CreateDebate


Debate Info

33
24
True False
Debate Score:57
Arguments:47
Total Votes:60
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True (25)
 
 False (18)

Debate Creator

Verukter(44) pic



Christians arguing against abortion carry no merit. (read description)

If you believe the book of Genesis to be an accurate acount of the creation of the Earth and you believe it to be about 6000 years old, your opinion on the topic of abortion and "when does life begin?" should be immediatly dismissed. 

True

Side Score: 33
VS.

False

Side Score: 24
3 points

Well true but not the real reason why their arguments hold no merit. In truth their "arguments" are really opinions. This is a moral issue and in moral issues there is no right or wrong answers, no black and white, only general consensus among all people. Moral issues can be altered and changed to fit the desires of both parties in most cases. For instance were trying to reach an agreement on abortion, one side wants abortion legal the other doesn't. We can then add clauses to the issue for instance, abortion is legal but only in certain cases or only before a certain time limit. We're willing to be lenient, however they stubbornly go against the majority and push for total anhiallaition of it. If someone uses the argument that they can feel pain at a certain age or that the brain devlops at a certain age then that is admissible evidence well worth considering. However religious types untimately fall back to their religion as a basis of why its wrong. Unfortunately for them since government is not to prefer one religion over another this "argument" is useless. Their gods standards of morality mean nothing to congress and rightly so. It's the people's morality and the people's desires that are to be upheld and if the people feel abortion is a necessary option to have then that's too fucking bad for you.

Side: True
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

This is a moral issue and in moral issues there is no right or wrong answers, no black and white, only general consensus among all people.

Are you sure you understand what 'morality' means?

Side: False
AveSatanas(4443) Disputed
2 points

In issues of morality we are discerning what is right and what is wrong. Right and wrong are yet to be established yet on the issue of abortion, therfore there is no solid confirmed right or wrong answers.

Side: True
2 points

mo·ral·i·ty noun \mə-ˈra-lə-tē, mȯ-\

: beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior

...

Beliefs. Not facts. Beliefs.

Side: True
2 points

If we wish to call this a moral debate then there is no yes or no, no one has a moral compass there for each individual is equipt to evaluate their choices for themselves.

If we call this a logic debate, it's true, if you honestly think the world is 6000 years old I would not trust your logic on any other case.

Side: True
1 point

If you believe any of that (6000 years, talking snakes etc..) then you are mentally ill and your opinion does not matter.

Side: True
2 points

If you believe the book of Genesis to be an accurate acount of the creation of the Earth and you believe it to be about 6000 years old, your opinion on the topic of abortion and "when does life begin?" should be immediatly dismissed.

Pretty sure that there might be a non sequitur in there somewhere.

Side: False
Verukter(44) Disputed
1 point

By all means, feel free to point it out so that I can clarify.

Side: True

Im prochoice, but I feel its disrespectful to dismiss someone for being a Bible believer.

Side: False
1 point

Being completely wrong in one instance doesn't mean the person will be wrong on other things that are unrelated. In the instance you point out the ideas are often rejected due to dissimilar reasons. It is more likely that those who believe in a young earth are science illiterate and those who oppose abortion do so based on morality call. If both positions were backed by "science" I would be skepticle because their ability to be objective regarding evidence is in question.

Side: False
1 point

Using your rationale, couldn't we also say that Christians arguing for abortion, based on their opinion on where life begins, carry no merit either?

Actually, let's just not use your rationale at all as it is guilty of both the association fallacy and the equivocation fallacy.

EDIT: I accidentally my grammar

Side: False
2 points

Right, but doesn't it also mean that anything a Christian says has no merit?

Side: True
Stickers(1037) Disputed
1 point

Well... I was going to say "and/or" instead of "and" for more complicated reasons:

It is possible that the rationale only commits the equivocation fallacy if it entirely conflates "life" as a matter of sentience in the unborn with chemical processes occurring in primitive life. This is because Christian views on unborn life can be discredited with their purportedly faulty reasoning on just all "life" foundations (remembering that we'd have have to go with asker's equivalence of both kinds of life), then would not necessarily mean that Christians arguing against abortions all other kinds' of reasoning are false.

But, if their views on unborn life are at the same time discredited by asker b/c Christians arguing against abortion also because they have purportedly shown in it in an another matter (primitive life), then it is now also fallacious via association with equivocal faults at the same time.

It is also possible that it is just incorrect by association if we were to assume that asker's rationale does not confuse the two senses of life.

So, depending on what asker meant, it could or it couldn't

Side: False