- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
And fromwithin, abortion in some circumstances is very different from genocide. Just wanted to point that out since you banned me before I could reply to you; making it look like you won.
genocide: the deliberate killing of a large group of people because of religion or race. Abortion in SOME (not all, I support better alternatives when they are possible): only killing (terminating, whatever) fetuses (or babies, whichever you prefer) that wouldn't have a good life, be well taken care of, or be wanted. We aren't killing babies (fetuses) because we don't agree with their views. Mothers have the option to abort because they wouldn't be able to care properly for the baby or they would get harmed by the labor.
Except I'm not descriminating people... Or being racist and bigoted... Or supporting genocide...
I'm saying the baby is still a fetus and its the mother's choice what she does with her body. (the baby is basically a parasite until birth)
It's not my right. The babies (however human they may be) are still parasitic of their mothers. I should not be able to force someone to have a parasite in them for nine months then have excruciating labor just to birth something that wouldn't have a good life anyway.
I'm not supporting Hitler. Hitler: genocide. Me: abortion in circumstances where it is the only (or best) option.
what i support is the option to have abortions, but also lots of education and help so mothers can raise their babies. If it is not the best option, I am not for abortion. I just think it should be an option that shouldn't be taken away from people.
Some people will abort for stupid reasons. I don't agree with that, but even if they were forced to bear the child, they wouldn't raise it well and might kill it anyway. People aren't going to change just because you ban abortion.
However, a compromise would be something I'd be fine with as long as abortion is legal for extreme causes. I just would prefer for people to have more freedom of choice.
No, it's not. I'm not hoping to get out of reality. The people who believe God will save them from everything are.
Suicide is taking my own life. I'm not going to take my life voluntarily (the definition of suicide) just because I don't believe in God. What you're talking about is accidential and assisted suicide, which is very different.
Also isn't god too important to care what I think? Or does he go around killing atheists? Because then it's not free will, is it?
Going to hell does not mean God killed me. That would be after I am already dead. Dead things can't die.
If you don't include the 'because only those who are wrong die', your point makes no sense. And you shouldn't include that if you are also saying the words are interchangeable, because if they are interchangeable, you wouldn't have to add anything to make them make sense.
I do know what I am saying. Do you?
No, I am talking about your god.
And I'm talking about your god because you brought up the subject and that's what you were talking about. I wouldn't start ranting about the Muslim God because that's not the discussion we were having.
Duh? Really? Are you twelve?
Obviously my imagination of you isn't you (unless you really are just a figment of my imagination... But we have no proof for that so I'll let it slide) but you said that since god created imagination that he's not an imagined being. However, that is only true if god is in fact real. If he's not real, then he didn't create imagination and he actually was imagined.
Sorry if that was confusing. Maybe I should slow down a bit so your mind can process what I'm saying.
That is a very good point. Why should you believe in what I imagine? Why should you believe in what anybody imagined? Why should you believe in god? You don't have any proof that he's not imagined...
Maybe someone imagined god to be everything, but he's really not since that's just whoever wrote the buble's imagination?
I actually wouldn't say that (regarding your last statement). I'd say I don't believe in any god. When you ask me which god, I'd answer all of them. The Christian, Muslim, the Roman gods, the Greek gods, I don't believe in any of them.
Maybe you are the fool, for believing in something that doesn't exist.
Maybe they do.
But maybe. Just maybe.
Doesn't give you a clue. The alien could imagine that we think it's hot and that it burns us.
I never said I didn't think I was real. I do, since we don't have any evidence to prove otherwise. My point was: why is that any less likely to believe than in God? We have no reason to believe either.
Evolution. The Big Bang. Creation. Maybe we started existing from the beginning of time (not us, really, but the world, and life, and space) and nothing happened to create us. We just were. Maybe an extremely weak three-legged cat created the universe. But that's not my point. My point is that there are things other than God that could have resulted in life. You can't say life is proof that God exists, because there are too many other things that could have done the same (some I've just listed).
Nuclear war... biological warfare... The most reasonable ones.
I would prefer zombies since at least then I have a fighting chance.
But that wouldn't be the end of the world, just people. The world will live on forever, until everything on it dies. But then it's still not the end of the world. The world will still be there until it's broken up into a bunch of little bits.
It would still be a world though. Just a broken up world. And it's not like the pieces will ever go away...
Unless we get sucked into a black hole. Then I don't know what happens.
That's how the world is going to end... But people will probably die out from idiots (cough trump cough) starting a nuclear war.
Nope. He/she/they/it (I'll use he from now on because it's shortest and easiest to type, except it but 'it' sounds kind of demeaning) would be arguing with God who created his life, but not his life. Nowhere was he saying he didn't want to live, just he didn't want to worship the God (if there is one) who created his life. Not saying he doesn't want to exist. Just saying he's not worshipping anything there's not proof for. It seems like a bigger waste to spend all of your life on something that's going to happen after you are dead.
That's actually not evidence Existence could be caused by a number of things, and we also could be robots programmed to think that and act exactly like humans. We also could all be something that some alien dreamt up and is still living that dream. We might all be figments of that alien's imagination. We don't know for sure. However, we have reason to believe that we are not, as no evidence we have tells us we are.
There's also no evidence that God is real, so in my mind, believing in God is just like thinking we are all robots or figments of alien imagination. I don't have any reason to believe it, so I'm not going to.
Ask yourself why you believe in God but not this alien dream. We have the same amount of evidence for both. Was it how you were raised, did you just pick something to believe in, or are you so caught up in this fantasy (it is a fantasy, as one of the definitions of the word fantasy is defined as an idea with no basis in reality, and the only basis God has is the bible, which could easily have been made up by anyone) that you actually believe it?
Apparently you don't know what proof is, as that did not prove to anyone beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists. Fact check every once and a while. It would help.
But that's only true if god is in fact real. And we don't know that, do we?
God might be imaginary. If God's real, the statement God is imaginary is absurd, but if God's real, that is a moot point anyway.
The point isn't that people say God is imaginary but God created inagination so it's absurd to think that, but whether or not God exists in the first place.
If he was imagined, all the person had to do was imagine someone who created imagination.
If this was supposed to be some mind-blowing statement that would make all atheist immediately pray to God, it failed.
Better luck next time.
When you use the term 'therefore', the words are no longer commutative, as therefore means 'for that reason' or 'consequentially'.
Unless, of course, I was wrong, and therefore I should die.
Or should I say I should die, therefore I was wrong?
Doesn't work both ways, does it?
I also don't think it's right to make women wear berkas, but I do not know enough about their culture, so I'm not really going to make any statements about it. Maybe the women want to wear them. I don't know anything about this, but from what I've learned I don't support this religion. However, I support the freedom of religion, i.e. being able to believe whatever you want.
Democrats don't nessecarily support Muslims. They just don't support them being called terrorists just because of their religion.
(That's my opinion, anyway)
I criticize Christians more because I know more about them, and all the very outspoken, bothersome people telling me I'll get punished if I don't believe in their God that I've met are Christian.
I don't love any religion, but it's not like I hate Christians either. People can believe in whatever they want, so long as they don't get mad at me for not believing in what they believe or do anything to harm people.
Not all Muslims are bad, just like not all Christians are. To say you love or hate all of one religion is a very ignorant blanket statement.
Big fan of capitalization, aren't you?
I never said I don't support them. I don't usually think they are right. However, it's also not my right to say what other women do with their bodies and children. I think people should learn about alternatives, yet there should still be an option of abortion.
The compromise leaves out things that in some circumstances are the best choice.
Why should we compromise with something we think is sort of right when there is an option that is more right than that???
Yes I understand they aren't blobs of tissue. That's when I would consider them actual babies. However, there are circumstances that don't qualify for 'extreme' cases that it would be the best choice in the mother's opinion. I don't care if I'm banned and I'm not denying that it would kill babies. But it would also be better for the parents, possibly the babies (depends on if you think they go to heaven or not). But if you ban abortions, more babies will end up in dumpsters and left places that will cause them to suffer. More people will be forced into unwanted labor, and women will not have control over what they do with their body. I understand that abortions 'kill babies', and it is terrible, but it's the best option.
(Plus why ban everybody on a debate site? The point is to argue with people...)
I don't like not extreme abortion in most circumstances, yet I think it's not my decision to make. It's the mother's and I shouldn't oppress them by forcing them to have an unwanted child.
Also I think it's a life when it has human qualities. A lump of cells right after its conceived is not something I'm going to call a baby. Its just a lump of cells. Yes, it's technically 'human', but it doesn't have a brain or a heart or any thoughts that make it human.
To save someone I loved, yes I would kill it myself.
Just like how you would probably choose hitting a baby with your car rather than dying.
No restriction abortions take into consideration terrible circumstances that the GOP might not consider 'extreme' enough. There shouldn't be a limit, people should just be more educated on abortion and the other options they can take.
When the baby kicks or sucks his thumb.
Yet I would gladly abort a baby to save my own life, as you probably would your/your wife's. If you would choose the life of someone you don't know over someone you love, that's absurd. Even if it is 'killing a baby', I would still do it if my life was at stake. Especially if the baby was going to possibly die anyway. Or if the baby was definitely going to die and that would prevent further complications.
I don't like late term abortion, but sometimes there is no other option. In fact, I don't like abortion at all. Who does? It's terrible, and I would hate to abort a baby, but all circumstances are different and blanket statements aren't going to help the dead mothers who weren't allowed to abort their also dead baby.
So you're going to force a teenager who was raped to have a baby that will possibly injure her and traumatize her?
it will not grow up in a good household, the teen isn't ready for the pregnancy and it will harm them, or for other reasons. No I am not supporting murder. I'm not saying 'let's go kill a baby today!' Yet I don't think it's your choice what they do with their body. You don't know. You've never had a rape baby (I'm assuming). You don't know what it's like for someone you love to be raped, and then forced to bear the baby. It could be traumatizing, and if the mother isn't ready to be a mother, it wouldn't be good for the kid either.
This is only some circumstances. I don't support reasonless abortion. However, people who say you should never abort, despite
what would happen to the mother, or the baby, are pretending the world is black and white, yet there are circumstances that would be better for everyone if the baby was aborted.