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.





Being Pro-Choice Is The Only Logical Position, Persuade Me Otherwise

13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • ThomasiusThomasius 75 Pts   -  
    @Vaulk

    Of course my claim is substantiated because a grouping of cells cannot be truly aware of itself or any benefits or consequences incurring upon it until it has a brain to perceive these things.

    The problem with your point on fetal autonomy is that, yes, it can grow on its own potentially, but, until it has the capacity to experience itself as well as experience the benefits or consequences of morality, then what can we apply morality to? A basketball can’t experience itself and is not able to register benefit or consequence, so I can’t apply morality to it and thus it doesn’t matter what happens to it. What’s the difference here between a basketball and a currently non-sentient clump of cells?

    Plaffelvohfen
    Acta deos numquam mortalia fallunt.
  • @Thomasius ;

    The answer is clear if you can’t understand the basic grievance created by self-incrimination. No.

    Can I ask how old you are?



  • ThomasiusThomasius 75 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    Well, to be honest, my issue with discerning your points isn't my age, but the lack of basic grammar in your sentences. Aside from that, since you've stated you're not in favor of abortion, why do you object? How does abortion create self-incrimination?
    Plaffelvohfen
    Acta deos numquam mortalia fallunt.

  • Good judgment may not be due to age ? Are you sure about that?  In relationship to admissions of guilt, after described felony crime, self-incrimination takes place when the person  admits to making the choice, or Pro-choice.. No, I did not state I am not in favor of abortion.  A woman has a constitutional right to describe a murder, then admit to carrying out the crime. I said you are not educated, or maybe just no wise enough to understand the problem of abusing constitutional unions as trust, by exposures to self-incrimination as an entrapment, then allowing the dismissal of presumption to innocence with United State Constitutional right. 

    Can all woman say they have had a female specific amputation without self-incrimination ?
    Can all woman say after the official start of pregnancy the woman made a choice to terminate the pregnancy without self-incrimination?

     Good grammar is very important, it may even help when spreading out written admission of guilt out over several sentences. I will keep that in mind thank you.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • @Thomasius ;

    Well point out the grammar concern directly, rephrase the statement in question to English grammar mistake, you are literally arguing the alibi given to the admission of crime as a women’s choice and you are questioning how abortion is self-incriminating to woman.

    By the way in understanding how old you are may help me present the principles in an easier to understand way. 
  • ThomasiusThomasius 75 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    Forget it, I'll not mention the grammar issue, as that's not helping me. So, is the reason you object to abortion because it implies self-incrimination? If so, are you making a moral case in principle or making a case in terms of U.S. legality?
    Acta deos numquam mortalia fallunt.
  • John_C_87 said:
    @Thomasius

    Well, to be honest, both opinions (pro-life or pro-choice) are valid in themselves. Anyone is quite justified in holding the belief that "life begins at conception", or not...

    What is unacceptable is the forceful imposition of either beliefs by law. You don't like abortion? Don't have one, problem solved...
    I beg your pardon? 
    Did you just write don't like abortion don't  have one problem solved? There was a United State Constitutional duty to preserve liberty and have a trial on an admission made directed at all woman as a united state. so to a type don't have one no problem after a publicly claimed murder with no trial is unacceptable. Short of a Presadera or Presidential pardon there will never be a resolution to the gross misconduct of legislation and malpractice that has taken place. Neither Pro-choice or Pro-Life are valid they are a misrepresentation to a life threatening issue of immigration of across international border by basic principle.
    This one here is called "The repetitive United State Constitutional" fallacy. >:)
    Plaffelvohfen대왕광개토



  • 대왕광개토대왕광개토 235 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 It seems that nobody on this website can fully comprehend what you are saying. Unless you make your statements clear and readable, nobody will address your claims properly. 
    ZeusAres42
  • Thomasius said:
    @John_C_87
    Forget it, I'll not mention the grammar issue, as that's not helping me. So, is the reason you object to abortion because it implies self-incrimination? If so, are you making a moral case in principle or making a case in terms of U.S. legality?

    Preserving united State Constitutional right. The legal argument and the moral argument had already been made; damage done. The logical thing to do at this point is establish a united State constitutional explanation can be made.


  • @ZeusAres42 ;
    This one here is called "The repetitive United State Constitutional" fallacy.
    No, it is not a unsound argument someone is doing what they have been told to do, quote. "You don't like abortion? Don't have one, problem solved..."  Female specific amputation is literally NOT pregnancy abortion. Something else has been described other then life the basic principles as topic are danger and immigration.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @John_C_87 It seems that nobody on this website can fully comprehend what you are saying. Unless you make your statements clear and readable, nobody will address your claims properly. 

    But, they do know what self-incrimination is? Do they know what an admissions are ? 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • 대왕광개토대왕광개토 235 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    @John_C_87 It seems that nobody on this website can fully comprehend what you are saying. Unless you make your statements clear and readable, nobody will address your claims properly. 

    But, they do know what self-incrimination is? Do they know what an admissions are ? 
    The problem is not about whether they know the definitions of the words you use, but about the way you confusingly use specific words(self-incrimintion, self-amputation, united states, constitutional rights, etc). 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • A they are literally details in the words people are use. Female specific amputation is not self-amputation and is not likely to create the principle of a crime it is a basic principle.

    @대왕광개토
  • Can you share with us Plaffelvohfen how self-incriminations and admissions with any person do not place risk on a persons ability to control their body. To confirm the notion of none relevance? Is it your way, or the high way or not. If so? I am taking the high road. Something of great concern in female specific amputations it that a Nation shares the woman's united state to terminate pregnancies on legal ground or prosecute the terminations of terminations on legal grounds. Proving the woman has always had control of her criminal intentions even though a lack of body control by law of nature exists.

    You failed in creating all woman as equal plaffelvohfen. You failed in preserving united state constitution. Fix the failure or not a union will take place that will create all woman as equal exposing negligence were it may fall.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • ThomasiusThomasius 75 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    I'm sorry, but I just won't be able to continue a debate with you specifically because I just can't sufficiently derive coherent points from your points due to their immense grammatical errors.
    Acta deos numquam mortalia fallunt.
  • Thomasius said:
    @John_C_87
    I'm sorry, but I just won't be able to continue a debate with you specifically because I just can't sufficiently derive coherent points from your points due to their immense grammatical errors.

    No need to apologize since it is my grammar explaining self-incriminations used incorrectly, realistically though we are not talking English grammar as all goal in principle was to create all woman as equal without the use of criminal accusation to do so. As a trail  was expected by this process.


  • A constitutional right is nothing more that a union made between basic principle and legal precedent correctly. Public Grievance, like grammar as a facture which influences the union set by abortion is interesting, how so? The connection to any crime described is made by not using basic principles, abortion is not the words stop, terminate, remove it is a complex principle so in context could be never understood clearly. That process has nothing to do with grammar.
  • Something to think about logically. Pro-choice meant a choice could be made or there are only two options as choice. Female specific amputation sounds a lot like a choice a person might make just to preserve something like innocence.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -  
    Thomasius said:
    @Vaulk

    Of course my claim is substantiated because a grouping of cells cannot be truly aware of itself or any benefits or consequences incurring upon it until it has a brain to perceive these things.

    The problem with your point on fetal autonomy is that, yes, it can grow on its own potentially, but, until it has the capacity to experience itself as well as experience the benefits or consequences of morality, then what can we apply morality to? A basketball can’t experience itself and is not able to register benefit or consequence, so I can’t apply morality to it and thus it doesn’t matter what happens to it. What’s the difference here between a basketball and a currently non-sentient clump of cells?

    So then your conclusion is that consciousness is the deciding factor in whether or not something is a Human Being?  I think I understand that your arguing for the lack of self-awareness and lack of awareness of the actions of others and how those actions might be perceived were the fetus to be aware.

    So then if THIS (Self-awareness) is the standard, then how is someone in a coma any different?  A person in a coma cannot experience itself and cannot experience the benefits or consequences of morality.  A person in a coma cannot register benefit or consequence so, according to you, you cannot apply morality to a person in a coma and therefor it doesn't matter what happens to "It".  

    But therein lies the issue, whatever standard you attempt to apply to a fetus, clump of cells, zygote, whatever you wanna call it...when you try to apply it across the board and broadly...it doesn't work.  This is because the standards that pro-choice supporters apply to these clumps of cells are illogical and teeming with hypocrisy for the sake of siding with Women on the matter because of the popular consensus that whatever they want must be what's right.  

    The undisputed fact of the matter is that, in the United States, the proximate cause of 99% of unwanted pregnancies is pure, unadulterated indifference.  In the age of information, the age of technology, when more knowledge and data is available to more people that it EVER has been...there seems to be this inexplicable issue of "I just didn't know" and "Oops".  The problem here is that those two statements don't really do us any justice. If the truth were forced out of the mouths of these accidental parents it would instead sound something more like "I just didn't give a damn" and "I figured I'd deal with the consequences later because...there's always abortions".  THAT'S the true issue here and until we stop making excuses and offering 2nd and 3rd ways out of the consequences for the oldest and most effective way of getting pregnant...we're never going to end the abortion debate.

    And to answer your question as to the difference between a basketball and a currently non-sentient clump of cells:  A basketball is an inanimate object that possesses no life.  The "Currently non-sentient clump of cells" is an autonomously growing life form of the Human species and if left to the natural progression set forth by 99% of the women who become pregnant by choice then it will develop into a fully formed Human infant.  This is setting aside the difference that, autonomously speaking, a basketball will never be anything but a basketball.
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    @Vaulk

    "So then if THIS (Self-awareness) is the standard, then how is someone in a coma any different?


    Someone in a coma is 1) born... 2) already attained full personhood at some point before being comatosed... 3) We can and do, regularly unplug comatose patients with the family approval...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen ;

    We can and do, regularly unplug comatose patients with the family approval...
    We? The Medical practice does not have the patient self-incriminate before the machine assisted possible torture as life support is shut off. 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • ThomasiusThomasius 75 Pts   -  
    @Vaulk

    To your first point, my concern is not whether or not it is human, but rather if it has the conscious capacity to experience the consequences or benefits of morality.

    To your coma point, there is still some degree of experience since there is still life, and, aside from this, the person in a coma will still experience the process of being stripped away of life, even in a subconscious state, because the process of becoming dead will actively strip away the subconscious state of being. So, no, this is not comparable so as to produce a contradiction in my line of reasoning.

    To your point on standards of fetal development, I’m not sure what you’re trying to state. However, I’ll state my position is not predicated upon that it is currently socially expedient to be pro-choice, but instead as a result of discerning objectivity.

    As for your fourth paragraph, this seems mostly irrelevant as it just pertains to the reasons people choose to have abortions, rather than talking about the morality of abortion itself.

    I understand the material difference between a basketball and a fetus, but if both don’t have the capacity to experience what happens to them, then where does the moral difference arise?

    Acta deos numquam mortalia fallunt.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -  
    Thomasius said:
    @Vaulk

    To your first point, my concern is not whether or not it is human, but rather if it has the conscious capacity to experience the consequences or benefits of morality.

    To your coma point, there is still some degree of experience since there is still life, and, aside from this, the person in a coma will still experience the process of being stripped away of life.

    And there it is. A person in a coma has no conscious capacity because they are, by definition, "Unconscious".

    You've gone further and done me the favor of explaining that life equals a degree of experience. While I don't necessarily agree, I'll buy your standard and let's go with that. The zygote, clump of cells, fetus is alive by all definitions and therefor possesses a degree of awareness or "Consciousness" as you've stated and can "Experience" the stripping away of life as all living things can. 

    Lastly, a fetus has just as much capacity to experience the benefits or consequences of morality as someone in a coma does since they both possess life and, according to you, life inherently comes with some degree of experience despite being unconscious.


    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • ThomasiusThomasius 75 Pts   -  
    @Vaulk
    I suppose I'll admit I misspoke a bit. I meant cognitive capacity for experience, not conscious capacity, and the difference here is that while a sentient lifeform may be unconscious, it still has the capacity to experience to some degree and it definitely will experience the process of being stripped of all life since such a process would strip even a lifeform's subconscious self.
    To your second paragraph, I didn't say life equals capacity for experience. The standard for life alone is merely that the given matter functions and maintains on its own, especially with the capacity to replicate. So, no, something does not experience just because it is life. It may react, but like a lizard's tail may twitch, this is just a process that is devoid of experience. For a lifeform to experience things, it must necessarily have a cognitive system in order to register itself as well as the things incurring upon it.
    To your last point on fetuses, if a fetus has a functional cognitive system, then yes it can experience, but until it has developed such a brain, it cannot experience at all and thus morality cannot be applied to it.
    PlaffelvohfenVaulk
    Acta deos numquam mortalia fallunt.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -   edited October 2019
    Thomasius said:
    @Vaulk
    I suppose I'll admit I misspoke a bit. I meant cognitive capacity for experience, not conscious capacity, and the difference here is that while a sentient lifeform may be unconscious, it still has the capacity to experience to some degree and it definitely will experience the process of being stripped of all life since such a process would strip even a lifeform's subconscious self.
    To your second paragraph, I didn't say life equals capacity for experience. The standard for life alone is merely that the given matter functions and maintains on its own, especially with the capacity to replicate. So, no, something does not experience just because it is life. It may react, but like a lizard's tail may twitch, this is just a process that is devoid of experience. For a lifeform to experience things, it must necessarily have a cognitive system in order to register itself as well as the things incurring upon it.
    To your last point on fetuses, if a fetus has a functional cognitive system, then yes it can experience, but until it has developed such a brain, it cannot experience at all and thus morality cannot be applied to it.
    Yet again we're deeper in the hole now because, if we're going by your standard, "Cognition" is required in order to determine whether or not something can experience things.  Ok then.  Cognition is the mental action of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience and the senses.  This argument for cognitive capacity in coma patients does not compute as there is no capacity for cognition when the following is true:

    People in a coma have no ability to consciously feel, speak, hear or move and cannot experience stimuli.  Coma patients cannot initiate voluntary actions...similar to your lizard's tail example where tissue can react but not voluntarily.  People in a coma show no signs of being aware and therefore are "Devoid of experience".
    https://brainfoundation.org.au/disorders/coma/

    People in a coma cannot feel pain. This lays to rest your claim that coma patients are incomparable to a fetus because they will inevitably experience the "Stripping of life" .  This is flat out wrong, coma patients C A N N O T feel pain, they can't feel A N Y T H I N G.
    http://www.healthtalk.org/peoples-experiences/nerves-brain/family-experiences-vegetative-and-minimally-conscious-states/what-coma-and-what-vegetative-state

    Even with emerging evidence of new consciousness theories, in your established standard of consciousness and cognitive function...coma patients aren't aware, cannot feel anything and cannot experience morality or the benefits/draw backs of said morality.

    Coma patients and Fetuses are both alive but neither have the capacity for cognitive function because neither are aware.  Neither can experience anything including moral benefits.  In the case of the coma patient having been born...the level of dependency of a coma patient is actually exponentially higher than that of a fetus so I'm not sure how "He's already outside the womb" adds an additional qualifier to the person who has no capacity for cognitive function.  Now if we were to move from your point to another point of "Potential" cognitive function then we might have something but then again...fetuses also have the potential for cognitive function as if they're left to their natural state of development...they'll mature into cognitive people.

    Lastly,
    Thomasius said:
    @Vaulk

    To your second paragraph, I didn't say life equals capacity for experience. 
    Yes, you did.
    Thomasius said:
    @Vaulk

    To your coma point, there is still some degree of experience since there is still life

    This is you justifying that a degree of experience must exist BECAUSE life is present.  
    Plaffelvohfen
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    @Vaulk

    A comatosed individual, at some point crossed at least 2 thresholds to get in that vegetative state.  1) it was born alive, 2) it actively exercised cognitive abilities at some point prior to being comatose, if it never actively exercised cognition then it never was a person... A human born in a vegetative state with no cognitive ability, is not a person, as it is not living, it's alive but will not "live", it would only exist and "existence" is not "life"...

    But if at some point, it did fulfill all the requirements for being a person, once those requirement are fulfilled and rights acquired, it's harder (but not impossible) to withdraw rights... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • ThomasiusThomasius 75 Pts   -  
    @Vaulk

    Perhaps one in a coma doesn’t feel pain, but they will necessarily experience the process of dying because, as I’ve said before, this process of death will definitely strip them of the minute essence of being they possess in even a coma. A comatose state is still a cognitive state, it’s just not active consciousness, for cognition doesn’t literally disappear into nothingness during a coma since nothingness doesn’t exist to begin with, therefore, something is necessarily still there and will necessarily still be stripped away if killed.

    Okay, when did I say that life equals capacity for experience? The truth is that life can exist without the capacity for experience because not all life possesses a cognitive apparatus to register itself and the things incurring upon it. All I’ve said is that morality can only be applied to life once it has cognition, for if it doesn’t, then this grouping of cells or single cellular life is no more or less morally comparable to inert matter.

    Lastly, I’m not justifying that experience must exist because life is present. If you actually present my argument correctly, my statement is that life can only experience if it has a cognitive apparatus. Until it has cognition, it is just living matter as opposed to abiotic matter and it has just as much moral worth as abiotic matter.

    Acta deos numquam mortalia fallunt.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @Thomasius Sorry I was delayed on a response.  I'm not going to interrupt the thought pattern between you and vaulk , especially because his outlook is similar to mine.
  • ThomasiusThomasius 75 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers
    Do as you wish, though I'm not sure if Vaulk is going to respond or not, so if he doesn't inquire later down the line, feel free to jump in. Feel free to jump in any time, actually.
    Acta deos numquam mortalia fallunt.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -   edited November 2019
    Thomasius said:
    @Vaulk

    Perhaps one in a coma doesn’t feel pain, but they will necessarily experience the process of dying because, as I’ve said before, this process of death will definitely strip them of the minute essence of being they possess in even a coma. A comatose state is still a cognitive state, it’s just not active consciousness, for cognition doesn’t literally disappear into nothingness during a coma since nothingness doesn’t exist to begin with, therefore, something is necessarily still there and will necessarily still be stripped away if killed.

    Okay, when did I say that life equals capacity for experience? The truth is that life can exist without the capacity for experience because not all life possesses a cognitive apparatus to register itself and the things incurring upon it. All I’ve said is that morality can only be applied to life once it has cognition, for if it doesn’t, then this grouping of cells or single cellular life is no more or less morally comparable to inert matter.

    Lastly, I’m not justifying that experience must exist because life is present. If you actually present my argument correctly, my statement is that life can only experience if it has a cognitive apparatus. Until it has cognition, it is just living matter as opposed to abiotic matter and it has just as much moral worth as abiotic matter.

    At this point we're at a stalemate as you're either unable or outright refuse to accept medical facts regarding the coma patients not being conscious, possessing cognitive functions and being unable to experience anything.  I've laid this out and even linked the proof necessary to substantiate the claim.  I've also lined up and provided the definition of cognition as provided by the oxford dictionary so that there could be zero misunderstanding yet...you're continuing to refuse to see logical and irrefutable proof of your error in conclusion.

    Cognition: The mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses. 
    https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/cognition

    You C A N N O T acquire knowledge or understanding through thought, experience or the senses while in a coma because you're not conscious.  It is medical fact that coma patients are not aware of anything and are unconscious.

    UnconsciousNot awake and aware of and responding to one's environment.
    https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/unconscious

    This almost seems as if you're insistent upon having your own meaning of words...like they only mean what you want them to mean when it's convenient for you.

    I'll conclude by saying that, "Words mean things" and while I enjoy the challenge of debate...at this point our debate is starting to feel like hitting a brick wall over and over expecting different results.  I wish you the best of luck on your debates in the future.
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • In all seriousness Pro-Choice is not the only logical position to take on abortion. But neither is Pro-life the only logical position to take on this debate. Both points are dichotomous, and there's rarely anything logical about dichotomy.




  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -  
    @Vaulk

    A comatosed individual, at some point crossed at least 2 thresholds to get in that vegetative state.  1) it was born alive, 2) it actively exercised cognitive abilities at some point prior to being comatose, if it never actively exercised cognition then it never was a person... A human born in a vegetative state with no cognitive ability, is not a person, as it is not living, it's alive but will not "live", it would only exist and "existence" is not "life"...

    But if at some point, it did fulfill all the requirements for being a person, once those requirement are fulfilled and rights acquired, it's harder (but not impossible) to withdraw rights... 
    While I respect your right to have that opinion, I wholly disagree.  Unfortunately I don't hold the same opinion regarding what constitutes personhood.  I suppose we could debate it but between us I don't think there's reconcilable differences in our fundamental views.

    In addition to our different view on personhood we may also hold different views on the morals of the decision itself.  THAT might be something we can debate effectively as I'm of the understanding that the reason for your choice is as impactful as the action itself regarding the morality.  For example, giving someone a million dollars is generally seen as charitable behavior and being gracious however, if you gave it away with the intent on seeing it destroy the life of whomever you gave it to...then the act itself has no moral merit.  Thus my point regarding the "Why" being just as important as the act.
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • ThomasiusThomasius 75 Pts   -  
    @Vaulk

    The problem is that you do not properly represent my point. Sure, a brain is not actively aware in a comatose state, but the comatose state is indeed still a state because it’s not the same thing as a deceased brain. There is an important differentiation between a brain that is inactive versus one that is dead because the brain that is simply inactive still holds the presence of being a brain, whereas a brain that is dead no longer has this presence because  the matter comprising the dead brain is just part of inert nature now. So, while a comatose patient cannot directly and actively experience, their comatose state will be stripped of them in the process of being killed and that still morally qualifies because something at all is still there. So, this brick wall you’re hitting is merely a fictitious one that you’ve conjured one from either misunderstanding me or from actively misconstruing my points out of bad faith.

    Acta deos numquam mortalia fallunt.
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    What are you talking about here?

    "Because if point out the relevance of the united state as a constitutional instituted things become clear about

    (the womans choice and the featus of Barak Obama and Donald Trump.")
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    @Vaulk

    Agreed, when it comes down to it, it's a question of belief, right? We each have a belief that we hold for true, regarding personhood and the value of life, correct? And I don't think that we can actually KNOW when personhood begins because personhood (as well as qualitative values) is intrinsically a subjective concept, would you agree with that?

    The question then becomes, how do we go forward when 2 opposing subjective value come in conflict? 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • I am against abortion because this ‘cluster of cells’ is an organism which will, over 3/4 of a year, become a sentient being. Skin cells are different because their intended purpose is to be a part of said being, not the whole being.
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • *and aren’t sentient
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    I am against abortion because this ‘cluster of cells’ is an organism which will, over 3/4 of a year, become a sentient being. Skin cells are different because their intended purpose is to be a part of said being, not the whole being.
    So, would it be accurate to conclude that you believe a potential equates an actual, in that they objectively hold the same value? And could you expand on how you came to this conclusion? 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen
    Yes, I am stating that a potential equates an actual
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • ThomasiusThomasius 75 Pts   -  
    @AmericanFurryBoy

    This cluster of cells may become a sentient lifeform over time, but until it has a brain, do you recognize that there is nothing that can be morally measured since this non-sentient cluster of cells currently cannot experience the benefits or consequences of morality? As for your claim on differentiation between skin cells and fetal cells, skin cells and non-sentient fetal cells are both morally equivalent as they both are just as aware as inert matter like rocks and water.

    Acta deos numquam mortalia fallunt.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    @AmericanFurryBoy

    Ok, could I ask how you came to this conclusion? It doesn't seem very intuitive... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen
    I thought of it????
    Plaffelvohfen
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    @AmericanFurryBoy

    Ok, so you would let a surgeon operate on you using a potential scalpel? Can you defend yourself now, with a potential gun? Can you drive a potential car? 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen
    Ah, I see your point
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • @Vaulk

    Agreed, when it comes down to it, it's a question of belief, right? We each have a belief that we hold for true, regarding personhood and the value of life, correct? And I don't think that we can actually KNOW when personhood begins because personhood (as well as qualitative values) is intrinsically a subjective concept, would you agree with that?

    The question then becomes, how do we go forward when 2 opposing subjective value come in conflict? 
    The pregnancy is a immigration when placed as a union with all woman by basic principle and legal precedent. Then murder is described when the woman demands a right to terminate the pregnancy not terminate the immigration. It is the woman's own choice that commit her, them, all woman as a union to the crime described by abortion.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • ThomasiusThomasius 75 Pts   -  
    @AmericanFurryBoy
    Will you respond to my inquiry?
    Acta deos numquam mortalia fallunt.
  • @Thomasius
    To your first point, yes. Yes I do recognize that “it cant be morally measured since it isn’t capable of morality.” To your second point, no. Skin cells and fetal cells are different types of cells that, depending upon what stage said fetus is in (5-6 weeks), are already aware.
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • Yes, Pregnancy abortion can be morally measured before religion. How it is measured before law and religion are not the same, they are made the same by limiting choice. The age of the object that is officially stopped to end life is not relevant because the target is the official stopping of life by a sinful claim. It is the claim itself that woman tell before god which is immoral. The truth does not appear to matter in religious confessions such as pregnancy abortion before god, only the fact a wrong is of such importance by moral implication that men and woman need to confess their sin to be forgiven.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch