- 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
Pretty sure even that was a far better contribution than a logical contradiction like: "Most Jews are not Jewish..."
May I remind you that Hamas started this war
Believing that "this war" started in June of 2014 is a bit facile don't you think?
Before the Israeli teenagers were kidnapped, two Palestinian boys were killed in the Beitunia killings, and before that, and before that, and before that all the way back to the Roman Empire...
There is a reason why Palestine doesn't exist and that's because they attacked the Israelis as soon as they got there.
Maybe you want to rephrase this - It sounds like you are saying that if someone comes to take your house and you attack them, you attacking them is a reason to give it to them...
If a person goes to jail for child molestation and gets raped in prison - does our society generally perceive the 2nd rape equally as immoral as the first? Wouldn't our disparate attitude indicate subjectivity?
and mutilation for instance
If your goal is great tolerance for pain or great marathon runners mutilation would be seen as a good idea for achieving your goal.
The goal is always a subjective one based on a person's biology (evolution through present day), and their experiences (including their societal ones).
Yes there is such a thing as objective morality.
I think there are morals that nearly all agree on, but that is not "objective morality" - even if everyone agrees, that would not make it "objective" only provide evidence that it might be.
Taking care of newborn offspring is objectively good.
If you only have enough resources around for the children that already exist and keeping another child results in the death of that child and another, might it be more moral to let the infant die?
If a newborn has severe deformations and will not live long and is in intense pain, would it be moral to end its suffering.
If there was an objective morality, I would expect it to be more prevalent than one or two possibilities (which I have never seen).
Owning another human (slavery) is objectively wrong.
It depends on what your goal is, and the goal is always a subjective one. If your goal is minimize human suffering, etc. it would be seen as morally wrong. If your goal was the maximum human output, etc. then it would likely be preferred over some other systems.
Slavery being acceptable in the past is not a measure of its subjectivity but a measure of how immoral people were in the past
It isn't necessarily proof but it is evidence.
You should definitely call that lawyer and take as much time as you like to tell him how abused you are on the site you voluntarily login into and in the conversations you take part in. That way you can waste your own time instead of everyone else's. If you just want stupid points create fake accounts or whatever. This site has precipitously fallen from when it was enjoyable in part because of the petty stupidity like this.
I agree with a lot you mention here. I agree that they are not dichotomous - therefore, if they are presented as a dichotomy, it would be a false one. (that's the only reason I clicked Dispute rather than Support)
I probably should just have used the question in the description as both the title and the description since several people have unfortunately gotten caught up with the title, much to my chagrin.
I agree that the terms often get in the way - I find that people who consider themselves on one "side" or the other generally agree on almost everything.
Re: organ damage:
If a dog consistently bites people's fingers, or face, or genitals, etc. would you not get rid of it since it did not wound people in life-threatening ways?
Re: potential danger:
You start by saying no, but then proceed to support my assertion. The risks are given a statistical probability which can rise or fall until an actual incident does or does not occur.
A dog represents an entirely different type of threat than a fetus does, and is simply handled differently.
Probability of harm for dogs and fetuses may be calculated differently, but they are both still statistics.
Keep in mind that successful pregnancies have near certain chance of pain, fatigue, hormone imbalances, mental/physical changes, etc.
Also, note that many severe complications are not discovered until the ultrasound at 18-20 weeks.
With Obamacare, this may no longer be a concern in the US, but: if you can't afford to keep an animal you can give it away, would this be an acceptable reason even when the fetus reaches animal status in your view?
the reality that you did not even need to use the term abortion for this to have become an abortion debate speaks to to the non-ambiguity of the pairing of the two
Right, they are ubiquitously (and ambiguously) used by the laity when discussing abortion, but you specifically mentioned that you didn't care what the "ignorant sheep" thought of their meaning.
They both tend to presume a parallel between the legal and moral
Doesn't "tend to presume" signify some ambiguity?
I do not think it is an argument with the debate title, so much as it is with the existence of the pro-choice/pro-life "dichotomy" to begin with.
The question in the description does not mention dichotomy, only the title.
I think all of the learned folks who have spent time on the issue agree will, of course, agree that it is not a dichotomy - therefore, when it is presented as such, it is a false dichotomy. My target for the debate is more for people who have succumbed to the idea that they are mutually exclusive in order to break down that assumption. I know you will aid in that cause with aplomb.
the terms themselves are not any more ambiguous than are the words "objective" and "subjective"
The terms actually are ambiguous (probably deliberately so). The words Pro-life and Pro-choice could, by themselves, mean nearly anything whether related to abortion or not. Even regarding abortion, Pro-choice is ambivalent with respect to legality and the same could be said of pro-choice and morality.
The rest is largely the "semantic argument with the debate title" that I thought Atrag was going to present earlier - I think the question in the description is enough to clarify.
PS - I think even if you click Dispute, you can change the side you support - with Clarify you're on your own... ;)
The etymology of a word is not dispositive of whether the word's meaning is ambiguous among the general public.
If you are anti-abortion morally, you can still believe that the ultimate choice should be legal for a woman to make - thus fitting descriptions for both pro-life and pro-choice.
I think there is ambiguity in the term which leads to the problem. Some of its adherents believe it means preferring life and some think it means banning abortion.
The term "pro-life" only denotes per se that life is to be preferred, and technically says nothing about its legality. This is exactly the confusion I am seeking to illuminate.
regulations balancing individual rights and public safety are not the same as the government coming for your guns.
censorship of religious expression in public
saying you shouldn't use my tax dollars to lead your kid in school prayer is not the same thing as "censorship of religious expression in public"
lie of separation of church & state
We use the phrase wall of separation between church & state to refer to the 1st Amendment - just like Thomas Jefferson did.
forced paying for abortions
Obamacare was written to comply with the Hyde amendment banning Federal money for abortion except in case of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother and Obama issued Executive Order 13535 stating the same.
The provision of Obamacare allowing women access to birth control without a co-pay will likely reduce abortions and teen pregnancies ref
forced buying of Obamacare
mandatory insurance was a conservative "personal responsibility" idea, before it was a liberal compromise health-care plan.
I can not remember the names & dates of every news story pointing out College censorship of Conservative speakers.
We aren't asking for every, just any...
About CreateDebateThe CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Sharing ToolsInvite Your Friends
RSS & XML Feeds
Basic StuffUser Agreement