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.
I oppose abortion and support contraceptives. Your point? Contraceptives keep one from getting pregnant and abortions kills the baby after you get pregnant.
Why does that follow? There are plenty of people who (irrationally IMO) oppose contraceptives on the basis that it is preventing conception and also killing unborn children. Which makes very little sense and leads easily to the objection that in that case abstaining from sex rather than constantly fucking is wrong... which is patently absurd.
Why does that follow? There are plenty of people who (irrationally IMO)...
Why does it follow? If the only objections are admittedly irrational, then it cannot be tenably said that it does not follow regardless of how many people hold 'said irrational objection.
Abstaining from sex does not work, and there is quite a bit of statistical evidence to support that fact.
That another person's position is irrational does not automatically make anything you say about it somehow rational. That makes even less sense their argument. The very irrationality of the position makes it unpredictable by rules of logic, so there can be no "should" that follows from the proximate issue to another.
No, it's rational for other reasons that I will explain in just a moment. Perhaps I should have worded differently, Yes, however your post seemed to say that the existence of irrational objections somehow implied that the proposition doesn't follow logically. The existence of irrational objections means precisely nothing in terms of the cogency of some statement.
The statement follows because one cannot abort a child that was never conceived. It also holds true empirically, abortion rates and access to contraceptives are statistically inversely related.
If a premise is irrational then its conclusions do not follow from reason, which means that nothing can be definitively extrapolated from the position as you are endeavoring to do. If one opposes abortion for irrational reasons then a rational argument as to why they should also support contraception is simply inapplicable because it assumes a standard of reason which never existed.
Language is subjective, so it is a relatively simple matter for someone to regard conception as abortion if they regard the child's potential existence as having been terminated when it otherwise would have occurred.
It also does not follow that because abortion rates and contraceptive access are inversely related that one must support both. This presumes a number of things, not the least of which is that abortion and contraception are negotiable relative to circumstance. For someone who believes that either is an absolute harm that would not be the case, and you would need to provide an argument as to why it must be. This also presumes a certain system of laws and social ordering, and an anti-abortionist may well argue that if abortion were not only illegal but criminalized that contraceptive access would be moot.
If a premise is irrational then its conclusions do not follow from reason
Which is a less precise way of saying that an irrational belief is not rational..
which means that nothing can be definitively extrapolated from the position as you are endeavoring to do
I'm not 'endeavoring' to extrapolate anything from an irrational premise. I'm extrapolating from a rational one. A child that is never conceived cannot be aborted.
If one opposes abortion for irrational reasons then a rational argument as to why they should also support contraception is simply inapplicable
Whether some argument is persuasive to irrational people says precisely nothing of whether that argument follows logically. To argue otherwise is patently silly, and I question the sincerity of anyone making such a claim. If it were true it would nullify all of logic as one could render an infinite number of irrational objections to literally any argument, including the one you are making right now.
it assumes a standard of reason which never existed
Aye, if you don't believe in the laws of logic, then they must not exist.
Language is subjective, so it is a relatively simple matter for someone to regard conception as abortion..
And if I regard my couch as a rocket-ship then that makes me an astronaut.
I agree with this statement. I think that for a woman to end a potential life for petty or selfish reasons is disgusting, so why not try to prevent fertilization or development altogether if you don't want a child? Now, If the woman was raped, of course it's perfectly reasonable for her not to want the rapist's child in her bloodline, at least, in my personal opinion.
I agree but only under one other circumstance. If the woman's life is in jeopardy due to the pregnancy, if her health is at serious risk, she should have that option. In either horrible event, rape or threat of life, it should always be up to the woman to choose. She will have to live with the consequences and certainly doesn't need anyone else judging her.
This idiot had a sister and a mother who aborted their babies after their loverboys forgot to use condoms. One of the boyfriends was named Boyhomoman. He was Bobs lover and they dreamed of riding a horse to Jupiter. Jupiter said no women are allowed there, so they read the Koran together trying to learn about Islam. Then they found many times in the Koran that Muhammed says they are supposed to kill Christians, Jews, and Homos. Since they hated the Bible and Christians and God, and they didn't want to say homos are perverts, and their women were too loose to depend on, they decided to sell their souls to evolution in hope of escaping reality in death, and they both went out in a suicide pact and woke up in Hell. Oops, that's not funny. It was supposed to be a joke, sorry. I see no humor in you fools.
22hrs ago, figured out why you hate me so much....it's because I speak against sin and you love perversion.
I generally agree but I'll throw in the disclaimer that if your objection to abortion has religious origins and that same religion also opposes contraceptives then I can understand the consistency in those two beliefs together in one person.
Opposing both abortion and contraception sets you and society up for a big big fail though.
Are you against dying, or for dying? I'm against it, death is the enemy and you can't justify your life to escape Hell. Oh, sure, dying is justice we deserve but still I am for God's mercy and against death. You can be saved, you don't have to be dying forever in Hell.
You didn't answer the question. Do the women in your family give their bodies cheap, for less than they are worth, for sexual pleasures? Are they whores, and do you love whores? Now I'm thinking you are a whore monger defending whores, defending yourself. Go ahead and see if you can defend what you think is your right as a sinner to exist outside of the fire of Hell.
It's a yes or no question. Are you dense, smarty pants?
I can't answer your question until you answer mine. As I recall, this is my debate. The topic is about the use of contraceptives as a means of preventing/reducing abortion rates. I'm taking your comment about "whores" to mean that you oppose contraceptive use, correct?... which would put you in territory even your pal FromWithin doesn't want to join you, as I am sure you are well aware. I'm sure you are also aware that a position against contraceptives is a position for abortion. The two are inversely related.
If you are here simply to disgrace yourself by spewing unsolicited insults at people's families, merely because you disagreed with a relative over the internet, you are free to leave my debate, and if you need any assistance leaving my debate I am happy to help.
My mother told me that women who give their bodies away cheap for less than they are worth, outside of the lifetime commitment of marriage are whores. She would tell you the same thing.
So...are the women in your family whores, and are you a whore dog?
Your debate is stupid, the point you are making implies it's good to be a whore. I don't care if you ban me, I made my point in my first post here and you are dodging it like you got caught in a whorehouse.
I don't see where I've implied any such thing, that seems to be your particular narrative, not mine. You seem to be operating under the assumption that only promiscuous people use contraceptives. People in committed relationships also use birth control, as a means of family planning. Elevating women from a chattel-like existence of compulsory reproduction, believe it or not, is tremendously beneficial to society. Of course promiscuous people also use birth control, and it is better that they did, because unwanted children (who tend to make great criminals as adults) or abortions are the result when they don't, and by restricting access to birth-control society is bridled with more of both. You and I both know this. So yes, contraceptives are good. Those who disparage non-reproductive sex, I tend to find, have much larger families... interesting how that works.
I'm desperately trying to see what point he's made because I must be missing it. Right now it just looks like he's latched on to the word "whores" and is tossing it out as much as possible to avoid answering the question.
I agree, people in committed relationships use birth control, as they should, until they are ready to start a family. The effort and cost of raising a child should really be for those who are mentally and financially prepared for it but hey, sometimes things happen and most people are strong enough to deal with what comes. Birth control isn't effective 100% of the time. I don't agree with abortion in most cases and fully support free contraceptives.
I don't see where you think you are justified for living when you are condemned to dying. Hell is eternal dying, and right now that is all you have except for God's mercy giving you time.
You seem to have grown quite accustomed to preaching hellfire from your street corner every-time you lack a substantive response to an argument. I'm not certain you are capable of anything else.
He is not. What you see here is what you get from him every time almost without fail. He is one of the more annoying/effective trolls on the site as he will not waiver from this tactic.
How old are you, punk? Probably just a kid. If I were your father, I would tan your hide right now or give you such a verbal blistering that you would feel it on your behind as you leave my house hearing me say "don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya"......and if the door didn't hit ya, my boot surely would connect as you were leaving. Punk.
Not a threat, punk, just a statement regarding your immaturity i'm not your father, and you can be thankful for that. You're just a punk, trying to provoke a fight with me, and your father would tan your hide if he cares about you, to teach you to show respect.
You have a problem and your problem is not me, though you act like I am your problem. You are on your way to Hell, son, and if you think you can avoid it by your mouth or your might, that's not my problem. As far as I can tell by the way you act, you are a kid, playing teenage games trying to provoke a fight. It boils down to your attitude toward God and you are looking for somebody to take it out on. I pay little attention to you, and the less attention I pay, the nastier and filthier you become trying to provoke me. One day this kind of stuff will get you in serious trouble with somebody somewhere, and if your father cares about you he would tan your hide good in hope of teaching you to stop being a punk before somebody who cares nothing for you really puts it to you. If you are under 35, you are a kid to me and the way you act it would not surprise me if you are a teenager. I wonder what your father is or was like...I can imagine. He sure did a bang up job letting you learn to be a punk.
I don't expect you have children. We can all be thankful for that. You once again confuse disagreement with you to be disagreement with God. This is a problem that is very much yours and no one else's.
I said you are a punk and if your father has any brains and cares about you, he should literally tan your hide for the way you are acting with me or give you a tongue lashing so thorough that you would prefer a whooping.
You never cease to know nothing about any given topic. In this case you seem to misunderstand either hide tanning or the word "literally".
You also fail to understand how respect works. You don't just get it for being old, you have to also be respectable on some level. You can't sling petty insults and then demand respect. I don't respect you because you are not respectable.
You are not welcome in my house, punk, so I won't be reading your words as if you were here talking to me. I'm not allowing you in my house, and I'm only responding as a public announcement that your words, your person, are not allowed in my house. When I see your name and icon, that's as far as my eyes go, I'm keeping you out.
Awwww, boo hoooo, poor little baby can't make God go away...........keep on crying, maybe you'll shed enough tears to quench Hell's fire for moment. (Rev. 22:11)
I check responses to my arguments and I see the faces of five fools who think they have the right to exist outside of Hell and I"m leaving them in the dust, I tried to tell them how they can be saved but they think they are better than God........idiots.
