CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Lib you're so correct ,the unborn has the right to live and breath;Certainly you can't snatch away the life of an unborn unless the situation is extraordinarily critical;It's a kind of discrimination which sometimes can definitely be avoided
I'm not saying I'm not prolife but sometimes I do feel mothers have a right to decide upon abortion and sometimes it's good to go for MTP(Medical termination of Pregnancy).
Translation: "I am pro life, and I believe things I say pro life people can't believe"
You have no idea what reasons he would allow the mother to have an abortion, and you responded with a false statement. It is too bad that you are completely incapable of realizing you made a false statement.
And if you think that it should be illegal, then you are not libertarian.
You can't have one but not the other. Either you believe you must adhere to the foundations of the ideology, or you recognize possible exceptions for both.
No one is stalking you. You have created a majority of the new debates, and have almost twice as many points as the person in second place. The fact that it seems like a lot of people are responding you is because you are filling up the site. You are everywhere, so you get responses everywhere. If you are against us responding to you, stop posting as often.
You say again and again that you have the right of free speech. And yet when others exercise this right and you don't like it, you attack them. THat is hypocrisy.
Stalking would be if someone began looking at things that you had been trying to keep hidden, or that you didn't want the public to know. By putting things out on this site, you are putting them into a place where everyone can access them, and you are asking the CD community to respond. People are responding to what you put out for them to respond to. Why is this stalking?
I was responding to the point that you made. If a debate enters a tangent and a new topic is discussed, is it wrong to discuss it? If so, you were the first one to go off topic by calling someone who opposed you a stalker.
And I actually HAVE been trying to stay on topic, you have just been ignoring me. I have (repeatedly) pointed out that while you find abortions allowed if the mother or child will die, I am curious to know your thoughts if the mother (or child) is in danger of harmful, non-lethal long- and short-term physical, mental, and economic effects from the pregnancy?
And you deflecting points, ignoring arguments, repeating yourself, and banning those you disagree with does not constitute a debate. Sorry.
That's how a debate works. Someone makes a point, and then, if someone else doesn't agree with the point you just made (or if they want to have a debate) they will state what they don't agree with. Then, you have to come up with new information that refutes what they just said. If they ignore your point, you can restate it, but you also have to respond to what they say. Simply repeating yourself, ignoring what the other person has to say, or trying to pick out fallacies instead of responding to the meaning of the opposition's argument. Then, when someone does the same to you, you ignore them or ban them. We'll stop having problems with what you say when you improve your debating skills and stop acting like a child.
A large number of people on this site are in high school. If you are not, that's very embarrassing for you because of all these 16 years olds who are WAY more intelligent and mature than you are. But hey, prove me wrong.
That is exactly what a debate is. It is not a debate if they simply agree with you. The fact that you are banning so many people indicates that you are the one who seems unwilling to debate.
I've asked you before, and didn't really get a response. I don't want to come off as attacking, cuz of I'm generally curious. What about harmful non-lethal long and short term physical, mental, and economic effects from the pregnancy?
Children cannot choose until a somewhat later age. Childrens decisions are made for them for a reason, besides your argument is based off the assumption that a zygote can be considered a child, which it cannot. It is an organism, a living cell, with a genetic code but it is by no means a child. It is a potential child, and quadrillions of potential children are not born each day. You truly need to define your criteria more definitely.
That's still not an answer to my question. I'm just trying to figure out what you believe. You say abortions are ok if the mother's life is at risk. What about non-lethal (but still harmful affects)?
Women have a right to use contraceptives, but what about contraceptive failure? If there's a defective condom, is abortion ok then?
The child is fully dependent on the mother, and at the point of contraception, the child has no way to choose. You once made the argument that a child begins to develop brainwaves, and at that point it could (as I think you are arguing) 'choose." Is your argument that abortion is ok before brainwaves develop? Again, not trying to attack, just trying to figure out what you believe.
We hold these truths to be self evident that all people are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Maybe give a shit was the wrong term. Other people on this site read what you put and address your argument. If they don't address your argument then you can restate it. They will respond, if only to strengthen their own argument. With Dana that is not the case. When I say it doesn't enter her head I mean it doesn't even register.
Lib c'mon, this again? Shall we just copy paste our previous conversation?
No genetic change happens at birth, but the presence of a genetic code does not qualify an organism of any size as a "child" or a "person with rights" because at it's earliest stage, the zygote is no different from any other somatic cell.
Research indicates that while our basic genetic code remains constant, there are nevertheless genetic alteration that occur throughout our lives. Presumably this would apply to the experience of birth as triggering agent, but ultimately the point is moot since genetic change has never been a factor in the determination of age.
The child isn't given an age until it's mother actually gives birth to it. Can you explain your reasoning as to why you think abortion is age discrimination?
An unborn baby is unaware of what life even is. If it is not born and you don't want the baby then an abortion is the best way of getting rid of it. If you let it be born it's going to bring a negative effect on both you and the child.
