CreateDebate


The Public Waterfall RSS

Every argument gets a chance to be on top!
The Public Waterfall shows you all arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

A person doesn't abort a fetus. They don't set out with the purpose of killing something that "is not alive." If that was all they were doing no one would make a fuss. No one's going to arrest me if I break a stone. What they are killing is the potential for that fetus to move to the next stage of human life, a baby. Fetuses left alone will not stay fetuses, they turn into children, which is why they are aborted. It's not that people don't want a fetus, it's that they don't want a child. The whole purpose of abortion is built around a pro-life concept. That the fetus will turn into a child the mother doesn't want to have. If a fetus stayed a fetus there wouldn't be a point to abortion in the first place. There wouldn't be any inconveniences or health issues. It is the fact that human fetuses turn into human babies that makes people want to get an abortion. Subconsciously pro-choicers are admitting that that fetus will inconvenience them because it will be most definitely be a living human with a few months, even if it is uncertain whether it is human at the moment. By killing an eagle egg you get the same fine as if you shoot an eagle. It has the same end effect, whether the egg is an eagle or not. A potential life is destroyed. It's the same with abortion. Whether it is a human or not now, a human fetus will become a human. A human with a life, experiences, and memories. The potential human may become pro-choice or pro-life, or not care and smoke weed its whole life, but at least it will get to experience life. By aborting a fetus you are destroying a lifetime of experiences, whether good ones or bad ones.

From high school bio is the seven requirements for life which fetuses match all of except perhaps the seventh, the ability to reproduce. However 3 year olds can't reproduce either so unless you are going to argue that the killing of 3 year olds is ok as well you cannot argue that a fetus is not living. The argument seems to be saying that unless you have experienced all of life, you do not have the capability to be a life. Well is a virgin a human? Again one of the 7 requirements for life is reproduction, something virgins haven't experienced. So why are they human and a fetus isn't? Because they have the capability to reproduce (in most circumstances). This proves the point that it is not experience itself that makes one alive, but rather the capability to one day experience. A fetus can one day experience and is therefore considered a living human.

The human species as a whole fulfills those 7 requirements of life. So it doesn't matter therefore if a fetus or a virgin do not fulfill one of them. A tadpole is still considered the same species frog, though it doesn't have all the capabilities of a frog. Humans, like all animals go through multiple phases of life. Being a fetus is just one of those phases of life. You yourself were a fetus once, and you yourself have already passed that stage of life. Many seem to have this elitist view that as you have already passed that stage of life you are superior to said fetus. That you hold the power of life and death over that child simply because you are no longer in that stage of life. It's similar to when someone assumes they're superior intellectually merely because they are older. In this case however, instead of ending with a stuck up person and an annoyed person, you end up with a dead person and an arrogant person who believes the death was morally justifiable. I will never be pro-choice. Even if there's a chance a fetus isn't a human I'd rather err on the side of life.

"For the mental health of the future child, sometimes abortion is a good option". This is a direct quote from a debate with a pro-choicer. Under that logic, for the "mental health of the future child" I should be able to kill anyone with a mental health problem. The logic is dangerously bordering on the logic of fascist Germany, that those with mental health issues are not human and do not have the same rights as humans. Babies do not have the same mental capacity as a fully grown human either. So under that logic killing babies is fine. It is getting very close to a dangerous ideology in which killing the old and young is ok because they do not have the same abilities as me or you. I have more thoughts and feelings than a baby. A philosopher probably has deeper thoughts than me. Can I morally kill a baby? Can that philosopher morally kill me? It is an odd train of thought. Because someone thinks more does not make them more of a person. A person in a coma thinks at the same levels or even less than a fetus. Can I kill them? No! If they come out again they will have the same feelings I do, and advanced thought. They are still considered human. So how is it different with fetuses? Even if they don't have advanced thought now, they will later. So just like someone in a coma they should be considered a human being. You can't cherry pick. Are people in comas AND fetuses not human? Or, as we should argue, are people in comas and fetuses both human? The latter should be true.

One major argument pro-choicers throw out a lot is that it could inconvenience a mother financially. But the whole "it's too expensive" argument is freaking immoral. No matter what your views are, the question should be whether or not that fetus is a human not whether or not there's enough money to keep it fed and alive. It’s expensive to keep a person in a nursing home too.

So here we must weigh what is important. Are money problems more important than death? Because whether or not a human fetus is a living being, it will one day be a human being and by killing that fetus you are killing that future human being. (S)he hasn't experienced life yet, but it will if you do not abort it. No matter what you say you have to admit that by killing that fetus, you are killing that future human. There is nothing that can be argued in the contrary.

And that future human could be great. They could change the world. Maya Angelou. Malcolm X. Steve Jobs. Bill Clinton. Regina Louise. Dr. Wayne Dyer. Eric Clapton. Dave Pelzer. Tom Monaghan. What do they all have in common? They weren't wanted by their birth parents, they all might have had “terrible lives” (an argument I’ve heard put forth. They might have a bad life if they’re allowed to live. But they might have a great one). But sure they should have all been aborted depriving the world of some of its best.

I must now put another point forward. Let's look at this argument completely from an outside perspective with no opinions or thoughts influencing our decisions. Let's say it is unsure whether a fetus can be considered human. Is it not better to be unsure and abortion free, in case there is even the slightest chance it is a human life? Do you think pregnancy is worse than death? Because even if you don't THINK a fetus a human life, (and there is no objective answer or there wouldn't be a debate on this) you must admit that if your opinion may end pain and discomfort, and mine may end a death, wouldn't you rather (even if you were 99% sure of your opinion) a life potentially saved is worth more than a life potentially set back?

1 point

A person doesn't abort a fetus. They don't set out with the purpose of killing something that "is not alive." If that was all they were doing no one would make a fuss. No one's going to arrest me if I break a stone. What they are killing is the potential for that fetus to move to the next stage of human life, a baby. Fetuses left alone will not stay fetuses, they turn into children, which is why they are aborted. It's not that people don't want a fetus, it's that they don't want a child. The whole purpose of abortion is built around a pro-life concept. That the fetus will turn into a child the mother doesn't want to have. If a fetus stayed a fetus there wouldn't be a point to abortion in the first place. There wouldn't be any inconveniences or health issues. It is the fact that human fetuses turn into human babies that makes people want to get an abortion. Subconsciously pro-choicers are admitting that that fetus will inconvenience them because it will be most definitely be a living human with a few months, even if it is uncertain whether it is human at the moment. By killing an eagle egg you get the same fine as if you shoot an eagle. It has the same end effect, whether the egg is an eagle or not. A potential life is destroyed. It's the same with abortion. Whether it is a human or not now, a human fetus will become a human. A human with a life, experiences, and memories. The potential human may become pro-choice or pro-life, or not care and smoke weed its whole life, but at least it will get to experience life. By aborting a fetus you are destroying a lifetime of experiences, whether good ones or bad ones.

From high school bio is the seven requirements for life which fetuses match all of except perhaps the seventh, the ability to reproduce. However 3 year olds can't reproduce either so unless you are going to argue that the killing of 3 year olds is ok as well you cannot argue that a fetus is not living. The argument seems to be saying that unless you have experienced all of life, you do not have the capability to be a life. Well is a virgin a human? Again one of the 7 requirements for life is reproduction, something virgins haven't experienced. So why are they human and a fetus isn't? Because they have the capability to reproduce (in most circumstances). This proves the point that it is not experience itself that makes one alive, but rather the capability to one day experience. A fetus can one day experience and is therefore considered a living human.

The human species as a whole fulfills those 7 requirements of life. So it doesn't matter therefore if a fetus or a virgin do not fulfill one of them. A tadpole is still considered the same species frog, though it doesn't have all the capabilities of a frog. Humans, like all animals go through multiple phases of life. Being a fetus is just one of those phases of life. You yourself were a fetus once, and you yourself have already passed that stage of life. Many seem to have this elitist view that as you have already passed that stage of life you are superior to said fetus. That you hold the power of life and death over that child simply because you are no longer in that stage of life. It's similar to when someone assumes they're superior intellectually merely because they are older. In this case however, instead of ending with a stuck up person and an annoyed person, you end up with a dead person and an arrogant person who believes the death was morally justifiable. I will never be pro-choice. Even if there's a chance a fetus isn't a human I'd rather err on the side of life.

"For the mental health of the future child, sometimes abortion is a good option". This is a direct quote from a debate with a pro-choicer. Under that logic, for the "mental health of the future child" I should be able to kill anyone with a mental health problem. The logic is dangerously bordering on the logic of fascist Germany, that those with mental health issues are not human and do not have the same rights as humans. Babies do not have the same mental capacity as a fully grown human either. So under that logic killing babies is fine. It is getting very close to a dangerous ideology in which killing the old and young is ok because they do not have the same abilities as me or you. I have more thoughts and feelings than a baby. A philosopher probably has deeper thoughts than me. Can I morally kill a baby? Can that philosopher morally kill me? It is an odd train of thought. Because someone thinks more does not make them more of a person. A person in a coma thinks at the same levels or even less than a fetus. Can I kill them? No! If they come out again they will have the same feelings I do, and advanced thought. They are still considered human. So how is it different with fetuses? Even if they don't have advanced thought now, they will later. So just like someone in a coma they should be considered a human being. You can't cherry pick. Are people in comas AND fetuses not human? Or, as we should argue, are people in comas and fetuses both human? The latter should be true.

One major argument pro-choicers throw out a lot is that it could inconvenience a mother financially. But the whole "it's too expensive" argument is freaking immoral. No matter what your views are, the question should be whether or not that fetus is a human not whether or not there's enough money to keep it fed and alive. It’s expensive to keep a person in a nursing home too.

So here we must weigh what is important. Are money problems more important than death? Because whether or not a human fetus is a living being, it will one day be a human being and by killing that fetus you are killing that future human being. (S)he hasn't experienced life yet, but it will if you do not abort it. No matter what you say you have to admit that by killing that fetus, you are killing that future human. There is nothing that can be argued in the contrary.

And that future human could be great. They could change the world. Maya Angelou. Malcolm X. Steve Jobs. Bill Clinton. Regina Louise. Dr. Wayne Dyer. Eric Clapton. Dave Pelzer. Tom Monaghan. What do they all have in common? They weren't wanted by their birth parents, they all might have had “terrible lives” (an argument I’ve heard put forth. They might have a bad life if they’re allowed to live. But they might have a great one). But sure they should have all been aborted depriving the world of some of its best.

I must now put another point forward. Let's look at this argument completely from an outside perspective with no opinions or thoughts influencing our decisions. Let's say it is unsure whether a fetus can be considered human. Is it not better to be unsure and abortion free, in case there is even the slightest chance it is a human life? Do you think pregnancy is worse than death? Because even if you don't THINK a fetus a human life, (and there is no objective answer or there wouldn't be a debate on this) you must admit that if your opinion may end pain and discomfort, and mine may end a death, wouldn't you rather (even if you were 99% sure of your opinion) a life potentially saved is worth more than a life potentially set back?

1 point

See how I find you too stupid to bother with?..................................

1 point

Yes. The baby aborted is in heaven, you are on your way to Hell. It would have been better for you if you had never been born. I believe you can still be saved, but I doubt that you will. You don't care what Jesus did for you, rejecting Him, and being rejected by Him. I honestly believe you will never repent of your sin and you will wake up in Hell wishing you had never been born.

Abortion is murder, those babies are in heaven. Sin is killing you and you are not innocent, you are full of dirt and you love it, you want all you can get while you can get it, and your paying more then you realize.

Yep, I said it, but I think the only way you will get it is by finding yourself unable to get out of the fire of Hell.

1 point

Sorry, but stupid sums it all up for you. You can ban me. I don't care. Murdering ONE baby is a crisis, and you condone it. It's stupid, and that is an understatement. It's evil, and in supporting abortion you have innocent blood on your hands. There is only one side.....just because you oppose it does not make your argument valid.

Speaking the truth is not hypocrisy, you are an idiot heaping up God's wrath on yourself, and you are being stupid refusing to listen to reason. Defending abortion is evil, and you are stupid to do it. You are being an idiot.

I hope that clears things up, but I'm sure you will just have a glass of wine and blow it off, daring God to prove He is against you in your pride.

1 point

This was from a very brief internet search

http://www.1000mistakes.com/1000mistakes/index.php?Page=002 008001_001

But don't expect me to launch into a discussion of any of these verses. I don't consider it worth my time.

All ancient scriptures of all religions were written by human beings, not God(s), and they were influenced by history, context, culture, politics, power, and human error.

1 point

You do realize don't you the USA is and has been for a long time the leading exporter of arms in the entire world? We're half of the entire world arms market. Pointing to any President or Secretary of State and saying they sold arms is essentially saying they did their job promoting the US military industrial complex.

http://time.com/4161613/us-arms-sales-exports-weapons/

It's comparable to pointing to a country we sold food to and saying we're giving nutrition to terrorists. In fact I'm sure we do sell food to countries where terrorists benefit from it. But that's because we sell food pretty much everywhere, just like we sell weapons pretty much everywhere.

1 point

No, like I said on the other debate thread everybody pretty much insults everybody else. I've heard guys refer to girls as sluts, or worse. It isn't always to their faces, but it does happen. And not every guy out there is into or tolerant of or supportive of easy women.

1 point

No, everybody insults everybody. It isn't always to their faces, but once derogatory terms achieve mass acceptance they pretty much are everywhere with almost everyone.

I HAVE heard men call women "sluts".

HighFalutin(1536) Clarified
1 point

Here's theocracy defined:

theocracy - [thee-ok-ruh-see]

noun, plural theocracies.

1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.

2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.

3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

I don't know if that fits Uganda, but it certainly fits many of the Muslim countries, especially Iran.

Source:

Supporting Evidence: Theocracy Definded (www.dictionary.com)
1 point

But that also means:

1) The shape of structure in the brain also determines if you're heterosexual, which means pretty much ALL sexuality is in the head, and

2) If physical structure determines you are or you aren't then it isn't a thought based choice which could be addressed by psychology but instead a biological determination which no one has any control over. So all you have is the semantic "in the head" to fall back on, but the implication you can think differently about it is known to be false.

Both of which take any impact from your logic b!tch away.

HighFalutin(1536) Clarified
1 point

How so?............................................................................

Classic liberalism- they are all for you bearing the burden and paying the price, but not them.

With the texas abortion clinic's decision, Democrats prove their total hypocrisy and double standard with regulations. They have no problem with businesses forced to close or go overseas because of too many regulations. They never ask the question if a closed business is better than an open one? Are you starting to get it now?

TOO MANY REGULATIONS KILL JOBS! To many regulations send businesses overseas!

The Democrat party never cares how hard it is for small businesses to get off the ground because of regulations. But when it comes to the big money abortion trade? They scream if an abortion clinic shuts down from the regulations! They scream....WHO WORRIES ABOUT THE WOMAN'S SAFETY? DON'T MAKE IT HARDER FOR CLINICS TO PROFIT FROM THE ABORTION TRADE! STOP THE REGULATIONS!

Democrats all of a sudden understand how regulations shut down business and they scream! They don't like it when it affects their voting blocks.

Do you see their priorities?

Is a closed business better than an open one? Are you starting to get it now?

TOO MANY REGULATIONS KILL JOBS! To many regulations send businesses overseas!

The Democrat party never cares how hard it is for small businesses to get off the ground because of regulations. But when it comes to the big money abortion trade? WHO WORRIES ABOUT THE WOMAN'S SAFETY? DON'T MAKE IT HARDER FOR CLINICS TO PROFIT FROM THE ABORTION TRADE!

Democrats all of a sudden understand how regulations shut down business and they scream! They don't like it when it affects their voting blocks.

Do you see their priorities?

1 point

So is Alzheimer's disease made up?

*

1 point

The Progressive wrote -" "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Have you missed something ?

Exactly - a progressive knew the whole amendment (and its context) - maybe someday a conservative will, too...

1 point

The Progressive wrote -" "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Just as I thought - no response.

I'll see if I can "SHALLOW" your concession...

0 points

The Right To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed ! I know that is tough for you Progressives to SHALLOW !

JustIgnoreMe(2098) Clarified
1 point

those that fire multiple rounds per trigger pull

you can keep bump-stocks etc in semi

really makes no difference to the argument.

Do you know what "infringed" means? restricted, limited, lessened, etc. Your right can't be lessened if that is the way it was in the beginning.

You were required to enroll in the militia:

"I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."

http://www.constitution.org/mil/milact1792.htm

(Also shows that government mandates weren't exactly an Obama invention.... seems good old George Washington thought it was an ok idea, too.)

1 point

"How do you completely stop the private manufacture of automatic weapons?" So what are you considering a Automatic Weapon ?


1 of 42 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]