap box then your head will be in the cloud so may be you want to have some pie with humbel in it and come down out of there and then try and understand what people say without all the dum accusing sand deniels and lyeing any way.

  • @dallased25
    I have to be honest...everything you said doesn't make sense. It's all just word salad. I'm sorry I read it through a couple of times, but I can't read crazy. 

     The focus of our debate is over a complex issue of the use of lethal force and the legal definition of murder does not create a complete collection of truths to why someone might be exposed to lethal force by another person or by nature. It has been a popular idea to say the American United States Constitution is outdated. Yet! It is an American United States Constitutional right to prove the state of the Constitution is imperfect and can be improved.


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