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'm actually kind of tired of going over this but maybe now we can have a full discussion.
I say yes, life begins at conception. BUT, I don't think that makes abortion murder. It is killing, it's not murder.
1) Murder is illegal, and abortion is not illegal.
2) Societies already accept many other forms of killing - war, law enforcement, capital punishment, self defense, high risk surgeries, and in some places euthanasia and suicide (and I'm sure there are more). Abortion is one more form of killing society decided to live with. Death is more common in our lives than we want to admit.
3) There are many other ways fetuses die in the womb and declaring all have a right to live and which they can't advocate for themselves would obligate individuals into going to great lengths to try to save that which cannot be saved or else to be complicit in manslaughter.
4) To say the fetus is not alive until a certain period of time elapses or a milestone is reached risks error because every life develops a little differently.
You will notice that we say INNOCENT life when talking about abortion. Please do not compare an innocent life to murderers facing execution. That is so insuting to that little unborn life that has never done one thing wrong.
War also is the taking the lives of evil who would kill others. America does not support any premeditated killing of innocent ife in war.
Executions of people who turn out to be innocent do indeed happen, and yet the states that keep capital punishment do not find that risk sufficient to make them take the punishment off their books. It's not an irrelevant reference.
lol, back at you then, the Christians say we all are born with original sin, so that aborted fetus is not necessarily innocent. And if your counter to that is God will still take them to heaven because they have no control over what is happening then that means aborted fetuses all get their souls saved whereas born children may actually go to hell for not being good enough, so in that respect getting the abortion is a loving way for a mother to save her children's souls.
1. That's a tautological fallacy, and also incorrect depending upon the legal system in question.
2. That we accept other forms of killing does not necessarily mean that we should accept another form, not only because the forms are distinct but because this presumes that the original acceptance is correct.
3. There are many other ways that people die in life, so the implications you are attempting to draw here would necessarily apply to everyday life beyond this scenario which is clearly not the case in common practice. Culpability, reasonableness, etc. are all variables that are already incorporated into socio-legal systems. Nor does an inability to effectively apply a moral standard necessarily dissolve the (im)morality of an action.
4. It is just as fallible, arbitrary, and subjective to say that life begins at conception.
Thanks. I support legalized abortions. I don't like the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" because I think they falsely imply that those who disagree are anti-choice and anti-life, which is a gross oversimplification.
Anyway, as I was saying, the way the brain operates is a way of determining whether foetuses indeed have brains.
Does the amygdala primarily perform conscious?
Maybe it could be the hippocampus that is responsible for emotion, but yet again what is the purpose of the prefrontal cortex?
The different roles of the brain are vital in determining whether babies are conscious early on in the womb and whether they can even be referred to as babies.
Grenache, in order to discuss this in detail, may I ask you what your definition of the brain is?
The brain may operate as a determining variable, but how it operates is ultimately just as subjective as any other standard. The concept of "life" is fundamentally indeterminant, and identifying one stage of cognitive development as the start of life is just as baseless and arbitrary as the next determinant.
The brain may operate as a determining variable, but how it operates is ultimately just as subjective as any other standard. The concept of "life" is fundamentally indeterminant, and identifying one stage of cognitive development as the start of life is just as baseless and arbitrary as the next determinant.
What do you believe makes a human being of value then?
I'm well aware that I don't have to post. Nevertheless, I did. Notably, you don't seem to have an intelligent response.You don't need to have one, of course, but it is telling.
I'm well aware that I don't have to post. Nevertheless, I did. Notably, you don't seem to have an intelligent response.You don't need to have one, of course, but it is telling.
I would prefer to debate someone whose intelligence approximates or exceeds my own. I don't debate to win but for the stimulation. Engaging with below average intellects is still stimulation of a sort, and while not nearly as rewarding it does offer a distraction from boredom.
I would prefer to debate someone whose intelligence approximates or exceeds my own. I don't debate to win but for the stimulation. Engaging with below average intellects is still stimulation of a sort, and while not nearly as rewarding it does offer a distraction from boredom.
You said that you're a value nihilist in response to the fact that I had asked you a question.
If you don't have any opinion on what I am saying, how can you be capable of having a debate?
You can't do the impossible, why are you on this site?
I never said that I have no opinion. I said that there is nothing to give life value. That is an opinion. Not sure what else you would call it. You keep asserting that having values is necessary for having an opinion, but have never explained why that should be the case.
I never said that I have no opinion. I said that there is nothing to give life value. That is an opinion. Not sure what else you would call it. You keep asserting that having values is necessary for having an opinion, but have never explained why that should be the case.
In my opinion, I have expressed numerous opinions already in this exchange. Among them, the opinion that opinions may exist without containing value statements or beliefs. You have repeatedly asserted that this is not possible, but not once have you explained why any of my value neutral opinions are not actually opinions. I do not disbelieve that humans have values. I disbelieve that those values are objectively real. Very different. And, again, an opinion imbued with no sentiment of value.
So, I ask the very simple question once more: why? Fulfill your burden of proof, or I will not reply.
In my opinion, I have expressed numerous opinions already in this exchange. Among them, the opinion that opinions may exist without containing value statements or beliefs. You have repeatedly asserted that this is not possible, but not once have you explained why any of my value neutral opinions are not actually opinions. I do not disbelieve that humans have values. I disbelieve that those values are objectively real. Very different. And, again, an opinion imbued with no sentiment of value.
An opinion that believes that not all opinions have values is within itself a value.
It is based on an opinion that some beliefs have value and some don't, implying that you have an innate concept of value.
Everything you have just said right now is based on values as well.
Everything you have said is subjective, hence the value.
Provide me with one word that does not have a value to it, or isn't subjective, prove it.
So, I ask the very simple question once more: why? Fulfill your burden of proof, or I will not reply.
Why would you fucking think that I am interested in you responding to me?
I see your values have made you think stupid things.
I don't have my own definition of the brain. Feel free to continue to elaborate
The thing is, the brain performs two different tasks.
The brain categorizes and calculates.
The brain categories memories within the Hippocampus and assigning labels to each category via the Amygdala and uses the pre-frontal cortex to calculate each category.
There are two different types of categories, "fear" categories and anger/irritability/depression/happiness categories.
The "fear" category uses the brains flight or fight mechanism and uses the other emotional categories to help categorise fear. It weighs up the outcomes of a certain action, whether they conflit, cause mental strain or confliction of mental data and what sort of stimulas is received and weighs it up with past experiences and the reaction within the brain happens and makes a choice of flight or fight, or to fear.
The brain categories things with words as well.
The brain categories words like "monotonous" or "slippery" in this way too.
The brain may categorise words like "monotonous" via assigning boredom or flatness or some certain emotion stimulas, or the brain may categories words like "slippery" via the sensations we feel when we lose balance and are losing grip and our feet move rapidly across the ground.
The brain also calculates words like "monotonous" via calculating the level of tone in a certain voice or sound to determine whether the right stimulas has occurred or so on.
The brain calculates the word "slippery" by calculating how fast the feet are moving across the floor or how tight the feet or toes feel their grip by calculating the pressure from slipping across or by calculating balance.
Can foetuses when early on in the womb have the ability to calculate and categories certain sensations and apply symbolism?
What do you think?
At what stage do you believe babies have the ability to calculate and categories their environment?
That's all great analysis of the brain and I agree the fetus isn't that advanced in the brain to qualify by those standards. Yet, the fact still remains that the average pregnancy is a course which will lead to a baby unless that course is disturbed. So ending the process right after conception is still ending the life regardless of whether the fetus has brains yet.
That's all great analysis of the brain and I agree the fetus isn't that advanced in the brain to qualify by those standards. Yet, the fact still remains that the average pregnancy is a course which will lead to a baby unless that course is disturbed. So ending the process right after conception is still ending the life regardless of whether the fetus has brains yet.
I know this might sound a bit of a far fetched thing to say, so bear with me, but do you believe that it is possible that foetuses have brains at conception even when they start off as a single cell?
It's possible.
I'm not saying that I can confirm that it is absolutely true, but who knows?
Maybe foetuses do have brains when they start off as single celled organisms at conception.
We don't value life by giving all life rights let alone treat all life equally. If we did value life so much we wouldn't see movements trying to get apes 'personhood' we would be banking on 'life'. Of course there are droves of instances we do support killing, we justify it all the time even on people. Sure "life" begins at conception but what we are really discussing is when "personhood" begins. When does one life have rights that are equal to 'and or' above anothers rights?
If Terry Schiavo in her vegetative state and and a cognizant 30 year old person both need an organ to live it's pretty easy to see who gets the operation. It is obvious we value one life more than others in these situations and their current and future prospects influence our decisions. Not all life at certain states are considered equal.
The above analogy fails to really capture the idea of abortion though because the relationship between someone in a vegetative state and a living functioning person isn't symbiotic as it is with fetus and mother. It is easy to say that the healthy person gets the organ but with pregnancy it would be like them sharing yours. Then there is the secondary effects.
There are times where this relationship can cause undue burden on functioning people that have long lasting effects. For instance where a woman may have to to stop her education or career ensuring that her social standing and needs are hampered or at the mercy of others. To put a person in a vegetative state who is still just a chance above a living coherent person devalues the living persons rights. Even more so when the outcome may be against the coherents persons will and out of their best interest.
24-28 weeks pass and all of a sudden brain activity is possible! We can still have all those negative consequences though can't we? And its not like once the brain gets connected everything is on and working either. Instead of a person with accumulated knowledge and life experience connections to other people etc. we have a light that says 'on'.
Obviously we draw a line somewhere, when a 'person' is likely to happen or viability ought to earn it a right to life or it should in some peoples eyes. Before 28ish weeks this wasn't possible but now its closing in, over 30% chance to live and climbing. After a certain amount of time a woman will be effected by her pregnancy no matter what and perhaphs this cost can never be repaid, but does this outweigh a 'person' in the making? Has this person by sheer 'odds of survival' achieved personhood?
Abortions are about quality of life and a shared burden for the people involved. If a persons life would be hindered and reinforcing a cycle of poverty before 28 weeks it can surely do the same at 29 weeks. Obviously we stop somewhere and that is birth because there we have a defintive event; a person just happened. Before this we have a march of newly drawn lines in the sand, place holders and odds for things that could be but might not.
The limiting of abortions to under 28 weeks is a compromise that serves as piece of mind for other people rather than for the overall good of the effected living person or groups of living people.
Not sure I get ya. Is this an aside like; when is a foetus conscience? or do you feel that the relationship between the foetuse and the mother has no bearing to the discussion on abortion? or do you feel consciousness of the fetus overrides the rights and well being of the mother?
Not sure I get ya. Is this an aside like; when is a foetus conscience? or do you feel that the relationship between the foetuse and the mother has no bearing to the discussion on abortion? or do you feel consciousness of the fetus overrides the rights and well being of the mother?
You don't talk sense.
None of the arguments you put up would have any use if foetuses weren't alive.
Repeating philosophical arguments that don't make anyone any the wiser isn't going to do any good.
Perhaps we shall cease to mutually be on that page when I say that I am pro-life in the terms of the political discourse of the day. Abortion is a necessary evil in many ways, though my condonation has its limits.
Biologically, a zygote is alive. This is entirely irrelevant to the abortion debate, since we don't extend human rights to any other single-celled organisms. The only relevant questions are: 1, whether the mother's right to bodily autonomy should extend to the fetus; and 2, what limits society should place on her exercise of that right.
Life begins at conception. This isn't coming from a religious background (as I am an atheist), but rather this is coming from a scientific background. Fetuses have shown brain function in as little as 1-2 weeks after conception, which busts the myth that fetuses aren't independent thinkers. In my view, abortion is a way for people to get out of having to deal with a child because they didn't have the personal responsibility to properly protect themselves during sex. As of incidents involving rape, incest, etc., abortion should also not be allowed as it is not the child's fault, and you shouldn't deny that child the opportunity to succeed in life. Put it up for adoption if you don't want it. The only instance that abortion should be allowed in when it endangers the mother's health to the point of possible death. In that instance, the mother's life comes before the unborn child.
Life isn't very easily defined. In order to answer your question I necessarily have to define life based on my subjective experience and influences. This would require me to make an argument that cannot be defended or disputed regardless of the position I chose.
I believe life begins when the child first takes his own breaths whilst disconnected from its mother. When the baby is attached to its mother, abortion would only be killing a part of the mother as the fetus isn't capable of breathing and living on its own yet
Although I don't completely agree I respect your right to argue it. Probably the thing that bothers me the most about your position would be it justifies abortion all the way up to the very moment of actual birth and I really do think that's unnecessarily cruel. Life outside the womb is viable long before the actual first breath is drawn.
The question feels inherently biased to me. Does life begin at conception? For all intents and purposes, yes, "life", by it's broadest definition certainly begins at conception. One cannot deny that a zygotic cell is "alive", just as one cannot deny that a skin cell or brain cell is not "alive". The question ought not to be if something is alive, because insects, bacteria, plants are all alive. I argue for the "no" side of this question because I think it is attempted to dig at some sort of deeper moral philosophy about when we ought to and ought not terminate a "life". Certainly we terminate bacteria constantly, therefore during the stage in development when an embryo is arguably indistinguishable from a bacterium, by our own morality we ought to be able to terminate that "life". Of course, by our own morality we also feel entitled to terminate the lives of animals that rank comparably to a four-year old, such as pigs, and I do not think we ought to be terminating children up to age four either. In my opinion, termination is allowed so long as that life which you intent to terminate has no stake in it's own existence, or no measurable will of its own to be alive. Therefore, I argue no, "life" in a sense worth protecting from harm, does not begin at conception. Life itself, by broad terms without taking on emotional charge, does begin at conception.
There can be no debate when the one side REFUSES to admit what they support with their vote.
Maybe you like wasting your time bantering words with people living in total denial of what they support with their vote.
The Democrat party supports "no limit" abortions currenty legal in nine states! They have become the extremist party who have sold their souls for the sake of campaign money given from pro abortion groups.
If a person votes for a politician who will keep no limit abortions legal, that person is also supporting no limit abortions!
To even speak to life at conception(which I agree with) is laughable when you are supporting any abortion for any reason at any stage with healthy Babies and healthy mothers. This is what we are talking about. When people refuse to admit what they support, the debate has stopped and it is time to ban the deniers. How can there be an intelligent debate when the one side refuses to admit the truth of what they support?
People who say there can be no debate should not be posting on a debate website. That's like going to the zoo and jumping in the lion cage and then lecturing the lions that you are NOT their food.
People who come to a debate website should not consider debating a bantering of words which wastes time.
You keep repeating the claim the Democratic party supports no limit abortions. Can you please show me where it says that in their platform? And how do you account for Independents being larger as a group than either the Democrats or Republicans - couldn't it be Independents who keep those 9 states the way they are instead of Democrats? And what about your RINO's in the Republican Party I hear about? Has there never been a Republican with a different view on abortion than you? Yours is an oversimplification.
Your comment about voting for a politician makes you complicit is a lazy way to paint with a broad brush. With 360 million people in the US and only two parties making up almost all the government it's inevitable we vote for one or the other. By your logic every last thing wrong with this country is 100% the fault of all of us, because the only way that wouldn't be true is if every candidate we ever voted for was 100% right on everything. Pure folly.
And your final paragraph would be an example where if I were you I would have banned you for not talking about the topic. The topic is does life begin at conception - and yet you go off on the farthest end of the pregnancy and/or abortion process instead of the one and only part which you already said we agree on - that it begins at conception. That add on by you is precisely the type of thing we say which sends you into a fury and then an automatic ban. You're a hypocrite.
Grenache, you'll soon come to realize that this individual suffers from some form of psychosis. As I'm not a psychiatrist nor a psychologist I don't know the precise medical term for his mental condition, except that it is deepening day by day. Would you visit your nearest Psychiatric Clinic for the criminally insane and attempt to have two way, meaningful and reasoned debates with the inmates? Needless to say that was rhetorical question as I do not think you would waste your time with such a useless engagement. Well, by taking the bait from this raving lunatic you're only wasting your time and by responding giving him/her some form of sexual gratification. Let him/her retreat into the dark crevices of their diseased mind and eventually the men in white coats will come and take ''IT'' away to a secured institution. Only trying to be helpful.
I appreciate it, but this is still a debate site so I'm willing to discuss with just about everyone. If at some point I'm annoyed or bored I'll just log out and go enjoy real life. No harm done.
When did I EVER say there were not a few pro choice republicans? If there were any known repubicans who supported keeping no limt abortions legal, I would call any person voting for that person as also supporting the inhumanity.
This is what people like you do, you try to say they are all the same, and it matters not who you elect. Blah blah blah. COMPLETE LIE!
It matters greatly who we vote for. If people stopped voting for pro choice politicians decades ago, abortion would have NEVER been legalized!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. You have REPEATEDLY slammed this as a Democrats problem. You can't backtrack from that. You've based entire debates off of soley Democrat - blaming them 100%.
And again, you throw that word LIE around over and over again. It's just a tantrum. I'd go so far as to say your quest to label every disagreement is a lie is de facto your own lie.
You mindess twit! I don't even know of one republican who would support no limit abortions. I was making the pont that if there is one, anyone who voted for that person would be supporting no limit abortions.
The vast vast majority of Democrats vote in unison to stop the GOP from limiting abortions to 20 weeks(unless extreme cases). THESE EXTREMIST DEMOCRATS STILL WILL NOT COMPOROMISE!
Are you absolutely on drugs? There is hardly one honest democrat politician who would ever admit he supports no limit abortions, tey just vote down every GOP bill to limit abortions to 20 weeks(unless extreme cases).
They will not admit they are closet socialists, just as they will not admit they want to take our guns, just as they would never admit they supported gay marriage until it would no longer hurt their election chances and then all of a sudden THEY SAW THE LIGHT!!!!!!!
LOL, these phony Democrats never admit anything that would hurt them in their election campaign.
Remember how we could all keep our doctors and insurance plans and our premiums would go down? The Democrats all knew this was a huge lie. They will say and do anything to get elected.
Republicans have stayed pro life even though it hurts them in the polls. They actually are honest and hold true to their convictions.
All I did was repeat your own dare back at you - and your answer was that's nuts and unfair. That's exactly what you are. You have a whole site convinced.
You refuse to admit what you vote for. When the same question is posed to you it is about what the candidate said and not what the candidate votes for.
You are wasting our time as always. If any candidate voted to not reduce the legal limits of abortions to 20 weeks(uness extreme cases) I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR HIM!
When they have those votes, almost all the Democrats refuse to compromise and almost all the Republicans support the compromise. Quit wasting our time denying the undeniable!
What hypocrisy? Gee, I wonder why I get sick of debting people who either lie or lack the intelect to stop saying mindless things.
There is no hypocrisy. I don't know of one republican who supports no limit abortions. If there is one, I would never ever vote for them & I would call them as inhuman as the vast majority of Democrat politicians.
Both the last paragraph of my initial response to you above as well as Cartman's response show behaviors you would be enraged if we did them in a debate but which you exhibit here and now. There is your hypocrisy. You answered neither, instead you just ranted.
Of course you don't vote for the issues you don't vote for. All you talk about are the issues you don't vote for while chastising everyone else for not admitting what they vote for. Why don't you admit the stuff you vote for? If admitting what you vote for is the natural thing to do, why aren't you doing it?
I have many times admitted supporting the repubican running for office. If he called himsef pro choice or voted not to restrict late term abortions, I would never vote for him. He would be a phony inhuman idiot.
I am not ashamed of anything those i vote for support. When it comes to innocent life and death, there is no more important issue.
My reply to you is the same as my last hundred replies. If you are not ashamed of supporting the killing of healthy Babies, days or seconds from birth, then you have no conscience. Thats what I say to you.
What did you think I would say? Good for you for supporting killing viable late term Babies?
LOL, I guess we should tell all those who supported the Nazi party, good for them for supporting the deaths of millions of jews.
When the only reply you have left is the same tired repeat response which already failed to silence critics on dozens of other debates then you've already lost by the time you hit save.
Why is it only needed to admit the most important issue? Why are you allowed to pretend you don't support your candidates in every other issue just because you are good about abortion? Why is abortion the only issue that anyone has to admit to?
What on earth do you keep missing? Are you playing ignorant on purpose?
I do support the Conservative republicans on most other issues. I support even the establishment Republicans on the issues they tell us they care about, which usually proves to be a joke.
I have no problems with people voting for the many different issues that have nothing to do with humanity, but when a party becomes inhuman and supports the right of healthy mothers to kill healthy babies seconds from birth, there HAS TO BE some soul searching of the voters who elect these extremists. To deny what they are supporting is burying their heads in the sand and putting self over an innocent life. ABSOLUTELY HORRENDOUS!
I support even the establishment Republicans on the issues they tell us they care about, which usually proves to be a joke.
Why can't you be specific here? Double standards. When it is something that you want others to admit it is super specific. When it is something you support it just proves to be a joke and you don't mention it further. What things that turned out to be a joke that ate bad for this country have you supported with your vote?
You must have missed what I said when I told you most other issues are not a matter of humanity and there can be intelligent dissagreements and respect. Killing a Healthy baby days before birth can be only one thing. INHUMAN!
I will play your game one time..... I supported the establishment repubicans when they told us all they would block Obamacare if elected. They did not!
They told us they would stop Obama's executive order of Amnesty..... they did not!
They told us they would get to the bottom of the IRS scandal. They did not!
They told us they would stop funding to Planned parenthood. The Democrats stopped them at every corner.
They told us they would shut the Government down to stop the over spending. Only Cruz did so.
I supported everything they said they would do but they did nothing.
This is why we have a guy like Trump doing so well. Republicans are fed up with the RINO"s inaction and are sickened from what the extremist democrat party is doing and getting away with it.
Do you admit to supporting Obamacare? Do you admit to supporting amnesty? Do you admit to supporting the IRS? Do you admit to funding planned parenthood? Do you admit to supporting the government never shutting down? All of those things happen when you vote for Republicans. Will you admit what you have voted for?
WOW, you do realize how much you are grasping at straws right?
The GOP said they would stop those policies. We believed them and still do hope they will stop them when we get a republican president that will not veto their attemps to stop the policies.
The Democrats NEVER EVER EVER say they will stop these nine no limit abortion states from keeping the infanticide legal.
Not only do they not say they will stop it, they support a womans right to abortions at any stage for any reason.
This is why you are one of those on my auto ban list. You try and twist everything to make yourself right.
So, you refuse to support anything that gets passed when you vote for Republicans and you want he Democrats to admit what they support. Those are called double standards. For every single issue you support there is a an issue that Democrats support for the same exact reason and you are confused as to why.
I proved there was absolutely no hypocrisy but people such as yourself could not see the truth in anything if it hit you over the head. You are so dishonest, you refuse to admit how you support kiling late term babies with your vote. It is sick when people are so dishonest. TRULY SICK!
Are you brainwashed by the politically correct collective? Can you think for yourself?
What is even worse is that people like you actually spew the lie that you believe life begins at conception when you support KILLING that life at any stage for any reason when you vote Democrat.
I just wonder, are you actually living in that much denial of what you support, or are you a total deceptive liar? Which is it?
I don't ban anyone unless they refuse to address the topic at hand, or are deceptive with their answers, or are vulgar, etc. There are many reasons why I ban people and so far you have not been banned very often.
If you keep wasting our time ranting about people being banned, I may have just found another reason.
Objectively untrue. Countless examples can be provided of you banning people who posted on topic, were not deceptive, and were not vulgar. That "etc" is just your sneaky way of saying "or disagree with me".
