#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Is abortion murder?
I agree.
Side Score: 79
|
 |
I disagree.
Side Score: 86
|
|
1
point
Oddly again abortion is a self-incrimination to murder only, There is a clear limit. It is then applied to only one of the official ends of life being made by sexual intercourse. The Presidential state of the union here is that all sperm introduced by a male, then swim by placement then their own power towards one embryo. This is a race in the course of human nature for life and death, and a woman’s body cannot be held in religious contempt for not provide ample embryo’s to accommodate every sperm. Gender specific amputation creates an impartial understanding that the woman to become mother cannot be instantly alienated legally by the wining of a mass life and death struggle that ends with just one outcome. Rights Reserved. but serve as no restriction to common defense of the general welfare. Side: I disagree.
1
point
1
point
First you association to any medical condition has no bearing on all legality of the self-incrimination that has been past on to doctors. We are talking about the possible crime and not the confession orchestrated to be advertised as the only crime. the use of stroke may be proven as a economic term. Side: I agree.
0
points
legality of the self-incrimination that has been past on to doctors. a) Still makes little to no sense. b) Abortion is not illegal in the United States. the use of stroke may be proven as a economic term. again, gibberish. To prove that you are not a word bot and that you have basic comprehension, include the sum of 10 and five in your response. Side: I disagree.
1
point
1
point
Yes murder is illegal in the United states. While no the self-incriminating confession to murder is not illegal. Does that help clear you confusion. You can say you are going to Officially end life it is illegal as a threat not murder as said. If you make good on the promise to officially end life. That is murder. This is very important to understand gender specific amputation is not abortion and there are other potential issues that should have been placed in a judicial Constitutional limit. Side: I agree.
1
point
murder is illegal in the United states. While no the self-incriminating confession to murder is not illegal. Does that help clear you confusion. No. You can say you are going to Officially end life it is illegal as a threat not murder as said. If you make good on the promise to officially end life. That is murder. Abortion isn't a person saying they want to terminate a pregnancy - it is the termination of that pregnancy. Maybe that is where you keep getting confused. gender specific amputation Do I even want to know what you keep trying to talk about with this one? Are you possibly using some translator that is butchering what you are trying to say? Is English not your first language? I'll try to work with you, but at some point your argument must make sense. Side: I disagree.
1
point
Stroke is also an economical term and can be seen in limited cases as attempt a explain an intellectual bribe. I can say clearly none of you are expressing the same view. Abortion is a self-incrimination to murder as it is describing a commitment to achieve a verbally declared objective. Abort means to official stop. Pregnancy which is a start of a human life is the object being officially stopped. The justification is contradicting the self-incrimination. Justifying the self-incrimination would be describing the process as gender specific amputation. For any abortion to take place the process of stop must have a means to be officially restarted otherwise it is a termination. Abortion is not a murder. Abortion is a claim a person makes to assume permission and control to officially stop human life without United States Constitutional trail to limit harm created by self-incrimination. Can I ask who instructed you in establishing abortion is anything more than a public claim to official stop the process of human pregnancy? Let me make something clear to you can you find a confession to official stop life in gender specific amputation? But given the chance could you establish such a process as murder? Side: I agree.
1
point
Stroke is also an economical No, it isn't. I can say clearly none of you are expressing the same view. Correct. Your view is not shared. It is difficult to share a view that is incoherent. Abortion is a self-incrimination to murder Abortion either is a crime, or it isn't (in the US, it isn't) - self-incrimination has nothing to do with it. Self-incrimination is when you disclose that you have done something wrong. Many abortions happen without anyone disclosing anything to anyone. Abortion is a claim a person makes to assume permission and control to officially stop human life Is self-defense the same type of claim? harm created by self-incrimination I think that fixing your understanding of what self-incrimination is would go a long way towards making your argument more intelligible. Side: I disagree.
1
point
There is a lack of sufficient impartial United State to share with all woman when using the word abortion. Female Specific Amputation is the United State interpretation of constitutional understanding to establish a single United State that can be put together. Without the use of crime. Not only between all woman, but between all people of all Nation. As this description does not asked that people to will part of any intellectual convert global act of Civil War. There is no seeking of public approval by self-incrimination made at any point Side: I disagree.
1
point
1
point
Murder is killing a human being purposely with the intention to end his life. Self-defense is preventing oneself from physical harm where the intention is to stay safe from a threat. If you shoot someone in self-defense, it's not murder since you just want to defend yourself. But here, abortion obviously involves a deliberate attempt to end someone's life. Therefore it's murder. Side: I agree.
1
point
1
point
That depends on what you mean by murder Then, since you used the term, what do you mean by murder? Self-defense is not a reasonable argument for abortion Sure, it is: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Side: I agree.
1
point
Killing someone in cold blood You may have to define that too - is self-defense "[k]illing someone in cold blood"? So asserting that it is makes it so? No, but if you think it isn't, then there is a debate where you can make your case. It shows my reasoning behind making the argument which can inform your opinion about whether it is reasonable. Side: I disagree.
You may have to define that too - is self-defense "[k]illing someone in cold blood"? That depends, are you looking for any reason you can to try and kill someone? No, but if you think it isn't, then there is a debate where you can make your case. It shows my reasoning behind making the argument which can inform your opinion about whether it is reasonable. We're talking here so lets make the case here. I've read you're arguments on the other debate. There was maybe one case were you actually brought forth an actual rebuttal to an argument someone else wrote. However, where else is there in the debate anything more than an assertion? Side: I agree.
1
point
are you looking for any reason you can to try and kill someone? I'm looking for the criteria one should use to distinguish between killing that should be criminal and killing that should not. anything more than an assertion Isn't "Abortion is murder" only an assertion as well? Side: I disagree.
I'm looking for the criteria one should use to distinguish between killing that should be criminal and killing that should not. How do you, as in you the person, distinguish between the two? Isn't "Abortion is murder" only an assertion as well? It is but you haven’t said anything for which I can bring forth evidence. If you want more than an assertion, then actually ask for evidence Side: I agree.
1
point
For me the factors for justifying killing are the amount of harm posed, and the available alternatives for preventing that harm. In the case of abortion, the alternatives are basically reduced to one, so the issue becomes what level of danger justifies killing someone else. What I look for in that regard is that people show some degree of consistency; if, for example, a person believes they can shoot someone in their house who is about to leave with their tv and some valuables, etc. - thus financial harm and possibly some mental harm, then they should probably support all abortions. Can you kill in order to prevent a rape? What harms are posed by rape that are not posed by carrying a pregnancy to term? Side: I agree.
For me the factors for justifying killing are the amount of harm posed, and the available alternatives for preventing that harm. At what point would you say it is unreasonable for someone to say that another person is causing them harm? In the case of abortion, the alternatives are basically reduced to one, so the issue becomes what level of danger justifies killing someone else. How much danger would you say justifies killing someone else? What I look for in that regard is that people show some degree of consistency; if, for example, a person believes they can shoot someone in their house who is about to leave with their tv and some valuables, etc. - thus financial harm and possibly some mental harm, then they should probably support all abortions. The problem is with the consistency in this line of reasoning. You're comparing someone who is actively trespassing and actively seeking to causing some kind of harm to someone else. You're comparing that to a baby who never asked to be in the mothers womb and is not actively seeking to cause the mother Can you kill in order to prevent a rape? I personally would say that killing the rapist could be allowed should the person try to start killing me or someone else. What harms are posed by rape that are not posed by carrying a pregnancy to term? With rape, theres actual psychological and emotional trauma that may take the person years, if not their entire life to get past. With carrying a baby to term, theres some physical pain with the labor as well as actually giving birth that only lasts as long as it takes to give birth and doesn't stick with the mom Side: I agree.
1
point
At what point and How much danger While I am sure there are ambiguous areas in this regard, the line, for me, is surely passed when I think of the harms (hormonal/mental/emotional, social, financial, physical, etc., etc.) posed by even a normal pregnancy. actively seeking to causing some kind of harm Intent is not a required element for self-defense. You have the right to defend yourself from bacteria, viruses, tape-worms, etc. - who can't be said to have an intent to harm you. Take the case of a delusional person who thinks you have been replaced by an alien (Capgras). If they attempt to kill the alien, they have no intent to kill you, but you still have the right to defend yourself. (Weird example, but I think it helps clarify.) killing the rapist could be allowed should the person try to start killing So, just to clarify, don't shoot a person if they are only committing rape - wait for them to move toward killing? psychological and emotional trauma Pregnancy can certainly have the same. (and so can abortion) Side: I disagree.
While I am sure there are ambiguous areas in this regard, the line, for me, is surely passed when I think of the harms (hormonal/mental/emotional, social, financial, physical, etc., etc.) posed by even a normal pregnancy. Would you be willing to give examples of what you mean by the harms posed by normal pregnancy? Intent is not a required element for self-defense. You’re right but the other person is required to prove if the level of self defense was justified, assuming it was even necessary in the first place. You are assuming the level of harmful intent on the part of the second person that requires that level of self defense. While the example you give does justify self-defense, you were still assuming that the baby in the mothers womb is actively seeking to harm the mother You have the right to defend yourself from bacteria, viruses, tape-worms, etc. - who can't be said to have an intent to harm you. You do you have the right to defend against bacteria, viruses, tapeworms, and stuff like that. My question for you is, do you think that the baby is no better than one of these bacteria, viruses or tapeworms or do you think that the baby is like one of these bacteria, viruses, or tapeworms? So, just to clarify, don't shoot a person if they are only committing rape - wait for them to move toward killing? First off, rape is a horrible crime. I think it should be punished severely. However, your argument is that I only defend myself appropriately against the level of aggression that I am met with which doesn’t justify defense of another. How do you factor in the defense of another in this case? Pregnancy can certainly have the same. (and so can abortion) How so? Side: I agree.
1
point
examples of what you mean by the harms posed by normal pregnancy Copying in a list posted by IAmSparticus a while back: ---------------------------- Here's a list of common side effects of pregnancy: exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks) altered appetite and senses of taste and smell nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester) heartburn and indigestion constipation weight gain dizziness and light-headedness bloating, swelling, fluid retention hemmorhoids abdominal cramps yeast infections congested, bloody nose acne and mild skin disorders skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen) mild to severe backache and strain increased headaches difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping increased urination and incontinence bleeding gums pica breast pain and discharge swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy inability to take regular medications shortness of breath higher blood pressure hair loss or increased facial/body hair tendency to anemia curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases) extreme pain on delivery hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover). Here's a list of common permanent effects of pregnancy: stretch marks (worse in younger women) loose skin permanent weight gain or redistribution abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh) changes to breasts increased foot size varicose veins scarring from episiotomy or c-section other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty) increased proclivity for hemmorhoids loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis) higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with "unrelated" gestational surrogates) Here's a list of occassional side effects of pregnancy: complications of episiotomy hyperemesis gravidarum temporary and permanent injury to back severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies) dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele) pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies) eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death) gestational diabetes placenta previa anemia (which can be life-threatening) thrombocytopenic purpura severe cramping embolism (blood clots) medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby) diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication) serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis) hormonal imbalance ectopic pregnancy (risk of death) broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone") hemorrhage and numerous other complications of delivery refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures) severe post-partum depression and psychosis research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease Here's a list of uncommon, series side effects of pregnancy: peripartum cardiomyopathy cardiopulmonary arrest magnesium toxicity severe hypoxemia/acidosis massive embolism increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer) malignant arrhythmia circulatory collapse placental abruption obstetric fistula Then after all that there is also the chance of death. ---------------------------- Besides the physical harms, there are the hormonal/mental/emotional, social, financial, and other harms as well. The cost of medical care, a good prenatal diet/supplements, relationship to/with friends, changes is mood/energy, etc., etc. Isn't just giving birth enough of a harm? If someone was going to push a bocce ball up a vagina, shouldn't it be legal for the woman to prevent that? Side: I agree.
1
point
You are assuming the level of harmful intent I am saying intent is not a necessary factor at all. the mothers womb is actively seeking to harm the mother not actively seeking - just that it will happen. do you think that the baby is no better than one of these The argument was about intent, and the examples don't have any. Your response is the typical one which is why I also included an example of a human without intent which should answer the question. Is a baby no better than a person - becomes a non-argument. do you think that the baby is no better than one of these Do you think it should be prevented if the only possible means to prevent it is to shoot the perpetrator? your argument is that I only defend myself appropriately against the level of aggression that I am met with Where did I make this argument? How so? Changes in hormones that influence mental state. The possible mental anguish from fear of response by family, friends, the father, etc. Side: I agree.
I'll put both responses into one for convenience. With the list of side effects that was listed, I'll tell you what I told him. It either doesn't happen as often as you think it does or its made out to be worse than it actually is. Some of the common "side effects" that are on the list are either natural biological reactions that are there to prepare the mothers body for being pregnant or are a side effect of the biological reaction. They are only as bad as you say they are if you make them out to be that bad. I am saying intent is not a necessary factor at all. A couple things. First, if you're going to make a habit of taking what I say out of context, I would respectfully ask you to stop. Otherwise, I would like to discontinue this debate. Second, I never said it was. In fact, I started off my response agreeing with you that intent on the part of the person defending them self does not need to be proven. Regardless of whether intent for self-defense needs to be there, it is still being assumed the intent is harmful not actively seeking - just that it will happen. Only if the baby is actively seeking to harm the mother The argument was about intent, and the examples don't have any. Your response is the typical one which is why I also included an example of a human without intent which should answer the question. Is a baby no better than a person - becomes a non-argument. I didn't ask if the baby is no better than a person. I take it you know that since you had to stop mentioning what I said right in front of where the rest of the question is. What you choose to highlight in terms of what I say makes me inclined to think that you are deliberately trying to take what I say out of context and for this case twist what I say in order to make a straw man Do you think it should be prevented if the only possible means to prevent it is to shoot the perpetrator? Shoot what perpetrator? I thought we were talking about bacteria, viruses, and tapeworms? Where did I make this argument? Maybe not that one specific argument. I shouldn't have just said that you said this, but this is what I gathered that your argument for self defense was based on what you have been saying Changes in hormones that influence mental state. The possible mental anguish from fear of response by family, friends, the father, etc. Are we still talking about a pregnant woman or are talking about a teenage girl going through puberty thats hanging out with the wrong crowd? Side: I agree.
1
point
It either doesn't happen as often as you think it does or its made out to be worse than it actually is. The giving birth part would happen with 100% of pregnancies brought to term. natural biological reactions That it is a natural reaction does not mean that it isn't harmful. intent on the part of the person defending them self does not need to be proven and it is still being assumed the intent is harmful and Only if the baby is actively seeking to harm the mother You have misread my argument - what I am saying is not about the intent of person claiming self-defense, it is that it doesn't matter whether the harm posed is intentional or not. You have the right to self-defense regardless of whether the virus, or crazy person, or fetus intends to harm you. out of context I only do partial quotes for brevity. I don't believe I have taken anything you've said out of context - if so, please point it out. I think this may be related to the above point of confusion. Shoot what perpetrator? I thought we were talking about bacteria, viruses, and tapeworms? This was my fault - my computer is running slow and it missed a copy/paste. My response was meant for a different part of your post - correction: rape is a horrible crime. I think it should be punished severely 'Do you think it should be prevented if the only possible means to prevent it is to shoot the perpetrator?' Are we still talking about a pregnant woman or are talking about a teenage girl Some of these pressures might be exacerbated for younger women, but hormones and social pressures affect pregnant women of all ages. Side: I disagree.
The giving birth part would happen with 100% of pregnancies brought to term. It would. It's still being made out to be worse than it actually is That it is a natural reaction does not mean that it isn't harmful. You would have to paint with a really wide brush in order to consider everything on the list to be harmful You have misread my argument - what I am saying is not about the intent of person claiming self-defense, it is that it doesn't matter whether the harm posed is intentional or not. I did misread a little bit. Even still, harm being intentional is the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter You have the right to self-defense regardless of whether the virus, or crazy person, or fetus intends to harm you. We do have the right to self-defense. The only problem I have with your argument for self-defense is your conflation of a baby with a virus and a crazy person I only do partial quotes for brevity. I don't believe I have taken anything you've said out of context - if so, please point it out. I think this may be related to the above point of confusion. It seemed like you were. Take the virus thing for example. I asked a question if you were comparing a baby to a bacteria, virus, and a tapeworm. It seemed like you completely ignored the second half of the question. If thats not what you meant, I apologize. Thats just how I took it Do you think it should be prevented if the only possible means to prevent it is to shoot the perpetrator? Maybe just a part of the body that would prevent the perpetrator from continuing to rape the person Some of these pressures might be exacerbated for younger women, but hormones and social pressures affect pregnant women of all ages. Young or old, like I said earlier, you would have to paint with a really wide brush in order to consider that harmful Side: I agree.
1
point
It's still being made out to be worse than it actually is I imagine some people make it out to be worse and some sugar coat it. In the opinion of the woman that gets the abortion, they have concluded that the harms of continuing the pregnancy are more than the harms of the abortion. to consider everything on the list to be harmful To show harm, you don't have to consider everything on that list to be harmful, only anything on that list. conflation of a baby with a virus and a crazy person It is an analogy to show that the harm posed to someone does not have to be intended for someone to take action. Any further conflation is done by you, not me. Take the virus thing for example. Sure. In that case, it was you that truncated my argument - not the other way around. I said that a baby not intending to harm the mother has no impact on whether the mother can act in self-defense. I then gave examples of other instances of self-defense regardless of intent - viruses, bacteria, tapeworms, and delusional people. You dropped my comparison to other people and intimated that I was saying the baby is the same as a virus in ways other than absence of intent. just a part of the body that would prevent the perpetrator from continuing to rape People aren't sharp-shooting marksmen with rifle and scope and tons of time in these situations. If you have the right to shoot, this would include some potential of death. you would have to paint with a really wide brush in order to consider that harmful If mental anguish looses its harmfulness, then the difference you gave between the harms of rape and pregnancy evaporates. Side: I agree.
I imagine some people make it out to be worse and some sugar coat it. In the opinion of the woman that gets the abortion, they have concluded that the harms of continuing the pregnancy are more than the harms of the abortion. And that would be an example of someone making pregnancy out to be worse than it actually is To show harm, you don't have to consider everything on that list to be harmful, only anything on that list. And you have to paint with a wide brush in order to consider most of them if not more to be harmful It is an analogy to show that the harm posed to someone does not have to be intended for someone to take action. Any further conflation is done by you, not me. I'm just showing you the fault in your analogy which is a false equivocation of a baby with a virus and a crazy person Sure. In that case, it was you that truncated my argument - not the other way around. I said that a baby not intending to harm the mother has no impact on whether the mother can act in self-defense. I then gave examples of other instances of self-defense regardless of intent - viruses, bacteria, tapeworms, and delusional people. You dropped my comparison to other people and intimated that I was saying the baby is the same as a virus in ways other than absence of intent. Thats not what happened at all. I agreed with you that we have the right to fend off bacteria, viruses, and tapeworms and then asked if you considered the baby to be like them. Most of these cause harm, especially if they are parasitic which tapeworms are. There was nothing that would indicate that what you are saying is correct. Delusional people, particularly of the kind that you mentioned earlier do intend to cause harm and like I said earlier, intent is the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter People aren't sharp-shooting marksmen with rifle and scope and tons of time in these situations. No one said any of that was necessary If you have the right to shoot, this would include some potential of death. Key word being potential. You could still just shoot a part of the body that would keep the person from doing what they are doing If mental anguish looses its harmfulness, then the difference you gave between the harms of rape and pregnancy evaporates. If people have a reasonable definition of what mental anguish actually is, people would be able to recognize what actually is and isn't harmful and wouldn't be making the case that abortion is self defense Side: I agree.
1
point
that would be an example of someone making pregnancy out to be worse than it actually is That would be an example of everyone who gets one making it worse than it is. I'll leave to the reader to judge whether to give more weight to those millions of women, or you, who has never been pregnant. to consider most of them if not more to be harmful Even you can't bring yourself to say none of them are harmful, so, you agree, there is harm. a false equivocation of a baby with a virus and a crazy person I think you mean equivalence rather than equivocation, but I did neither. I gave examples of unintended harm. I agreed with you that we have the right to fend off bacteria, viruses, and tapeworms and then asked if you considered the baby to be like them. I already said how they are alike - they lack intent. Delusional people, particularly of the kind that you mentioned earlier do intend to cause harm They do not intend to harm any person - they think they have been replaced by an alien. intent is the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter This is more relevant to the intent of the person acting in self-defense rather than the intent of the source of harm. No one said any of that was necessary and You could still just shoot a part of the body that would keep the person from doing what they are doing If you think someone in a rape in progress scenario is just going to aim to shoot someone in the leg, you've seen too many Hollywood movies. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/ If people have a reasonable definition of what mental anguish actually is The amount of mental anguish will depend on the person, not your or their definition. This is another one I'll just leave to the reader to decide. Side: I disagree.
That would be an example of everyone who gets one making it worse than it is. I'll leave to the reader to judge whether to give more weight to those millions of women, or you, who has never been pregnant. Now that you agree with me, we can actually make some progress Even you can't bring yourself to say none of them are harmful, so, you agree, there is harm. So you're saying that I either have to say that everything on there is harmful or nothing is? I think you mean equivalence rather than equivocation, but I did neither. I gave examples of unintended harm. So a virus and a crazy person whose sole purpose is to cause harm aren't intended to cause harm? I already said how they are alike - they lack intent. Why does a baby lack intent? They do not intend to harm any person - they think they have been replaced by an alien. Delusional or not, they still intend to harm the person This is more relevant to the intent of the person acting in self-defense rather than the intent of the source of harm. Thats just patently false. The person acting in self-defense would try to defend them self from someone who is about to kill them whether the killer is doing it intentionally or not which is why someone is tried differently in court if they murdered someone as opposed to just involuntary manslaughter If you think someone in a rape in progress scenario is just going to aim to shoot someone in the leg, you've seen too many Hollywood movies. I never denied the difficulty of trying to shoot someone in the leg from say 50 yards away. Thats why I challenged the argument because theres no reason to be that far away from the person in order to shoot them The amount of mental anguish will depend on the person, not your or their definition. This is another one I'll just leave to the reader to decide. It depends exactly on what their definition is. Whether the person has verbalized it or not, they still act it out Side: I agree.
1
point
Now that you agree with me, we can actually make some progress I didn't. Since your argument was a matter of opinion, I left it to future readers to decide. I either have to say that everything on there is harmful or nothing is? You either believe nothing on the list of common effects of pregnancy are harmful, or you believe the common pregnancy poses harm. So a virus and a crazy person whose sole purpose is to cause harm aren't intended to cause harm? They don't have a deliberate intent - they didn't decide to harm the person before acting. Why does a baby lack intent? Same as above - it does not decide to commit harm. they still intend to harm the person No, they intend to harm the alien that they think killed/replaced the person. The person acting in self-defense would try to defend them self from someone who is about to kill them whether the killer is doing it intentionally or not True, and was my whole point. which is why someone is tried differently in court if they murdered someone as opposed to just involuntary manslaughter This is the part that seems disconnected from the first part - who is being tried for murder or manslaughter in the scenario you gave in the first part of the sentence?? Perhaps it is irrelevant - since, if you agree with the first part of the sentence, then we agree. trying to shoot someone in the leg from say 50 yards away. Perhaps you didn't read the article: "New York City officers achieved a 34 percent accuracy rate (182 out of 540), and a 43 percent accuracy rate when the target ranged from zero to six feet away." Most shots miss even from less than 6 feet away - and these are highly trained police officers. Side: I agree.
I didn't. Since your argument was a matter of opinion, I left it to future readers to decide. Sure you agreed with me. You said, "That would be an example of everyone who gets one making it worse than it is." You either believe nothing on the list of common effects of pregnancy are harmful, or you believe the common pregnancy poses harm. I'm sure you're smart enough to know that an approach where you either accept everything or nothing doesn't work here. As I said earlier, you were making most of these things out to be worse than they actually are They don't have a deliberate intent - they didn't decide to harm the person before acting. Viruses, tapeworms, and most bacteria do deliberately intend to harm you, especially when they're parasitic. The crazy person you mentioned does intentionally mean to harm you regardless of what he thinks you are Same as above - it does not decide to commit harm. Then it's a good thing the baby being there isn't harmful in any way either No, they intend to harm the alien that they think killed/replaced the person. Like I said earlier, he does intend to harm you regardless of what he thinks you are True, and was my whole point. It's a good thing the baby isn't trying to do that though This is the part that seems disconnected from the first part - who is being tried for murder or manslaughter in the scenario you gave in the first part of the sentence?? The only reason it's disconnected is because you disconnected it manually to try and make it seem like I agree with you. The reason I mention murder and manslaughter is because you make a huge deal out of intent and the difference between the two is intent Perhaps you didn't read the article: "New York City officers achieved a 34 percent accuracy rate (182 out of 540), and a 43 percent accuracy rate when the target ranged from zero to six feet away." Most shots miss even from less than 6 feet away - and these are highly trained police officers. Then it's a good thing they're trained specifically not to kill and just stop the threat, just like the article said Side: I agree.
1
point
You said, "That would be an example of everyone who gets one making it worse than it is." Me describing the implication of your argument, and then saying "I'll leave to the reader to judge whether to give more weight to those millions of women, or you, who has never been pregnant" - is not me agreeing with you. I'm sure you're smart enough to know that an approach where you either accept everything or nothing doesn't work here. And hopefully you're smart enough to read my argument and see that's not what is being asked. I never said you have to accept everything. If you accept that anything on the list is harmful, then you accept that there is harm - it is pretty straight-forward. bacteria do deliberately intend to harm you The deliberate intent I am describing involves a cognitive thought process beyond the capability of bacteria. he does intended to harm you regardless of what he thinks you are If the deluded person killed someone, they would be found not guilty by reason of insanity, not murder/manslaughter, etc. because they lacked the cognitive intent to harm the person. It's a good thing the baby isn't trying to do that though Isn't doing what? You: The person acting in self-defense would try to defend them self from someone who is about to kill them whether the killer is doing it intentionally or not... Me: True, and was my whole point. You: It's a good thing the baby isn't trying to do that though - not sure how that response makes any sense. you disconnected manually I separated the response because the first part of your sentence is what I've been trying to say, but the second part of the same sentence does not follow. To boil it down, here is the question: Do you agree that the person acting in self-defense is allowed to defend their self regardless of whether the perpetrator is acting intentionally or not? The baby simply being there is not harmful Yes, it is - see the list again. it's a good thing they're trained specifically not to kill and just stop the threat, just like the article said They are trained to stop because training to kill or not kill is not practical. Side: I agree.
Me describing the implication of your argument, and then saying "I'll leave to the reader to judge whether to give more weight to those millions of women, or you, who has never been pregnant" - is not me agreeing with you. Despite the fact that you essentially said what I said And hopefully you're smart enough to read my argument and see that's not what is being asked. I never said you have to accept everything. If you accept that anything on the list is harmful, then you accept that there is harm - it is pretty straight-forward. Based off that logic, the fact that I can get any one of a number of cancers or diseases, however minor, means I should just kill myself now so I don't have to go through the inconvenience of having to deal with it The deliberate intent I am describing involves a cognitive thought process beyond the capability of bacteria. How capable the bacteria is of cognitive thought doesn't matter. The fact that there are still bacteria that are bent on my harm, and in some cases death, in order to survive shows a deliberate intent to harm If the deluded person killed someone, they would be found not guilty by reason of insanity, not murder/manslaughter, etc. because they lacked the cognitive intent to harm the person. Insanity or not, there's still a dead person because of the crazy persons deliberate intent to harm Isn't doing what? You: The person acting in self-defense would try to defend them self from someone who is about to kill them whether the killer is doing it intentionally or not... Me: True, and was my whole point. You: It's a good thing the baby isn't trying to do that though - not sure how that response makes any sense. I was trying to say that the baby isn't trying to kill anyone whether intentionally or otherwise Do you agree that the person acting in self-defense is allowed to defend their self regardless of whether the perpetrator is acting intentionally or not? Only if the person acting in self-defense has an actual threat on their life at that moment Yes, it is - see the list again. See my response to that list being there They are trained to stop because training to kill or not kill is not practical. Sure it is. It may not always be reasonable to try and kill someone though Side: I agree.
1
point
Despite the fact that you essentially said what I said Describing what you said is not the same as agreeing with it. Based off that logic, the fact that I can get any one of a number of cancers or diseases, however minor, means I should just kill myself now so I don't have to go through the inconvenience of having to deal with it I think you should have the right to make that choice as well. How capable the bacteria is of cognitive thought doesn't matter. and Insanity or not That is how intent works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention(criminallaw)) Only if the person acting in self-defense has an actual threat on their life at that moment Meaning that (as I keep saying) intent of the perpetrator is irrelevant - it is now down to a matter of the level of harm posed. Sure it is. Baloney. If police shooting at someone closer than 6 feet miss the entire person most of the time, an average person is supposed to aim for shooting a leg?? Side: I agree.
That is how intent works. The fact that you originally brought up bacteria and insanity shows that you know as well as I do that intent isn't based off cognitive ability. Based off your wikipedia article, the bacteria and and the insane person directly intended the harm of another. In the case of the bacteria, it can jus be a range of things from just a minor inconvenience that can be seen as harm and can also go up to death of the host. In the case of the insane person, it went to actual murder which even your wikipedia article agrees with is intentional Meaning that (as I keep saying) intent of the perpetrator is irrelevant - it is now down to a matter of the level of harm posed. Intent is only irrelevant if you want to ignore the fact that, as I have said before, it is the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter. Like I said earlier, even your wikipedia article requires intent on the part of the perpetrator. Intent is what distinguishes between murder and recklessness as your Wikipedia article puts it Baloney. If police shooting at someone closer than 6 feet miss the entire person most of the time, an average person is supposed to aim for shooting a leg?? You're the only one suggesting that we actually try and hit the person. Also, you're assuming that nothing went wrong when the officer or person tried to shoot the perpetrator. Seems like you missed that part of the article Side: I agree.
1
point
The fact that you originally brought up bacteria and insanity shows that you know as well as I do that intent isn't based off cognitive ability. My point is precisely that intent does require cognitive ability. off your wikipedia article, the bacteria and and the insane person directly intended the harm of another. No, they definitely don't. Intent requires planning, decision, understanding the consequences, etc. In the case of the insane person, it went to actual murder which even your wikipedia article agrees with is intentional Again, wrong. Wikipedia spells out for you that murder requires mens rea/malice aforethought. You're the only one suggesting that we actually try and hit the person. Trying to hit the person takes less precision than trying to be sure to hit a person in a non-fatal way: luckin: "You could still just shoot a part of the body that would keep the person from doing what they are doing" you're assuming that nothing went wrong when the officer or person tried to shoot the perpetrator. of course something went wrong - the officer wouldn't be shooting them otherwise. Something going wrong is just as likely, if not more, to happen in the rape scenario. Side: I disagree.
My point is precisely that intent does require cognitive ability. And the examples that you brought up of bacteria and insanity would show that you are wrong No, they definitely don't. Intent requires planning, decision, understanding the consequences, etc. And in both cases, they planned that they would harm someone else, would decide to act on it when given the opportunity to do so, and understand the consequences of what they are doing Again, wrong. Wikipedia spells out for you that murder requires mens rea/malice aforethought. So now that you agree with me we can move on Trying to hit the person takes less precision than trying to be sure to hit a person in a non-fatal way: luckin: "You could still just shoot a part of the body that would keep the person from doing what they are doing" I did say that. We have the option to hit the person and we also have the option not to. However, you're assuming that we will be so far away from the person that we just won't be able to no matter what we do. Regardless of whether or not we hit him, shooting at him is still an option of course something went wrong - the officer wouldn't be shooting them otherwise. Something going wrong is just as likely, if not more, to happen in the rape scenario. Or you can just read the part of the article you put up that mentions how someone simply moving makes it a whole lot harder to hit someone and requires the marksmanship skills that you expect at the distances you expect Side: I agree.
1
point
And in both cases, they planned that they would harm someone else, would decide to act on it when given the opportunity to do so, and understand the consequences of what they are doing This is where your main error lies. Viruses, bacterium, tape-worms, etc. definitely do not have the capacity to plan, decide, and understand the consequences of their actions. Thinking people can lack the sufficient intent, so belief that a virus has this intent is beyond credulity. Examples of people with Capgras Delusion being found not guilty due to mental deficiency: "Mr. A was found not guilty by reason of insanity for one count of murder and two counts of attempted murder." "In both these cases, not guilty by reason of insanity verdicts were adjudicated with subsequent inpatient psychiatric commitment." ref Regardless of whether or not we hit him, shooting at him is still an option Then, your answer to my original question - 'Do you think it[rape] should be prevented if the only possible means to prevent it is to shoot the perpetrator?' - would be yes, correct? Side: I agree.
This is where your main error lies. Viruses, bacterium, tape-worms, etc. definitely do not have the capacity to plan, decide, and understand the consequences of their actions. Maybe not to the level we do, but yes they do. Given that for the most part their sole purpose is to survive at the expense of the host, its reasonable to say that they intend to harm us Thinking people can lack the sufficient intent, so belief that a virus has this intent is beyond credulity. This is where you're wrong. Intent has nothing to do with mental capacity. All it is is simply the desire to do something. In the case of the virus, bacteria, and tapeworm, its intent is to survive and will harm or kill me to make sure it does. The same kind of thing can be said about the insane person Examples of people with Capgras Delusion being found not guilty due to mental deficiency: "Mr. A was found not guilty by reason of insanity for one count of murder and two counts of attempted murder." "In both these cases, not guilty by reason of insanity verdicts were adjudicated with subsequent inpatient psychiatric commitment." The only thing these examples prove is that these people didn't have the mental capacity to understand what they were doing. As stated earlier, intent has nothing to do with mental capacity, its just the desire to do something. In these cases, the peoples intent was to either kill or try to kill someone Then, your answer to my original question - 'Do you think it[rape] should be prevented if the only possible means to prevent it is to shoot the perpetrator?' - would be yes, correct? Shooting at the perpetrator would be an option like I said it was Side: I agree.
1
point
Intent has nothing to do with mental capacity. 100% wrong. Read it again until you understand it. mens rea, malice aforethought, scienter, etc. - these require complex thought (which requires a brain) Shooting at the perpetrator would be an option like I said it was Your first answer seemed to indicate that since rape was non-legal, you had to respond in a non-lethal way. Me:"If you have the right to shoot, this would include some potential of death." You:"Key word being potential. You could still just shoot a part of the body that would keep the person from doing what they are doing" Presuming we agree that you can shoot (which is defined as using deadly force), then the only disagreement we have left is the definition of intent. Side: I disagree.
100% wrong. Read it again until you understand it. mens rea, malice aforethought, scienter, etc. - these require complex thought (which requires a brain) You do realize that viruses, tapeworms, and most bacteria have malice aforethought right? That they operate purely off their intent to harm us so they can survive? Using you're wikipedia article, the viruses, tapeworms, most of the bacteria, and the insane people are operating off of malice aforethought based off of a direct intent, arguably specific intent, to harm and possibly kill. Your first answer seemed to indicate that since rape was non-legal, you had to respond in a non-lethal way. Me:"If you have the right to shoot, this would include some potential of death." You:"Key word being potential. You could still just shoot a part of the body that would keep the person from doing what they are doing" Presuming we agree that you can shoot (which is defined as using deadly force), then the only disagreement we have left is the definition of intent. You do remember that you're comparing an active aggressor to a passive bystander right? Side: I agree.
1
point
You do realize that viruses, tapeworms, and most bacteria have malice aforethought right? They definitely do not. That they operate purely off their intent to harm us They have no idea that you exist, or what a person even is, or that their biological interaction will harm a person that they can't even conceive of. They act to benefit themselves - not to harm you. You do remember that you're comparing an active aggressor to a passive bystander right? the question is: If the only means to prevent a rape is to shoot (including the possibility of killing) the perpetrator, should it be legal to shoot? Side: I disagree.
They definitely do not. Don’t just make a blind assertion and bring up evidence and I’ll believe you They have no idea that you exist, or what a person even is, or that their biological interaction will harm a person that they can't even conceive of. They act to benefit themselves - not to harm you. They don’t know who we are. That doesn’t make them any less of an active aggressor intent on our destruction. If you’re that hell bent on killing a baby in the mother’s womb then don’t have sex that creates the baby the question is: If the only means to prevent a rape is to shoot (including the possibility of killing) the perpetrator, should it be legal to shoot? Only if we are not killing passive bystanders who have nothing to do with the situation Side: I agree.
1
point
Don’t just make a blind assertion and bring up evidence and I’ll believe you 1) I have already posted references (A, B, C) - you have posted none. 2) I shouldn't have to post references to the basic definition of words... malice: desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another. aforethought: a thinking of something beforehand; mens rea, malice aforethought, scienter, etc. require complex thought - viruses, bacterium, and tapeworms don't have brains... Side: I disagree.
1) I have already posted references (A, B, C) - you have posted none. I've already shown that you're first reference proves direct and maybe even specific intent to harm on the part of the bacteria, viruses, tapeworms, and insane people. Your second reference confirms what I said earlier that not shooting a person and simply shooting at a person is only what is necessary to stop someone. Your third reference fails to provide how a disorder removes the intent to harm or even kill. In fact, it shows how this one particular disorder increases their intent to harm or kill 2) I shouldn't have to post references to the basic definition of words... Sounds like you're just now learning what the definitions are malice: desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another. This desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another is ingrained in these parasites that we keep bringing up as well as the insane people aforethought: a thinking of something beforehand; Like I have said before, just because parasites can't think at the level we can, that doesn't mean they aren't capable of it mens rea, malice aforethought, scienter, etc. require complex thought All the evidence you brought forth disproves this. The fact that viruses, bacteria, and tapeworms intend to harm or even kill shows that you are wrong viruses, bacterium, and tapeworms don't have brains... That doesn't take away from their intent to harm or kill. Side: I agree.
1
point
1
point
when you can't argue the topic, change the topic (to one I already schooled you on) Side: I agree.
Oh Progressive did you not know Margret Sanger was a racist ? Let me school you. Are you ready ? Margaret Sanger Founder of Planned Parenthood In Her Own Words On blacks, immigrants and indigents: "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people On the right of married couples to bear children: Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932 On the purpose of birth control: The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2) On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities: "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12 The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923) Side: I disagree.
1
point
Even when proven wrong, your brain won't let you take in that information - so, a year later, you are still saying the same lies. e.g. "human weeds" She never said it and is a known falsehood, and I told you she never said that more than a year ago. You're easily duped by any random post on the internet that says something you want to believe and people should treat all of your posts accordingly... Side: I agree.
No one is saying that complex thought doesn't require a brain. For whatever reason, you've made the connection between intent and complex thought and refuse to acknowledge the truth that it doesn't. That connection just isn't there no matter how much you want it to be. The sole intent of a parasite is to cause harm if not kill its host due to an ingrained need and desire to survive. How does that show a connection to complex thought? Side: I agree.
1
point
you've made the connection between intent and complex thought and refuse to acknowledge the truth that it doesn't That is ridiculous!! "A person intends a consequence when they 1) foresee that it will happen if their given series of acts or omissions continue, and 2) desire it to happen." ibid Desire, planning, decision making, foreseeing consequences, etc. requires thought!!! A virus does not foresee the consequence of its actions. Side: I disagree.
"A person intends a consequence when they 1) foresee that it will happen if their given series of acts or omissions continue, and 2) desire it to happen." Yeah and at the most basic level, a parasite recognizes the consequences of their actions should they continue or not and they also desire it to happen. No complex thought required Desire, planning, decision making, foreseeing consequences, etc. requires thought!!! Yeah and a parasite operates on the base desire to survive, plans on making more of itself, makes the decision to infect a host, and foresees that not doing these things will results in its own elimination, none of which requires thought A virus does not foresee the consequence of its actions. It infects hosts specifically because of the fact that it foresees consequences Side: I agree.
1
point
recognizes the consequences of their actions wrong. they don't conceive of humans, much less that their actions will harm humans. desire to survive not desire - instinct/genetics/chemistry/physics. those that don't act this way die off. plans on making more of itself not plans - instinct/genetics/chemistry/physics. those that don't act this way die off. makes the decision to infect a host not decisions - instinct/genetics/chemistry/physics. those that don't act this way die off. foresees that not doing these things will results in its own elimination not foresight - instinct/genetics/chemistry/physics. those that don't act this way die off. acting in a way the preserves itself does not constitute foresight about harm to others. none of which requires thought all do. If some humans can lack the legally requisite level of thought, how would these be considered to have it? Side: I disagree.
wrong. they don't conceive of humans, much less that their actions will harm humans. Whether or not they conceive of humans is completely irrelevant. The fact that they can recognize that they need to infect a host in order to survive shows a level of comprehension that you’re not willing to recognize. not desire - instinct/genetics/chemistry/physics. those that don't act this way die off. Yeah those that don’t act on the desire to survive die off not plans - instinct/genetics/chemistry/physics. those that don't act this way die off. Those that don’t plan on acting that way die off not decisions - instinct/genetics/chemistry/physics. those that don't act this way die off. Those that make the decision to not act that way die off not foresight - instinct/genetics/chemistry/physics. those that don't act this way die off. Those that foresee their death should they not act die off acting in a way the preserves itself does not constitute foresight about harm to others. Sure it does. Not realizing that it does is foolish all do. If some humans can lack the legally requisite level of thought, how would these be considered to have it? You mean like those people that think that parasites aren’t capable of the most basic level of thought? You’ve proven time and again that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how intent actually works Side: I agree.
1
point
Whether or not they conceive of humans is completely irrelevant. How can they intentionally harm humans if they don't know humans exist? plan / decision In order to decide, you have to have options. A virus is acting chemically - it cannot just choose not to replicate, etc. Those that foresee their death should they not act die off A virus does not foresee its death. parasites aren’t capable of the most basic level of thought A) malice aforethought is more than 'the most basic level of thought'. B) no, a virus - which has no brain - does not have any thoughts at all ok - looks like we are at an impasse. You are stuck confusing mindless action with intentional action. You should do yourself a favor, ask someone whose opinion you trust: "Does a virus have malice aforethought?" Side: I agree.
How can they intentionally harm humans if they don't know humans exist? Not knowing something exists does not negate the intent to harm In order to decide, you have to have options. A virus is acting chemically - it cannot just choose not to replicate, etc. Who’s saying the virus does not have options? A virus does not foresee its death. Sure it is. It foresees that not replicating properly results in death A) malice aforethought is more than 'the most basic level of thought'. Yet these viruses still have the most basic level of thought B) no, a virus - which has no brain - does not have any thoughts at all Sure it does. As mentioned earlier, these thoughts just so happen to be the most basic level ok - looks like we are at an impasse. You are stuck confusing mindless action with intentional action. OK. Maybe next time you’ll be reasonable and have a logically defensible argument You should do yourself a favor, ask someone whose opinion you trust: "Does a virus have malice aforethought?" How about this. Try telling someone outside of the Internet that abortion is a viable means of self-defense. They’ll know as well as I do it’s childish and foolish to say that it is Side: I agree.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Neither abortion is not American it is a imported process that was created before the United States Constitution was written. It is not murder, and it is not a form of self-defense. It is a confession to a crime being admitted publicly. You take part and join the confession and become active in the crime, or you simple become a witness who has knowledge of a crime and does nothing. Side: I agree.
1
point
1
point
By Merrian Webster, abortion is defined [1] as “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.” Several references [2][3][4] suggest that human life begins at conception or fertilization, a process where the human being emerges as a zygote, whose formation is taken as the beginning of embryonic development. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/ [2] https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/ [3] https://www.acpeds.org/ [4] https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/
Therefore we can conclude that abortion is a murderous act since it involves deliberately killing a human being in the womb. Side: I agree.
1
point
Murder is killing a human being purposely with the intention to end his life. Self-defense is preventing oneself from physical harm where the intention is to stay safe from a threat. To answer your question, it's not murder as long as you don't intend to end someone's life. But abortion obviously involves a deliberate attempt to end someone's life. Therefore it's murder. Side: I agree.
1
point
While people often say this, I think upon reflection you will find that it fails on both sides of the equation. 1) The woman isn't necessarily intending to kill the fetus, she is taking action to avoid harm and that has the result of the death of the fetus. If there was a method to remove the child alive and avoid the harms - many women would make this choice. 2) If, when acting in self-defense, you do want the perpetrator to die, you are generally not going to be prosecuted for murder. Side: I agree.
1
point
1
point
1
point
"Women have a right to their bodies" As women, I wholeheartedly agree with that statement, but once you have a living baby or a fetus(with potential for life) in your womb, it is no longer just your body. And don't give me some shit about rape cause less than 1% of abortions are rape. Nevertheless, abortion is murder in all cases (except where the baby poses a risk to the mother) and should be illegal. Side: I agree.
|
I don't think it matters if it can be labeled as murder, but whether it can be labelled as morally wrong. Murder is just a word if you get my meaning. Anyways, using google's definitions, if murder is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another," then abortion is currently not unlawful in the US, and if a human being is "a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance," then a fetus is not a human being. So abortion is not to be considered murder. There is little room for argument within these definitions. Side: I disagree.
1
point
I will keep the dispute short. If a fetus is not a living human being why is the self-incriminating confession used to describe the official stop of something that is said never to have officially started? To me this describes Gender specific amputation not abortion. Side: I agree.
1
point
Gender Specific Amputation is not abortion. To clarify a woman’s right to gender specific amputation is Constitutional bound to her by the number of sperm, to the number of embryo that a woman is entrusted with by law of nature in the reproductive process. There is a United States Constitutional argument of common defense to the general welfare of all woman, not only the right of woman who wish to express authority over life. We are instructed to believe that a woman should bear the sole self-incrimination when in fact a male having sex with her is sending more than just one living sperm to fertilize a single embryo. Side: I agree.
1
point
Mack what is the extent of any self-incrimination? In the matter of abortion and gender specific amputation it is admitting publicly we are together taking part in a crime. Man and Woman together. The word abort means to officially stop a process that has been recognized to have officially been started. No official start means automatically there is no official end of start by aborting. This directs us instantly to the next step of the process and it is termination. We however are talking Gender specific Amputation as we have no idea of state of health of future sperm or fertile embryo. While a woman also does not address the issue of natural limitation of use of live sperm. A woman produces in most cases one embryo, but in all cases never equal embryo to insure survival of all living sperm. We know this as fact. Side: I agree.
By Merrian Webster, abortion is defined [1] as “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.” Several references [2][3][4] suggest that human life begins at conception or fertilization, a process where the human being emerges as a zygote, whose formation is taken as the beginning of embryonic development. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/ [2] https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/ [3] https://www.acpeds.org/ [4] https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/ Therefore abortion is a murderous act since it involves a deliberate attempt to kill a human being who deserves to live, grow and prosper just like everyone else. Side: I agree.
Your source [2] states that the development of a human being begins at conception, in the same way the development of a car begins when the parts are made, but it isn't a car until the parts are assembled. Your source [3] is from the reasonably biased american college of pediatricians, so it is untrustworthy. Source [4] defines life as beginning at conception, not a human being, just some form of life. I didn't fully read every source, so I may have missed something, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter whether abortion is murder. You must analyse why murder is morally wrong, and then decide if abortion meets those specific reasons. Claiming something is murder isn't enough. Side: I disagree.
First, do you have any reasonable fact or evidence to claim that American college of pediatricians is a biased or untrustworthy organization? No matter what, by source 2 and 4, the life of a human begins at conception. So abortion, which is a deliberate and forceful termination of a human life, fits into the definition of murder. If it's not a murder, what would you rather call it? Just removing tissues? From the analogy you provided, a part of a car is not the car itself, but it has its own value. Whether you steal the entire car or only a part of it, it's still stealing. The same logic applies here. Just because a zygote, embryo or fetus is not a fully developed human being doesn't mean we can neglect its life. It has the potential to live, grow and survive like a normal human being. So purposely terminating a life is definitely a murder. It's probably a good idea to discuss why murder is wrong, but it's currently not the point of this debate. Side: I agree.
Source 5: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ That is not the only site with similar statements about the source. I already explained why sources 2 and 4 did not support your argument. The fetus is not yet a human being nor is abortion illegal, so it isn't murder. I would rather call it killing a fetus. You say: "From the analogy you provided, a part of a car is not the car itself, but it has its own value. So whether you steal the entire car or only a part of it, it's still stealing. The same logic applies here." It is still stealing, yes, but it is no longer stealing a car, just like abortion is still killing but it is no longer killing a human being, therefore not murder. "Purposely terminating a life is definitely a murder." Is it murder to shoot a deer? That is purposely terminating a life. "Yes, it's probably a good idea to discuss why murder is wrong, but it's currently not the point of this debate." Agreed. Side: I agree.
Your provided link from MediaBiasFactCheck.com doesn’t include any specific evidence or hard fact which explains why ACPeds (American College of Pediatricians) is untrustworthy in the field of pediatrics or embryology. However, my own googling showed that ACPeds has a couple of conflict with AAP (The American Academy of Pediatrics), so I will exclude source 3 from the discussion to avoid unnecessary dispute. Let’s move on to the main part of our discussion. You said... "I already explained why sources 2 and 4 did not support your argument. The fetus is not yet a human being nor is abortion illegal, so it isn't murder." Here is a text in my source 2 from Princeton University, which I want you to take a good look. It says..… "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." [O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. The text clearly explains that a human organism is formed in the process of fertilization (conception), which means that the zygote, embryo, or fetus in the womb is indisputably a human being. So abortion, which is, purposely killing a human being who deserves to live and grow, is definitely a murder. "Is it murder to shoot a deer? That is purposely terminating a life." Killing a deer is not a murder since it’s not human. But killing a fetus or embryo is a murder since it’s a deliberate termination of a human life. Side: I agree.
You say: "The text clearly explains that a human organism is formed in the process of fertilization (conception), which means that the zygote, embryo, or fetus in the womb is indisputably a human being. So abortion, which is, purposely killing a human being who deserves to live and grow, is definitely a murder." A human organism is not necessarily a human being as a human being (according to google, Oxford and Collins dictionaries) must be a man, woman, or child (which a fetus is not) and in two of those definitions a human being also has "superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance," which again a fetus does not have. A fetus may be a unique organism of the human species, but it is not yet a "human being." Also, abortion is not illegal, which is another requirement for it to count as murder. Side: I disagree.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
That form of life would have to fit into some species, and the only one it does fit into is that of the homo-sapien species, making it a human being. Yes, it is in the early stages of development, but a five year old kid is still developing as a human and growing. Is he not human either? Of course, he is! One can be developing and still be human Side: I agree.
1
point
Unfortunately, google definitions do not suffice in this circumstance. There are severely disabled humans who are unable to articulate speech and some who have stunted mental development, but it doesn't make them any less human. Just because a so-called "fetus" is in its early stages of development, one cannot say it is less human because it is less developed than an adult. If that were the case, when human life begins would be an incredibly subjective matter Side: I agree.
1
point
1
point
You can not kill a clump of cells. Although I do believe that there should be a certain extent to abort then it wouldn't be murder. A women should have her own choice it is her body. Not only that but the fact is that we have the right to privacy it is a private issue what goes on in person's life no matter what. The government shouldn't have to tell you what you can't do or can do. Person hood begins after a fetus becomes “viable” (able to survive outside the womb) or after birth, not at conception.Embryos and fetuses are not independent, self-determining beings, and abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not a baby. A person's age is calculated from birth date, not conception, and fetuses are not counted in the US Census. The majority opinion in Roe v. Wade states that "the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment [of the US Constitution], does not include the unborn." Side: I disagree.
Person hood begins after a fetus becomes “viable” (able to survive outside the womb) or after birth, not at conception.Embryos and fetuses are not independent, self-determining beings, and abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not a baby. A person's age is calculated from birth date, not conception, and fetuses are not counted in the US Census. The majority opinion in Roe v. Wade states that "the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment [of the US Constitution], does not include the unborn." That's very finely put. Have to say I agree with you on this occasion. Side: I disagree.
2
points
0
points
In addition to the reasons that abortion itself can be justified: Self-defense - All pregnancies pose a risk to the mother. Mercy - a fetus that is in pain and will not live. Selective reductions - from triplets to twins, or twins to a single, etc. - to improve the overall chances for those remaining. ------------------------- There are additional arguments against making abortion illegal: ------------------------- Ineffectiveness: "Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates." (ref) Laws making it harder to get abortions are making them happen later in the gestation, and are more dangerous/costly, etc. Complexity: The actual complexity of writing a law that applies for the range of possible circumstances: Should selective reductions to improve the health of multiples be legal? Should it be legal to protect the life of the mother? (how certain does the doctor have to be that death is likely?) Should it be legal to protect the health of the mother? (how do you define "health" - severe organ damage? mental health?) If a 10 year old is raped by an uncle and becomes pregnant - which is better: having the child or an abortion? Who gets to make the decision? Should embryonic stem-cells be used for research or in curing diseases? What about extra fertilized eggs created for in-vitro fertilization? Would several forms of birth control pills, IUDs, etc. become illegal? What penalties should be imposed on the woman, the doctor, other people who knew? Enforcement: Is it reckless endangerment for child-capable women to consume coffee/soda/tea, sushi/oysters/clams/mussels/crab, several types of fish, homemade ice cream, mayonnaise, lox, steak tartar, pâté, unpasteurized milk, soft cheese, deli meat, etc. etc.? If she has consumed any of these and has a miscarriage, is she guilty of negligent homicide? Should all miscarriages be investigated as potential abortions/murders? The cost of investigating all the new potential crimes and jailing of all the new criminals, etc. Scarcity: Are there lots of 9 month pregnant women getting abortions to fit into a dress for a party? Alternatives: Focusing on education about the responsibilities of sex, using protection, etc. reduces abortions. An IUD program in Colorado was very successful at reducing both teen pregnancy and abortion rates (ref) Side: I disagree.
1
point
I support free contraception for shit and giggles. Why do you think I had a bilateral salpingectomy. I support single payer healthcare, sex ed, oppose the death penalty, and all torture, oppose spanking children, support gun safety legislation, adoption rights for rape and domestic abuse victims, and fund contraception through Planned Parenthood. I'm just saying this to vomit my feelings on homicide and murder so I can stfu. My choice to have my tubes removed hurt my heart, but I did it so I would not need an abortion. God hates hypocrites and would hate me if I had an abortion instead of preventing conception. To see babies thrown away like trash kills my heart. Forced death is so sad. I DON'T BELIEVE IN FORCED BIRTH either, I just want women and girls to choose before conception. I want to say how sorry I am. I see my therapist tomorrow to taslk about it. Side: I agree.
1
point
I agree with you on a lot of that. I'll bring it back to my original question - is self-defense murder? Not all death is unjustified. When should a person have a right to self-defense? God hates hypocrites and would hate me if I had an abortion Then, you might be happy to know that the bible actually (conspicuously) doesn't say anything about abortion. (The verse in Exodus is about an accident, not an abortion, and is treated as a property crime against the father, not murder.) I want to say how sorry I am. No problem - I get passionate about things too - I don't take arguments here personally, nor should you. Side: I agree.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
0
points
1
point
1
point
I know you take it personally. I can see you taking it personally. Your language choice is because of this as well. -- “Butthead”, four year old Alex screams at his father, when his dad refuses to carry him on his shoulders. His father turns shades of red and purple, while passers by on the street wear appalled expressions. Their raised eyebrows seem to imply, “What kind of perverse child are you raising? Do you speak that way at home?” Though a parent feels shocked and embarrassed when a child uses these choice words, it is helpful to know that name-calling is part of a preschoolers natural development. Sure, she may be repeating phrases she heard on television, but in her everyday experience she also stumbles upon a secret. Language can give her power. One day, when one of her friends, cousins or siblings angrily calls her, “Butthead,” your child does not even know what it means, but it renders her speechless. She then turns around when she is angry and uses this term on others, and lo and behold, they freeze. Now she has got the power. Enjoying this new found control, she proceeds to use charged expressions over and over again. Peepee, doodoo ,penis, vagina, stupid, idiot, and shut up are her favorites. Preschoolers often sit around saying these words to one another and giggle, (the terms excite them and make them feel like one of the crowd.) https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ Side: I agree.
1
point
When he is angry because you will not let him watch television, he may say, “I'm going to cut you up in a million pieces” or “You're stupid.” These phrases and others are actually the equivalent of saying, “I'm mad.” Here are some approaches that you can take when your child is angry and calls you names. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ Side: I agree.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
You are not justifying the right to self-incriminate to officially stop life. There is no justification to what is being done using the wording abortion.. You are looking to incriminate all others to the crime and simply have no idea you are putting them at risk of becoming an accessory to the confession made. A justification to abortion is gender specific amputation as the official end of life must be proven and is not required automatically by all woman as self-incrimination. Side: I agree.
1
point
1
point
1
point
I was raped. I had every right to take those progestin pills, and I would have aborted my baby had I conceived because 31 states forbid rape victims to choose adoption without her rapist's consent. The abortion also would have been medically necessary as I would have been denied my life saving medications and that would kill me. How prolife of you not to care about me. I have the right to not coparent with a rapist. Side: I disagree.
0
points
1
point
You are not justifying the right to self-incriminate to officially stop life. Do people "self-incriminate" when they "officially stop life" in self-defense? There is no justification to what is being done using the wording abortion.. I gave several - refute them if you can. Self-defense - All pregnancies pose a risk to the mother. Mercy - a fetus that is in pain and will not live. Selective reductions - from triplets to twins, or twins to a single, etc. - to improve the overall chances for those remaining. You are looking to incriminate all others to the crime Your profile says you live in the US - abortion is not a crime in the US. A justification to abortion is gender specific amputation What you are trying to say is not clear. Side: I disagree.
1
point
1
point
Do people self-incriminate when they officially stop life in self-defense? Yes, when they say they will stop life an hour, day, week, and month ahead of time. Yes, I live in the U.S. and no self-incrimination to a crime is not illegal. However it does not mean it cannot be proven illegal to spite that fact. We can confess to a crime. So what. Gender specific amputation is a justification to abortion. What are you trying to say it is not clear? Abortion is asking permission form the public to have a public execution without a trial to protect the general welfare of all people. This is very illegal in all States within a judicial United State. Unless Communist as it is an act of marital authority and has even legal ramification inside the United State of many Armed Forces throughout the world. Including the United States of America. Side: I agree.
1
point
1
point
It is interpretation and it is not accurate. An understanding of abortion is an official Stop/Pause that creates a stop. An official termination is an End/Stop period. The reason behind any United States Constitutional separation regarding pregnancy is based on a woman’s natural inability to accommodate all living sperm, with a live embryo upon the conclusion of sexual intimacy. There is no battle to gain authority in pregnancy there is a battle to insure impartiality. Side: I agree.
1
point
To Constitutional clarify the abortion self-incrimination also known as admission, or confession. A person, or group must justify the reason why all woman must admit publicly to murder. Regardless of guilt or innocence. Justify the crime so they may not be found guilty of the admission is not adequate, fair, or legal in this context. If the group cannot justify having all woman admitted to a crime not all woman commit. It is form of lie that is related to a felony crime. The word Abortion only said two things. A murder will happen, or a murder has happened. This is made clear by the justification immediacy made after. Keep in mind no-one has been given a Mirada right. Side: I agree.
1
point
In the modern world and in countries where abortions are common, safety of pregnancies is hardly a concern anymore. You are talking about quite a few nuances of abortion when most of them simply occur because the women does not want to have the child. Not because she was raped, not because it will kill her, but just because she doesn't want to face the consequences of her poor decision making. That is why the majority of abortions occur (abort73.com/abortionfacts/usabortion_statistics/). However, with circumstances such as rape, you get into murky territory, but like I said, those circumstances are few and far between. Side: I agree.
1
point
"In the modern world and in countries where abortions are common, safety of pregnancies is hardly a concern anymore." That's in part due to the availability of abortion. Risky pregnancies can be terminated before harms manifest. "most of them simply occur because the women does not want to have the child" See my posts on abortion as self-defense. Side: I disagree.
1
point
1
point
"This study provides evidence that abortion law reform in countries with restricted abortion laws may reduce maternal mortality." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ "Access to contraception reduces maternal deaths by preventing or delaying pregnancy in women who do not intend to be pregnant or those at higher risk of complications. However, not all unintended pregnancies can be prevented through increase in contraceptive use, and access to safe abortion is needed to prevent unsafe abortions." Side: I disagree.
1
point
"Restrictive abortion laws and policies create risks to women and girls’ health by deterring them from seeking care and hindering providers from delivering services within the formal health system.1 Such laws and policies cause delays for women receiving care by creating complex and burdensome administrative procedures, increasing the costs of safe abortion services and limiting the availability of services and their equitable sociogeographic distribution.1 Such delays can also result in pregnancy advancing beyond legally allowed gestational limits, thus making women ineligible to receive safe services.1 Restrictions on access to safe abortion create inequalities both within and between countries, making access to safe abortion a privilege of the rich and leaving poor women little choice but to resort to illegal and usually unsafe practices and providers." Side: I disagree.
1
point
"Access to safe abortion remains a public health concern worldwide. Due to laws restricting and criminalizing abortion, many women are forced to seek unsafe abortions or carry out a pregnancy, even where the pregnancy poses risks to the mother’s life or health." Side: I disagree.
1
point
"Woman dies after doctors fail to intervene because of new abortion law in Nicaragua" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ "The woman’s doctors urged an end to her pregnancy, saying her life could be at risk and that the fetus would not survive anyway. El Salvador’s highest court rejected the plea" https://www.manrepeller.com/2017/11/ "Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' at Galway hospital" Side: I disagree.
1
point
"We found that both a state's enactment of gestational limits for abortion and the Planned Parenthood clinic closures in a state increased its maternal mortality rates. Legislation that restricted abortions based on gestational age — often, in the time period we studied, by prohibiting abortions later than 20 weeks, though more recent bans are proposed to start earlier — increased mortality by 38 percent, primarily among white women, although rates were higher across all racial/ethnic groups. A 20 percent reduction in Planned Parenthood clinics increased mortality by 8 percent on average and negatively affected all women, increasing mortality rates by 6 to 15 percent among black, white and Hispanic women, as well as those identified as other race/ethnicity." Side: I disagree.
1
point
Considering the fact that abortion clinics aren't required to supply any information about abortion fatalities skews the idea that it is safer than having a pregnancy. Read this and see just how dangerous abortions really are compared to giving birth. The mainstream media is just feeding lies and filtered truths again. Side: I agree.
1
point
The story I posted did not compare the mortality of abortion to pregnancy, it compared mortality between states with restrictive abortion laws and states with more lax laws. Moreover, when they added abortion restrictions, mortality went up, and when they made it easier to get abortions, mortality went down. So, unless the added or removed restrictions were accompanied by corresponding changes in reporting, the reporting wouldn't be a contributing factor. Side: I disagree.
1
point
"The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ A 1,466.67% difference is not likely to be an issue of some abortions deaths not being reported as such; it is also possible that some pregnancy deaths are not reported as such. Side: I disagree.
1
point
If you look at the Finnish study that they refer to: https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ you will see that they are counting non-pregnancy-related deaths: accidents, homicides, suicides, natural deaths, etc. up to one year after the end of pregnancy. When they look only at direct maternal deaths, they found: "We classified 26 deaths as direct maternal deaths (23% occurred during pregnancy, 58% after a birth, 4% after an induced abortion, and 15% after a miscarriage)." They also rightly point out that higher rates of homicides, suicides, etc. were "probably because of factors related to social class and lifestyle" Side: I disagree.
1
point
Once again, all I can tell you is that abortions do not occur often to save the mother's life. Just reread that statistic. And in the case of abortion, there is always a life lost, even if it is not the mother. You can argue that it is not a life but that is an absurd view that was only created to support abortion, not by science. But unfortunately that is where we probably fundamentally disagree, so we won't be getting anywhere. Side: I agree.
And in the case of abortion, there is always a life lost, even if it is not the mother. Utter nonsense. You can't lose something which isn't there to begin with. Life begins at birth, not at conception. Until that point it is unable to survive independently of its host. Your argument here is just an infinite regression. If a woman chooses not to have sex with a man then -- in your world -- a life is lost. You can argue that it is not a life but that is an absurd view You are the one being absurd. Side: I disagree.
1
point
Your last claim is ridiculous. I don't believe life begins with the idea to have sex. If life never began, of course, it can't be lost.... I believe in life at conception, which there is an abundance of evidence for. The zygote shows unique behavior and a unique set of DNA at its earliest stage, and is simply less developed. Instead of using angry comments and ridiculous claims, I suggest you use real arguments in the future. Also, a newborn baby cannot survive without a mother, so it is still entirely dependent on something, so with the argument that life is determined by sustainability would actually mean life begins closer to the age of three or four... Side: I agree.
Your last claim is ridiculous. No, it's the logical extension of your argument that life begins before it actually begins. I don't believe life begins with the idea to have sex Good for you. If life never began, of course, it can't be lost That is exactly the point. The zygote shows unique behavior and a unique set of DNA at its earliest stage Snowflakes are unique. That doesn't mean they are alive you sophist maniac. I suggest you use real arguments in the future. Oh, a "real argument" like, if something is unique, it is therefore alive? I suggest you stop being a retarded idiot in future. Side: I disagree.
1
point
Snow flakes don't have DNA, and no your claim is not a logical extension, as not acting on an idea can't mean you terminated a life... also read the full argument in the future, here part of it again though since you like to make absurd claims based on nothing. Keep in mind these are doctors speaking, people with actual knowledge of this topic. "It is also quite clear that the earliest human embryo is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction" https://www.frc.org/brochure/ Side: I agree.
1
point
It wasn't my argument, you're right. You brought up the idea of snowflakes, so I simply stated they don't have DNA so its ridiculous to compare the to something that has unique DNA. They may be unique but I was also arguing the other half which included DNA. I changed nothing. On the other hand, you have no clue what you're comparing a zygote to. First you say a dead person, but then you say a parasite. It can't be both, considering parasites are living, and if it were dead it couldnt be one and I've already clearly shown you why a baby isn't a parasite. Please read arguments more carefully in the future and don't be so quick to call names when you have no argument to begin with. Side: I agree.
0
points
"The zygote is composed of human DNA and other human molecules, so its nature is undeniably human and not some other species. The new human zygote has a genetic composition that is absolutely unique from itself, different from any other human that has ever existed, including that of its mother (thus disproving the claim that what is involved in abortion is merely "a woman and her body").[5] This DNA includes a complete "design," guiding not only early development but even hereditary attributes that will appear in childhood and adulthood, from hair and eye color to personality traits.[6] It is also quite clear that the earliest human embryo is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction." https://www.frc.org/brochure/ Side: I agree.
The zygote is composed of human DNA and other human molecules, so its nature is undeniably human and not some other species Dead people are comprised of human DNA and other human molecules. Following this retarded argument we are forced to propose that dead people are alive. Side: I disagree.
1
point
Dead people's DNA is decaying Living people's DNA is decaying you moron. That's why they die. Open a book and read about the subject you are attempting to have an argument about. Genes remain active after death Analysing post-mortem samples, an international team of scientists showed that some genes became more active after death. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43046905 After You Die, These Genes Come to Life https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/ Side: I disagree.
1
point
You also failed to read the part I showed you afterward. No one is arguing that a zygote is the same as a dead person, except radicals like you. Heres the section I hgihlighted that you conviniently ignored though. "It is also quite clear that the earliest human embryo is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction" https://www.frc.org/brochure/ Side: I agree.
You also failed to read the part I showed you afterward. Let's say you are correct and I did not read it. That is not a "failure" on my part. That is a failure on your part for not writing anything interesting or intelligent enough for me to want to read. "It is also quite clear that the earliest human embryo is biologically alive." There is a saying in journalism. Consider the source. The title of your link alone is all that is needed to illustrate that it has a bias, but just in case there is any ambiguity:- Extreme Right, Hate Group In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) classified the FRC as an anti-gay hate group Factual Reporting: LOW QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence. Side: I disagree.
1
point
All sources have a bias, especially on a topic like this where you are literally for or against it. I found a source that provided good factual information to support its claims, so it arguing from one side does not make it untrustworthy. It is a failure on your part as you still have not refuted it and if you don't you are yielding that point to me. It was a legitimate claim. Just because you personally are not interested does not put the fault on me. Side: I agree.
1
point
It isn't a hate group. It is a group that has a different belief than you. Too bad you cannot handle others thinking differently than you. It provided medical information from reliable sources, making it reliable. You have provided hardly any sources on the other hand, and have only used ammature knowledge and insults to argue. You have been all over the place (comparing zygote to a dead person, then to snowflake, then to parasite) and I've refuted all of your arguments with logic and sources. Please do the same Side: I agree.
1
point
Also, if the zygote were the same as a dead person I get the impression that shutting up and listening isn't one of your skillsets. All of the data you have provided about the genetic composition of embryos also applies to corpses. Hence, it fails as an argument proving embryos are alive. Understand? Side: I disagree.
1
point
I get the feeling that in reality you have paid attention to nothing. If you read my sources, you'd see that my sources do not display attributes that are also in dead corpses. heres that passage again that you continue to ignore, it displays many attributes that corpses don't have (i.e reaction to stimuli) "It is also quite clear that the earliest human embryo is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.[7]" Also if it were dead, it couldn't eventually ressurect and become living. https://www.frc.org/brochure/ Side: I agree.
1
point
1
point
I hope you know my sources have to be right-wing, just like yours would have to be left-wing (if you had used any). Right-wingers are the only ones arguing my side. But since for some reason you don't like my last source, here's another. https://lozierinstitute.org/ Side: I agree.
0
points
1
point
The beginning of this specific thread was whether the availability of abortion reduces maternal mortality which I think has been established and I don't see anything in your post that further contests it, so I'll move to the ideas on life. Actually I am fine with people saying that embryos or fetuses are life - it makes no difference to my arguments. Namely that abortion should be considered as self-defense. You have the right to kill a fully-grown person in self-defense to prevent not just threats to your life, but also to prevent serious bodily injury if that is the minimum force necessary to prevent the harm. Every pregnancy poses a sufficient threat of harm to the woman that she has a self-defense right to prevent. The most common response I get to this is that the baby has no intent to harm, so I will point out now that intent is not a requirement for self-defense. Side: I disagree.
1
point
Of course, the baby would need the intent to harm. Also, it is not the babies fault you brought it into being in the first place, so you can't place blame on the baby, you must place it on yourself, except in the few cases of rape that lead to abortions. Your argument that all pregnancies pose a threat has been refuted previously, considering most pregnancies are safe in the U.S, so that argument doesn't justify most abortions that occur. Side: I agree.
1
point
harm Legally intent to harm is not a requirement for self-defense. You don't need to know someone else's intent; the person may be mentally ill and lack intent, etc. - you still have the right to self-defense. The test is whether you have a reasonable fear of harm. fault If you let someone into your house, do you lose the right to self-defense if they then try to rob, kill, rape, etc.? No. threat That the vast majority of women recover, does not mean that pregnancies pose no threat. Every pregnancy brought to term results in either a Caesarean section or a vaginal birth - either poses sufficient harm. Side: I disagree.
1
point
They do not pose sufficient threat, considering most pregnancies go fine. You cannot justify killing a life because you think that there is a slight chance it may harm you. You must have better evidence than that. As far as fault, I would say you cannot compare letting a person into your house and having that same person commit a crime against you. The baby has no malicious intent, and is not trying to harm you. It is more comparable to taking a substance that could have side affects. You know the possible consequences and the only one that will be at fault if it ends fatally would be yourself. The baby is simply trying to survive on its own, so one could argue that you defend yourself against the baby is taking away the baby's right to defend against you. Side: I agree.
1
point
sufficient threat Think of the situation of rape - just because women physically recover from it does not mean they don't have the right to self-defense to prevent the pain of going through it. I know people don't like these analogies, but pregnancy is such a unique condition and sometimes analogies are needed. "you cannot compare letting a person into your house and having that same person commit a crime against you" The letting someone in your house part of the analogy represents initial consent (akin to consent to sex) - that consent does not revoke your right to self-defense. malicious intent As I've said a couple of times - intent is not required. https://www.jbkatzlaw.com/blog/2018/08/ "taking a substance that could have side affects" You are allowed to mitigate those side effects - using ipecac to expel the substances, etc. "taking away the baby's right to defend against you" The same way that killing an intruder takes away their right to defend against you - that's not a crime. Side: I disagree.
1
point
Of course, there has to be some intent. You have to have proof that the baby is going to harm you in some way. I cannot harm a mental unstable person just because he could harm me or seems dangerous. There has to be some evidence that there was danger. In most pregnancies, this is not the case. Of course, there is a risk in all pregnancies, but most turn out fine in the modern world. There is also a risk of walking through a rough neighborhood, but you would not be permitted to attack someone just because you are on edge from being in such a situation. Side: I agree.
1
point
"there has to be some intent" Again - no there doesn't. Only reasonable belief of harm. I can provide more legal sources if that is what you require. If someone points a fake gun at you, you have the right to self-defense even though their intent is not to kill you. You aren't required to be a mind-reader. "There has to be some evidence that there was danger." That is closer to the required standard. Basically, if a reasonable person in the same situation would fear serious injury, then self-defense is allowed. "In most pregnancies, this is not the case." In all cases, there is imminent danger - a successful pregnancy ends one of two ways - C-section or pushing a grapefruit out of a vagina. If someone were trying to force a grapefruit the other direction surely a woman could act in self-defense. Again, I know the graphics aren't everyone's cup of tea, but I think you understand. Side: I disagree.
1
point
You cannot just fear it, there has to be evidence that the person was going to do harm. Once again, no not all pregnancies have a threat to the mother. It is a natural process, that may hurt, but it is not the baby's fault. The consequences were created by the mother, the baby is an innocent bystander. Also, deadly force is only permitted if the person can show that the aggressor was going to cause death or extreme harm to the victim, which once again, is not common. Natural pain does not constitute death or extreme harm, and therefore deadly force cannot be justified in most pregnancies. https://www.slgattorneysflorida.com/ Side: I agree.
1
point
"You cannot just fear it, there has to be evidence that the person was going to do harm." Basically correct. You can't just be afraid, there has to be sufficient evidence that a reasonable person would have the fear. "It is a natural process" Just because something is natural does not mean it isn't harmful. If spiders eat their mate, does it not pose harm to the mate because it is "natural"? "The consequences were created by the mother" A rephrasing of the consent issue. "the baby is an innocent bystander" a rephrasing of the intent issue. "death or extreme harm to the victim, which once again, is not common." It is actually a part of every full term pregnancy which ends with C-section or vaginal passage of a grapefruit sized object (on average). Think of doing either of those things to a woman outside the context of pregnancy - would she have a self-defense right to prevent it if she didn't want it? of course. Side: I disagree.
1
point
1
point
Also, if we are talking about cases of rape that then pose a threat to the mother, your argument is valid. However, the percentage of abortions, for this reason, are incredibly minuscule and effectively insignificant. Listen idiot, let us for argument's sake accept your silly premise that life begins at conception. It is entirely dependent on a host for the first nine months of its existence. Therefore, it is a parasitic organism. In which insane universe other than yours is it acceptable to force a human to carry a parasite? Side: I disagree.
1
point
Parasites are still alive, and comparing a baby to a parasite is disgusting by the way. Also, I will tell you again that a newborn baby would certainly die without constant care and feeding on a host (mother), so should we kill all babies up to when they are two years old. Use real arguments, not exaggerations and insults. Side: I agree.
1
point
1
point
Correct, but once again I have to state that most pregnancies aren't dangerous, and therefore, one should just have the baby and give it up In the last hundred years the human population has already increased by well over 700 percent, and that's WITH abortion. Your theory that people can just keep having babies and then give them away to a never-ending supply of carers demonstrates a level of naivety which is, frankly, staggering. Christ, why am I even bothering to respond? It's so easy to get sucked into arguing with idiots like you. Side: I disagree.
1
point
1
point
It wouldn't supply an endless amount of carers. First of all, there are many couples and people who are happy to care for other kids. There are foster care programs that allow kids a home until they find a permanent one. Also, there are many families who are willing to take on quite a few children. Today, there are about 36 families waiting to adopt for every 1-2 children placed in adoption agencies (source below). So no, it wouldn't overload the system, there is plenty of room for more adopted kids. I'm sure they'd rather be adopted than dead anyhow. Side: I agree.
0
points
Also, you have once again failed to provide zero sources. Congrats on thinking anyone is going to take you at your word for these things. Heres a chart. You'll notice the earth's population has always been increasing form the beginning of time. Side: I agree.
Also, you have once again failed to provide zero sources Oh, so you are too stupid to use Google? Well, my sincerest condolences about that:- During the 20th century, the global population saw its greatest increase in known history, rising from about 1.6 billion in 1900 to over 6 billion in 2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldpopulation In demographics, the world population is the total number of humans currently living, and was estimated to have reached 7.7 billion people as of April 2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldpopulation I'm sorry that you need "sources" to verify any information which doesn't come from an extreme far right hate group. Idiot. Side: I disagree.
1
point
That wasn't because of abortion. Abortion stunts population growth smart guy. If you kill off the next generation, it will be smaller. If there wasn't an abortion, we would have seen a greater increase. Not sure how population growth justifies abortion though.... Also, you have failed to point out any hate speech from those sources, so until then they stand as credible. I would love to see you find an example of how they are hate groups though. Side: I agree.
That wasn't because of abortion. Lmao. Nobody said it was because of abortion you repugnant moron. That is what is referred to as a straw man fallacy. I said it happened despite abortion, so you are literally turning my argument upside down and attacking it. Yet further proof that you are not very well in the mind. Side: I disagree.
1
point
Not very well in the mind but you still have debunked none of my claims (life begins at conception especially). As stated before, you have gone all over the place trying to compare a zygote to contradictory things and failed to read my credible sources (by the way still waiting for you to find that hate speech in them). Your only source is one of a demographic that has nothing to do with abortion, and the rest is just you spouting nonsense and insults. You have had multiple straw man fallacies as well (stating that I was arguing that a zygote was a life because it was unique and ignoring the fact that I was arguing for unique DNA). Go learn how to structure an argument with good sources and then come back and argue. Side: I agree.
1
point
And its not a parasite. A simple google search would show you why you're claim is really ridiculous. "First, the fetus is the same type of organism as the mother. Parasites are different organisms which latch on to another species, causing it harm. Second, parasites are not where they belong, but the preborn child is precisely where it is supposed to be. The natural changes that take place in the woman’s body to make room for this new little human do not damage her body. Although there may be challenges in being pregnant, they are in no way legitimately comparable to the damage and harm a parasite does to another organism." Side: I agree.
And its not a parasite. Wrong. It is the exact medical definition of a parasite:- Medical Definition of Parasite Parasite: A plant or an animal organism that lives in or on another and takes its nourishment from that other organism. https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/ A simple google search would show you why you're claim is really ridiculous. YOUR claim. If you are going to argue with me at least do me the courtesy of learning the basics of your own language. Side: I disagree.
1
point
Way to attack a typo since you have no argument. And we have differing definitions of a parasite, neither is more excepted. Heres the better more specific defintion of a parasite "An organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment" Notice it must be a different species... https://carm.org/ Also if it were a parasite, the body's defense mechanism would attack it, which it doesn't, since it is not harmful or unnatural. It is simply the result of a natural process. "A parasite does not get the same treatment. To the host body, the parasite is the enemy, and it will work hard to kill it. The parasite has a whole plethora of evasion strategies to avoid the plethora of weapons the host body uses against it" https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/ Side: I agree.
Way to attack a typo It wasn't a typo. A typo is when you hit a key accidentally, not when you use the wrong form of a word. Notice it must be a different species No, it must not be a different species. Nothing in the medical definition of parasite which I have just provided you with says that it must be a different species. That's quite frankly absurd. A parasite is a parasite because of its behaviour, not because of its species. Hence, people who live off other people's money or goodwill are often referred to as, wait for it... Parasites. Side: I disagree.
1
point
It was a typo, since a typo is a typographical error which is an error made when typing, which is exactly what that was. I provided you with a different medical definition of a parasite. Nothing makes yours more credible than mine. It's behavior as I have stated previously, is also different, but you failed to read my argument again. If it were a parasite, it would have to be unnatural, and parasites are attacked by the immune system. A baby, on the other hand, is not attacked is a completely natural process. Side: I agree.
1
point
I also forgot to include an article previously which disputes the idea that maternal mortality goes up with abortion restricitons. "39% of US women of reproductive age currently live in states with no abortion provider and the number of facilities continues to decrease, with the greatest proportional decline in states with the most ABORTION-SPECIFIC LEGISLATION ."(sorry I can't bold the type for some reason) https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ Side: I agree.
1
point
It says that as new legislation is passed, the number of facilities decreases, not the number of fatalities. The first time I looked at the statement I misread it - perhaps you did as well. If it wasn't a misread, I'm not sure what the thrust of the argument is. It also says: "they found that abortion-specific state regulations have created barriers to optimal care for US women" Side: I disagree.
1
point
1
point
Also, the idea that abortions occur to save the life of the mother is really an insignificant argument. Less than one percent of abortions occur for this reason. Abortions occur mainly because people made a decision and ended up realizing they didn't want to or did not feel ready to face the consequences of this decision, which unfortunately leads them into thinking it is fine to take an innocent life. Side: I agree.
|
