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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#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 morally justified?
Abortion is wrong. Why? Because it's wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings and that is exactly what abortion does.
Abortion
is "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in,
or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus."[1]
That this is an act of intentional killing is even admitted by pro-abortionists[2][3]
Science (and embryology in particular) informs us that life begins at fertilization.[4]“95% of all biologists [affirm] the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization.”[5]
The
fetus, is a genetically distinct,
individual, human being. This view is affirmed leading embryology textbooks.
Science
establishes a new, distinct, individual human being is formed at conception. Further, there isn't any morally relevant difference between the born and the unborn that would justify killing the unborn, whether that be size, level of development, degree of dependency, or environment. Hence abortion results in the intentional taking of innocent human life. And that is why abortion is wrong.
A MUCH more important question right now is, "Is the IMMORAL ADULTERER, LIAR, PUSSY-GRABBER IN THE WHITE HOUSE ... morally justified?" HE is responsible for the deaths of thousands because he tried to cover up the virus that everyone, including Obama, warned him about .... and HE ignored! Is HE morally justified?? Can anyone say he didn't intentionally kill them, or he DID?? No, He just didn't try to STOP IT! To ME that's not "morally justifiable." If I thought I'd have to live my life under HIS vision of America ... I'd take abortion!
Your claim that this is a much more important question is entirely arbitrary.
It is also a very obvious red herring fallacy. Even if the president did intentionally kill innocent people, that does not make it justified for us to do so. It is completely irrelevant.
And for you to conclude from your arbitrary claim that abortion is morally justified is a non-sequitur fallacy. It simply does not follow.
Your claim that this is a much more important question is entirely arbitrary.
Your belief that abortion is morally wrong is entirely arbitrary you utterly ridiculous hypocrite. You are making sweeping arbitrary statements about what is moral and what is not moral, so your attack here beggars all belief. In the real world occupied by adults, double standards equals zero credibility.
My argument is not arbitrary. It is entirely valid. I did not make "sweeping arbitrary statements about what is moral and what is not moral" that is a straw man of yours. I was very specific. I said it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings, rather than saying "killing things" is wrong, as you falsely claimed my position is. All you've done is continually insult me.
I never said "killing people is irrelevant". That is a strawman. Quite the contrary. I was saying that just because someone else allegedly killed people doesn't make it right. It is irrelevant in the sense that it cannot be used as justification for killing, such as abortion. You distorted my point beyond recognition.
I guess you can't even read your own writing, ;-) It's right there above! You don't have to have the words in that particular order to make the statement, YOU MADE IT!.......Now, pull out your sword and go play with it Sir Galahad, like a good boy. When you're done we'll have an English lesson. ;-)
What I claimed was that anything Trump did, even killing, has no relevance to whether killing is right or wrong. So abortion can't be justified on the basis of what Trump or anyone else did or did not do.
Your first argument proves too much. As this argument can be used to justify killing anyone--born or unborn--who has severe abnormalities. Yet in most cases that would be considered murder. And if you argue that it isn't murder if they give their consent, that would still work against abortion, since the unborn didn't give their consent.
Your second argument merely assumes the unborn aren't human beings, because if they are, then your argument implies that it is right to intentionally kill innocent human beings to improve the chances of others.
You give no support for your third argument, even though it is a huge claim. Further, it is begging the question. The question is "Is abortion morally justified?" So your argument is the same as saying "Abortion is morally justified because abortion can be morally justified in all cases."
The only situation where killing the unborn may be justified, in a similar way that self-defense can, is if the mother's life is at stake and an operation is necesary to save the life of the mother, and as an unfortunate but unintended consequence, it dies. Ectopic pregnancies are an example of this. However, your sweeping claim about "all abortions" is not true.
"Are wars and the death penalty moral - even if there may be collateral damage and errors in the justice system?"
Remember, my argument is that it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. Whether it is ever justified to guilty ones, does not need to be proven or disproven to show that abortion is morally justified. And whether it is ever justified to unintentionally kill innocent human beings does not need to be proved or disproved either. But even if there are rare exceptions, it does not disprove the general rule. It would be fallacious to argue that we may kill people generally without justification, because in some cases we may break the general principle that it is prima facie wrong to kill innocent human beings.
The military frequently makes this calculation. If terrorists are known to be in a bunker with their families and/or others, and there would be high-danger/low-value for our military to engage directly, they can and have bombed the area knowing that non-combatants would be affected.
Using the minimum force necessary (abortion) to avoid the harms to our country (the mother) are the same principles at work vis-a-vis abortion.
Bringing it back to the topic (selective abortions) - if a woman has to decide between carrying twins with a high risk of both of them dying and getting an abortion to vastly improve the odds of the one that remains having a more successful birth/life, both options would be defendable morally.
first argument ... "can be used to justify killing anyone--born or unborn--who has severe abnormalities"
While people may have differences of opinion on where that line is - brain dead vs terminally ill and in pain - all I suggest is consistency. If it is moral to pull the plug when someone is on life support, apply that same standard here.
"While people may have differences of opinion on where that line is - brain dead vs terminally ill and in pain - all I suggest is consistency. If it is moral to pull the plug when someone is on life support, apply that same standard here."
Abortion is not unplugging. It is actively, deliberately killing. The two are not analogous. Abortion kills a human being which is just beginning it's life and has much potential. But a brain-dead human is for all intents and purposes, permanently dead.
They are both deliberate actions that result in the death of a body that would not otherwise live on its own. Also, my comment did not just consider "a brain-dead human", but also a completely alive terminally ill person with chronic pain. Many people find physician-assisted suicide as moral and it is legal in several states/jurisdictions.
"a human being which is just beginning it's life and has much potential"
In case it wasn't clear, the mercy justification applies when the expectation is that of a stillbirth or a child that only lives for a few hours or days - people should use comparable criteria for when euthanizing a born person would be moral.
-Reasonable fear of harm: while there are many possible complications from pregnancy that can result in severe organ damage or death, we only need to focus on the harms common to all; every successful pregnancy results in either a Caesarian-section or a vaginal delivery. If anyone were to attempt to perform similar actions on a woman outside the context of pregnancy, she would surely have a self-defense right to defend against it.
-Imminent threat: imminent does not have a strict timeline and centers more around unavoidability. If an enormous asteroid is on-track to hit Earth in 9 months, the threat to humanity is imminent. Likewise, if action is not taken, the pregnancy will unavoidably continue toward the above harm.
-Proportional force: some jurisdictions require a retreat to the wall or limits on the use of force above what is required to prevent the harms. In the case of pregnancy, abortion is the only, and therefore minimum-force, remedy.
Some common questions:
- What about consent?
While this wouldn't apply to rape, etc., let's consider two scenarios where a consent is given.
1) If a woman consents to sex, then changes her mind, can she then say no to the sex continuing? Consent does not continue perpetually into the future.
2) If a woman chooses to walk down a dark alley, does she still have a right to defend herself against a mugger? Taking some level of risk does not remove a future right of self-defense.
- But the baby is innocent and doesn't intend to harm the mother
Intent is not a required element of self-defense. Imagine the case of a person with a fake gun trying to rob a store. They certainly don't intent to kill the clerk, but the clerk still has a right to self-defense. The requirement (noted above) is a reasonable fear.
"if the mother's life is at stake"
Different states have have different standards - including just protecting your neighbor's tv, etc. - but all protect not just life, but also serious bodily injury (see the note on harm above.)
"Reasonable fear of harm." While some pregnancies may cause reasonable fear of harm, it is unreasonable to claim that all abortions do. You want consistency? If we think all pregnancies are justified killings because of just a possible threat that they may pose, then we are justified in killing just about every human being who we feel threatened by. Abortion can't be justified by this line of reasoning.
"If anyone were to attempt to perform similar actions on a woman outside the context of pregnancy, she would surely have a self-defense right to defend against it."
This works against your case, as it admits that pregnancy is a unique circumstance. But if you are saying it shouldn't be allowed at all, surely abortions shouldn't, even more so.
"Imminent threat: imminent does not have a strict timeline and centers more around unavoidability. If an enormous asteroid is on-track to hit Earth in 9 months, the threat to humanity is imminent. Likewise, if action is not taken, the pregnancy will unavoidably continue toward the above harm."
This is absurd. Pregnancy does not cause harm as unavoidably and as deadly as an asteroid.
"1) If a woman consents to sex, then changes her mind, can she then say no to the sex continuing? Consent does not continue perpetually into the future."
But this has nothing to do with abortion. Abortion is not simply a woman changing her mind. It is the deliberate killing of innocent human beings.
"Intent is not a required element of self-defense. Imagine the case of a person with a fake gun trying to rob a store. They certainly don't intent to kill the clerk, but the clerk still has a right to self-defense. The requirement (noted above) is a reasonable fear."
You don't have the right to kill someone without strong justification. If there is no imminent threat to the mother's life, and all you have is a bare possibility, abortion is unjustified.
In most pregnancies, there is no reasonable fear for the mother's life. So it is not justified. And your claim that all abortions can be justified as self-defense is just not true.
"some pregnancies may cause reasonable fear of harm, it is unreasonable to claim that all abortions do"
I explained exactly how it is reasonable: "every successful pregnancy results in either a Caesarian-section or a vaginal delivery. If anyone were to attempt to perform similar actions on a woman outside the context of pregnancy, she would surely have a self-defense right to defend against it."
A woman has a right to defend herself against things like injecting her with drugs, slicing open her stomach, and penetrating her vagina with an object the size of a grapefruit.
The father (or strangers for that matter) aren't required to donate a kidney, or even to donate blood.
"we are justified in killing just about every human being who we feel threatened by"
The main difference is the available alternatives - as I discussed under "proportional force".
"it admits that pregnancy is a unique circumstance"
It says that some people do treat pregnancy differently, not that they should. The point of the self-defense argument is that we shouldn't.
"Pregnancy does not cause harm as unavoidably and as deadly as an asteroid."
unavoidably - yes, it does.
deadly - this section was about imminence/unavoidability - so it is better to refer to the other areas for level of harm, etc., though asteroids often do harmlessly impact Earth.
"this has nothing to do with abortion. Abortion is not simply a woman changing her mind."
This is about whether the sex was consensual or the woman was on contraception when she got pregnant, etc. changes a woman's right to self-defense against serious bodily injury. You're right that, as my argument states, consent is not a factor.
"In most pregnancies, there is no reasonable fear for the mother's life. So it is not justified."
People have a self-defense right to protect not just their life, but also to prevent serious bodily injury. Therefore, the justification is the near certainty of serious bodily injury.
You assert: "Zygote, blastocyst and embryo. None of these are human beings."
Yet you provide no evidence for this. Indeed, it is contrary to the findings of science.
Let me here quote some of the leading embryology textbooks.
"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
"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 Muller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote." [Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
And, for your information, there is a consensus on this matter among biologists. Just see the link at the top of this page.
No, religious fanatics don't have the right to force women to bear children. But notice the debate isn't about whether women should be forced to have children. Rather it is about whether it is right to kill their children.
Yet you provide no evidence for this. Indeed, it is contrary to the findings of science.
You assert that a Zygote, blastocyst and embryo are found by science to be human beings. Then you quote excerpts which assert the complete opposite, for example:-
"Human development BEGINS after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the BEGINNING, or BEGINNING primordium, of a human being."
So development into a human being only begins after the ovum is fertilized, disproving your assertion that it is human at the point of fertilisation.
Congratulations on disproving yourself you idiotic Bible-bashing halfwit.
This is a really silly argument, as I never ever appealed to the bible or god, or any religion. I quoted leading embryology textbooks. Your variant reading is not the interpretation of over 5000 biologists. You simply read into it something that it did not mean to say. If you would do more thorough research (I can provide plenty more evidence from various reliable sources) you would discover that.
"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)."
The reason it says after is because fertilization is a process that takes 24 to forty-eight hours to complete. There is no dispute, however, that after the process of fertilization has successfully completed, it is a new human being.
Also, you equivocate on the word "beginning". That means the start. That does not mean that it is not a human being. It just means it is in its early stages of development.
It is only refering to the beginning of development.
That much should be clear by reading the other quotes which clarify that
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
Notice that it nowhere says "potential human being." or it "become a human sometime after conception."
Your excerpt was absolutely clear you retarded little troll. Development into a human does not begin until AFTER conception, and it does not end UNTIL birth.
DEVELOPMENT does not begin until after FERTILIZATION, because prior to fertilization it is not a human being. But after "the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization" "Human development begins." And that is in complete accord with what I was saying. Also, you cannot say human development begins at conception if it is not a human being.
Caterpillars develop into butterflies, but until they become butterflies they are still caterpillars. What the hell is so difficult to comprehend about that, dummy?
Let me quote a paper that will make things clearer.
"Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a �potential� or a �possible� human being�not a real existing human being."
Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It�s an actual human being�with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities."
Let me quote a paper that will make things clearer.
You've linked a sociology paper. I don't even need to read it because I know that sociologists are not medical professionals, they have no medical training and their opinion about what is medically human is completely irrelevant. Let me show you a paper too:-
One key manifestation of motivated reasoning is the confirmation bias. Confirmation bias (also known as the "my side" bias) denotes the tendency to seek and process information in ways which are partial to one's interests, beliefs and expectations.
Behavioral Law and Economics, Eyal Zamir, Doron Teichman
Confirmation bias is why you are linking sociology papers and misrepresenting them as medical opinions.
You can insult me, but you aren't even making an effort to understand.
"If it hasn't DEVELOPED into a human being yet then it ISN'T a human being, is it, you stupid, delusional twit?"
Yes, it isn't a human being until fertilization takes place, but once that process takes place--one to two days later-- it is a human being. It's really that simple.
Its amazing how thousands of biologists can come to a conclusion, and yet pro-choicers will twist it into a denial of their very conclusions!
That's literally what you've just done you insane dope. Your passage says, in crystal clear terms that a five year old could grasp, that a fetus is developing into a human.
Are you implying that it is not a human because it is developing? But that logic no child or infant is a human being. They continue to develop until adulthood!
By the way, if you launch into personal attacks instead of reasoning
You are the one who is not reasoning you delusional halfwit. You are making arbitrary statements of fact, calling it science and then posting passages which contradict you. This is exactly why arguing with religious people is pointless. Whatever is black you will say is white. You're contradicting yourself, contradicting the sources you post which are supposed to corroborate you, and literally just sitting there turning factual reality upside down.
Listen pal, if you don't want people to point out that you're a fucking idiot, then stop saying things which are obviously not true. As pointed out you are insane, and so when you make other people angry by saying offensive and ridiculous things like "hospitals kill babies", you automatically hold them 100 percent accountable. In actual fact when people get angry there is usually a reason, and no sane person would ever dispute that.
It is crystal clear you pointlessly stupid retard. You are the one who does not understand what it is saying. It is saying an embryo is not a human yet.
That is utterly false, it never says the embryo is not human. I've already explained that it is referring to the beginning of the process of fertilization.
"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which
characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male
meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term
embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold
Nothing you said is relevant to whether abortion is right or wrong.
In fact, you didn't even argue anything. You just said things.
"Do black lives matter more than those of unborn babies?"
I believe in human equality, so I would say no. And what about black babies who get aborted? Do their lives matter? It's no secret that Planned Parenthood has a greater presence in the black community.
You reference "abortion providers". But Planned Parenthood isn't the only abortion provider. I was specifically talking about Planned Parenthood. If I was wrong for saying that Planned Parenthood has a greater presence in the black community, then I concede that. But my real point was that black babies matter too. And there's no dispute that they kill lots of black babies.
“A startling 2016 study exposed (https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/vs/2016sum.pdf) that in New York City, more black babies are aborted than there are born. Similarly, in 2010, Planned Parenthood fell under scrutiny after a census suggested that the abortion giant was preying on black communities as 79% of their surgical abortion facilities were within walking distance of African American or Hispanic communities."
Also, "Life Issues Institute documented in its 2012 research that Planned Parenthood targets women of color for abortion by placing 79 percent of its surgical abortion facilities within walking distance of minority neighborhoods."
And there's no dispute that they kill lots of black babies.
A fetus is not the same thing as a baby and the links you posted just the other day made that VERY clear. Unfortunately, it is obvious that you are insane and as such are incapable of taking a step back and recognising your own fallacies. Idiots like you are all the same in that, in order to argue with you, you try to force people to accept premises which simply are not true.
A baby is just an informal term for a very young human offspring. A fetus is simply a human being in it's earlier stages, and it's exactly the same organism as the newborn baby. So denying that it is a baby is simply arbitrary. You deny it because you don't like me humanizing a fetus (which also means offspring).
There is no difference between a fetus and a baby. It's a biologically human organism and remains that same human organism throughout its existence. The sources I gave proved rather than disproved this claim.
A fetus is not the same thing as a baby and the links you posted just the other day made that VERY clear. Unfortunately, it is obvious that you are insane and as such are incapable of taking a step back and recognising your own fallacies. Idiots like you are all the same in that, in order to argue with you, you try to force people to accept premises which simply are not true.
Exactly. And if you won't accept them as true you get banned. This is the only way retards like Sir Idiot can debate: when THEY set the parameters for discussion, because they can make them as openly ridiculous as they like.
The suggestion that the government can require people to wear masks to protect others has many people incensed and some even filing lawsuits. This is to elucidate the hypocrisy for anyone within the intersection of those people and the ones who believe the government should require a woman to carry a child to term.
I did not argue that because the government requires people to wear masks, then it should also require women to carry their babies to term. I was only arguing that it is a bad case for abortion justification.
Natalism is the most reprehensible position. Procreation, the most reprehensible act.
It is reprehensible because it is harmful to intentionally force sentient life into an existence where it is guaranteed to suffer, especially given the purely selfish interests of the procreators. This is exactly what procreation does.
Although the unborn are genetically distinct members of our species, the unborn and infants up to 15 months of age are not individuals or persons in any meaningful sense because they do not posses a self-concept. [A]
An entity which lacks self-conception is not an entity that can be harmed or benefited. Absent a self concept, there is no person - no "I" - in which harm or benefit can adhere. It makes no more sense to talk about harming or benefiting the unborn (or infants up to 15 months) than it does to talk about harming or benefiting a rock.
Permitting the unborn or the infant to mature until they develop a self-conception is the original and necessary foundation for all harm and benefit that will accrue to the organism. Harm and benefit do not exist as in an accountant's ledger, where the good may balance out the bad; any suffering experienced is experienced and nothing undoes that.
If it is reprehensible to harm another being, then it is most reprehensible to procreate because it is the original and necessary condition for all suffering. Not only is abortion not immoral, procreation is reprehensible and there is an imperative to abort and commit infanticide up to the age of 15 months.
A syllogism cannot be true either true or false. It is either valid or invalid, sound or unsound. If the premises are true and the form is valid, then the conclusion must be true.
For an argument to be valid, all that is required is that its conclusion follows from it's premises. The conclusion that abortion is wrong follows from its premises, so my argument is valid.
It is also sound, as it's premises are true.
You claim:
"A) The universe contains no such thing as right and wrong."
But this is a controversial claim that most people do not accept. I challenge you to prove this claim. This is a question of whether abortion is morally justified. If you do not believe there is a right and wrong, you are not qualified to answer this question.
"B) Abortion terminates a loose collection of cells which cannot be human since it cannot survive independently of a host, feel pain, or breathe."
Yet you provide no evidence for this. It is an arbitrary claim that is contrary to the findings of science. And your criteria for humanity are biologically irrelevant to whether an entity is human or not.
Let me quote "Essentials of Human Embryology," an embryology textbook by Keith L. Moore:
"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
Science overwhelmingly affirms the humanity of the unborn, from the very beginning of their existence at conception.
An embryo is not “a clump of cells,” but rather a distinct, whole, and self-developing human organism, with each of its parts functioning for the good of the whole.
As embryologists Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller state, “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 embryo now exists as a genetic UNITY.” (Human Embryology & Teratology.) "
Embryos are “living creatures with all the properties that define any organism as distinct from a group of cells; embryos are capable of growing, maturing, maintaining a physiologic balance between various organ systems, adapting to changing circumstances, and repairing injury. Mere groups of human cells do nothing like this under any circumstances.” (Maureen Condic, “Life: Defining the Beginning by the End.”)
You conclude,
"C) Therefore, you're making an appeal to emotion and trying to disguise it as something which is logical."
This claim is both arbitrary and demonstrably false. As I mentioned already, my argument is absolutely valid, and therefore it is absolutely logical. Never did I make an emotional appeal. Your claims are unjustified and unjustifiable.
And in your case it was false. Your sentences were thick with loaded language giving definitive, objective conclusions to extremely debatable topics. It is not a matter of fact that a fetus is human. That is a debatable topic. It is not a matter of fact that terminating a fetus is the same thing as killing a human. That is a debatable topic. It is not a matter of fact that killing things is wrong. That is a debatable topic.
And if one needs any more persuasion that you are an idiot, you wrote back 10,000 words instead of the three which would have sufficed: I was mistaken.
You say: "And in your case it [the syllogism] was false."
To refute me, you must show that my premises aren't true, or that my conclusion doesn't follow. You have not proven either.
"Your sentences were thick with loaded language giving definitive, objective conclusions to extremely debatable topics."
But this is precisely what this forum is for. If we cannot debate debatable topics, then why are you debating them? The debatableness of abortion is irrelevant to the validity of my argument.
" It is not a matter of fact that a fetus is human. That is a debatable topic."
And yet nearly all biologists disagree with you. Basically, all the available evidence supports the humanity of the unborn. It is irrational to believe that which is contrary to the evidence. It is contrary to the evidence to say that the fetus is not a human. So it is irrational to believe that the fetus is not a human.
"It is not a matter of fact that terminating a fetus is the same thing as killing a human. That is a debatable topic."
This is yet again a mere claim of yours. You do not attempt to prove your point, you merely assert it. If you wish to argue that abortion is morally justified, you must provide justification. Since you have not done so, your case fails.
"It is not a matter of fact that killing things is wrong."
And that is precisely what we are debating. Yet I did not say that all killing is wrong, or killing anything is wrong, but rather that it is wrong to intentionally killl an innocent human being, which is intuitionally correct.
"And if one needs any more persuasion that you are an idiot, you wrote back 10,000 words instead of the three which would have sufficed: I was mistaken."
This is the ad hominem fallacy. Rather than rationally engaging with me, you insult me, and make arbitrary and unfactual claims.
As for being mistaken, that you have not proven. And if you expect me to admit to being wrong though that has not been shown, you are begging the question.
Without knowing anything more about you I can already tell that you support the death penalty. Killing things is wrong. But the death penalty is fine. Right buddy?
Instead of writing so much, try reading. Go to Wikipedia and look up the phrase "cognitive dissonance".
"Without knowing anything more about you I can already tell that you support the death penalty."
This is not a rational judgment, as you have no evidence or reason to believe that. As a matter of fact, I need not take a position on the death penalty to prove my view.
My argument is that it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human. Whether it is ever justified to kill guilty people is irrelevant.
"killing things is wrong. But the death penalty is fine. Right buddy?"
This is a straw man argument. I never said "killing things" is wrong. I'm only talking about humans.
Your first post illustrates that you are unqualified to decide upon what is rational. Indeed, you seem to be having significant difficulty distinguishing what is rational from what is the opinion of a stupid person.
as you have no evidence or reason to believe that.
Proven inaccurate by the fact that what I said is true. You are anti-abortion and anti-abortionists are almost exclusively in favour of the death penalty. I can also tell that you are a devoutly religious nutbag. It's quite amazing what you can tell about a person if you recognise the signs.
My argument is that it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human.
Again, innocence does not exist in the objective world. It is a subjective concept invented by humans to describe people who are too young to have experienced the evils of misguided morons like you. You are talking about objective rationality but offering only subjective concepts to corroborate the arguments you are making.
To be honest I'm done here because I can see that you are not well and trying to reason with you is completely futile. You are so deeply wrapped up in your own ego that anything anybody else says to you is pointless.
Burrito, all you have done is offer fallacious ad hominem personal attacks and insults, red herrings, and arbitrary claims. You have failed to provide evidence, refute the available evidence, and establish the moral justification of abortion. You did not even attempt to prove your claims.
But I'm glad you're done because I don't want to have to ban you.
Burrito, all you have done is offer fallacious ad hominem personal attacks and insults
Since a ten second glance of any of my posts conclusively evidences that is not all I have done, it begs the question why you are telling such ridiculous, whopping great lies. Your problem appears to be that you are not reading any of the things I am writing which refute the idiotic statements you have made, but you are reading the insults which come afterwards. Perhaps you could explain to us why your reading is so selective. Indeed, perhaps you could also explain why those who profess to be religious are always the biggest liars.
But I'm glad you're done because
Because heaven forbid you would ever think critically about your own opinions, biases and blind religious dogmas.
I don't want to have to ban you.
You don't have to ban me. You could simply acknowledge the various criticisms I have made of your ridiculous statements and either concede they are false or explain how and why I am wrong. But of course you don't want to do the former and the latter is impossible, so you're gonna go for door number three. Good show.
Again, you offer no argument for the moral justification of abortion. You falsely accuse me of "blind religious dogmas," though I have said nothing of the kind.
"You could simply acknowledge the various criticisms I have made of your ridiculous statements and either concede they are false or explain how and why I am wrong."
I have done exactly that. I provided scientific evidence that refutes your claims, though you simply ignored that. I've shown what scientists have to say about the humanity of the unborn. I supported my points. You did not.
And contrary to what you claim, I have not told any lies.
Unfortunately, some people think personal attacks are acceptable substitutes for reason and evidence, such people do not contribute anything to the conversation. They degrade it and drag it into the mud.
I agree 100%, Sir Galahad. There is a troll named "Sciencerules". Watch out for him. He also brings in weak strawman attacks and such, uses Wikipedia and slanders about pro lifers etc etc. Just ban him on sight when he comes here. "Sciencerules" has proven to be a snowflake, a screaming karen and also a feminazi. He once threatened that if "We don't accept the leftist feminazi ideology, then we are fascists or whatever." He is such a hypocrite. "Sciencerules" has failed to bring arguments that justify an abortion besides proving that he doesn't care for scientific facts. His username on here is a mockery of real science and he is the pinnacle example of a hypocritical pseudoscience fanatic (Pseudo Science: A science that doesn't have evidence nor facts to back it up). The only thing he can do is throw back and mock the way we "use the baby lives matter" truth to argue that abortion is wrong. It's just pure fact of what we speak of. But he is offended and throws a fit.
Why is it wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings?
This is a human life. If you were the newborn fetus, you wouldn't even have a choice. Your parents would have to decide and you're lucky, most loving parents; one mother and one father are loving enough to not abort babies if they have common sense within them.
What constitutes innocence? What constitutes intention?
Innocence is where you've done nothing wrong. Babies are born with no knowledge of what is in this world. They also have zero intention to do wrong because they have no knowledge. That's why it is important to be nurturing in the righteous way towards the child.
What foundation does your morality have?
Foundation? The foundation of right vs wrong and ofc, most will say, God. It is absolute fact.
Nope. It is murder and never will be justified. Those who dehumanize a mere fetus as non living or a parasite says a lot about themselves as they were once a fetus too in his or her mother's womb individually. Baby lives matter.
Those who deny babies a chance for life are no better than serial killers. Dehumanizing a baby, dehumanizes them too. Think about it this way, if you are a woman and you are reading this, you had sex with a man and you get pregnant, that was your choice and your body too given by God. Now it's your responsibility. Those who want abortions are only running from responsibility.
It is clear that responsibility doesn't just fall on the woman, it falls unto the man too. It takes two to create a child. Therefore, it's not up to women alone. It's up to both. Women should not silence men on the matter and men should not remain quiet on the matter either. It is a shared responsibility. If you do not want a baby though, then don't have sex foolishly and recklessly. Abusing the gift of procreation from God is not good for anyone. Feminazis claim that it's sexist to involve a man to decide too. However, they are very hypocritical to the core. They forget that a relationship has a man and a woman involved and that it's none of their business. Most feminazis also do not know the pain, the risks and also the emotional side effects of abortion too. Real women have gone through abortions and perhaps most report no regrets and yet....along their lives....they regret it. They finally cry and have a mental breakdown. This is the truth. A baby is cherished from the beginning until the end. Abortionists don't get that concept or rather, they are in-denial about the value of life itself. What does this say about them since they were once fetuses too right? Exactly. I am glad roe v wade got overturned. It is about time that it was. Ron DeSantis is justified 100%. Pro lifers are justified and also Jesus Christ from the New Testament taught that children are to be cherished because they are the most vulnerable and the most precious. Children are in danger today. We must do everything we can to protect them.
Here are four women who have gone through abortions. One or a few will say they've regretted it. None of my arguments have strawman to it. Although most women may claim they never regret having an abortion.....it always comes later because it NEVER rests on their conscience.
Many women say they don't regret an abortion is solely because they are affected by today's third wave feminazism. Yes, that's right. They are only saying that because they are brainwashed. All non redeemable feminazis will be wiped from the earth. Women who realize the truth of how much babies are precious will wake up from their mind controlled state and stand against the feminazis regime. To the women out there, I may not understand the pain of pregnancy but as a man, I know I would be responsible and I do not run from my responsibilities. Having an abortion is running from your responsibilities. Once you see that, you will realize how wrong you were for supporting the termination of a newborn child. Children have the right to live. You were once a fetus yourself. What does that say about yourself? Oh please, don't try to use the "But you are trying to make me feel guilty" kind of statement. It doesn't work because are you offended by the truth? If you are offended and if you are a woman, you deserve to be sterilized. If you are a man tho and you want your wife's child or girlfriend's child to die, even though you are the dad here not the mom, you deserve to be imprisoned as well because you equally had a hand in creating the child in the first place. All abortionists deserve to be imprisoned for life. Dehumanizing a fetus to a mere parasite says alot about yourself as a human being because you were once in your mother's womb. Did she not push you out and bring you into this world? If you had been aborted, you wouldn't even get to have your say and that's what's unfortunate about those newborn baby boys and girls. They could have lived better lives than all of you abortionists combined. But it doesn't matter to you about whether a baby lives right? Why? Because you are so selfish when you made the decision to have sex and won't take responsibility! That IS THE TRUTH! To all pro lifers, keep standing up for truth. DO NOT BE AFRAID!
[Attempt to say that "it's a strawman attack" and you will automatically be destroyed by your own words. I dare you because I know some of you are naive enough to step out of line. There will be zero mercy for the wicked of this world. You have been warned.] - This message is aimed at hypocritical snowflake "sciencerules". You are warned.
