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.
It's inactive you moron and I have never claimed an active link was inactive unless you're referring to your make believe sites, I didn't even need it to make a point unlike you the site dummy
It's not , you couldn't even voice an opinion (as usual ) on the topic , the link you sent showed a ciouple of Ghanaian idiots attempting to rap ππ but I still knew what the OP was asking unlike you the rapist and yes you're a dummy as well
Aaaah.... the ol ad hominem ,,, there's that logic tripping you up again .
Makes me wonder why you leave 10 rants in my feed obviously you're very upset at constantly losing and this latest post is just hilarious , do you not think I've heard all this before from mindless morons like you ?
By the way good call supporting Jeffrey a piece of filth who claims white women are pigs who enjoy being raped π
I think someone who isn't mentally stable or doesn't understand how to raise a child should have to have it. It would just be for minors and people under guardianship. It would not be for full grown women, 18+ or 21+ to not be able to have a child unless they were mentally unstable. Teenagers and alcoholics don't make good parents and the child will have a terrible childhood if they have the baby. If they abort then religious nuts get mad. If they don't then as I said just now, the child won't have a very good upbringing.
If it were 100% up to me, I know this sounds sexist but, I would get the age to turn it off at 25.
We could also make rules to make sure the devices aren't used to maliciously track women or invade their privacy. So I mean it's not like it's badly intentioned.
Religious people aren't against all forms of birth control, just killing a developing baby. This prevents the whole issue. It's not perfect but any rule you make will make someone pissed.
Link doesn't want to work but I think I get the idea.
This would definitely be a good idea. Not only would it mean that rape victims won't conceive but people can essentially "turn it off" if and when they want children. The only thing it might not change is if someone who wants the child gets a medical issue that means they'd have to abort. However, these cases are fairly rare but as long as abortion is option for these cases then this would definitely mean that abortion wouldn't be an issue.
I couldn't read your link because I don't have a Washington Post subscription but I found an article on this by basic search.
Better birth control will always help with avoiding abortions. That would make a huge dent in them. Keep in mind though there are times families are not on birth control because they're legitimately trying to get pregnant and they get thrown a curve ball that makes them bail in the middle, such as:
Rape
A terrible health infliction of the baby to be
A terrible health infliction of the mother
Need for a DNC so a failing pregancy might be quicker replaced with a new successful effort
Granted, those are all relatively rare compared to the basic elective reason for abortions.
So your new contraceptive would help the debate, it just wouldn't completely eliminate it.
Just make a law that every female must have one of these until she is 21 or even 18 and you will have no more abortion debate problems.
Yes. You are wrong. Making it a law that women have to have one of these is wrong. If they CHOOSE to that's one thing but making it so that they are forced to insert that in their body to be following the law is wrong.
Teenagers do not have good judgment. Neither do extreme alcoholics. I think you want the child to have a good upbringing. You don't want to make religious people mad by aborting. You also don't want women to be mad not being allowed to abort. This doesn't kill anyone and frankly it can be turned off.
The only problem with your choice rule is it underestimates how much experience is needed for someone to understand what is good for them and their body. This way if two teenagers or college kids have sex, no one on either side will care.
Making it a law that women have to have one of these is wrong. If they CHOOSE to that's one thing but making it so that they are forced to insert that in their body to be following the law is wrong.
As long as there are no negative effects it's really not that bad especially with what it can prevent. It's not that different from Australia's law that you have to get your kids injections.
By injections I assume you mean vaccines? Yes it is different. Your child's health and the health of others relies on those vaccinations. Unless you are comparing a child to a disease which I don't think you are, it is not the same. To force someone into birth control is wrong.
It hurts the child for sure, hopefully the child could be adopted to a family that wants him/her but I still wouldn't consider it comparable to MMR or Polio.
Nice! When I'm at work I putz on here, at home I'm by the AC playing computer games myself....after the kids go to sleep of course. XD When they are up we just try to survive.
Oh no of course, I wouldn't say a child is a disease. I'm more just saying that they both affect your health (different ways of course). So I don't think it would be too different.
Abortions although I agree with the choice, can have negative effects on mental health and sometimes physical due to side effects. I would see them both as preventative treatments so would say it would be fine for it to be a requirement.
Kids can have mental effects on parents, especially if the parents didn't actually want that child. But that's not what I was getting at, I was talking about abortions and their health implications (mentally and physically).
The point of the debate is to prevent it so abortion doesn't need to be a thing and stop the abortion debate. There are a lot of people that are against it and a lot for it. This just stops it all together.
You all miss the issue. ABORTION is a religious issue, not a political one. Roe vs Wade was scrutinized and reviewed by every court all the way to the supreme court and now suddenly, they think they have the right to reverse the law, even for the people who are not religious. That means they think they have the right to speak and act for God. If in fact your God even exists, then you are suppose to leave the punishing to him. That makes most Christians no more than NAZI's.
Abortion is a moral, religious, political, and legal issue. The use of separation of church and state channels the legal issues only. Roe Vs Wade was a legal privacy civil ruling. The United States Constitutional representation to this declaration of legal precedent is Gender Specific Amputation or even Female Specific Amputation. The exact United States Constitutional test Indian frank is, β Test of God to hold political office.β Of office is the executive office, the issue is over right to bear witness before the United States Constitution as President of the United States and not Prasedera.
Roe Vs Wade is one argument of a legal issue. Abortion is a lie. When placed on a legislated document it is perjury unless it is placed with specific condition. Abort, Abortion, aborted and termination are a series of events something never remains an abortion. It becomes a termination or it is restarted. When discussing abortion the debate is if the word is a transferable self-incriminating confession.
GOD by republic can hold a non-religious mean outside religion to an axiom which describes a basic separation process. βOne nation Under Principle ( a guide to the common defece,2016).β Abortion lacks United States Constitutional representation on all accounts of the crimes. There are crimes which take place outside the self-incrimination of murder.
Abortion sounds like a murder it is not a murder this is because it is an admittance the admittance is then defended. The challenge or legal test is that the witness account is a lie made publicly. Abortion is really termination or Gender Specific Amputation. The word abortion is publicly waving the presumption of innocence and publicly claiming some legal technicality. The process is abusing double jeopardy law.
The Second major United States Constitutional conflict occurs when federally funded or law is used the legislate abortion. Abortion is an act of Civil War by its self-incrimination as it floods the Court system. Also when woman voted into militia of a Congressional Armed Force and Presidential armed Force. All woman are now admitting to officially end life by Abortion meaning terminate a life and not stop or pause a life.
I believe the OP is definitely wrong. Abortion is a moral issue that concerns the status of the unborn. Is the unborn a human being? I believe that science positively confirms it is both human and a unique, separate, living human at conception.
So, is it wrong to kill an innocent human being, one that has done nothing wrong?
It depends on how valuable you think a human being is. Does the OP consider himself/herself a valuable human being? Would he/she think it wrong for someone to kill him/her if innocent of wrong doing, just because someone chose to? How about just because someone decided the OP'er was unwanted? Does that seem just?
Yes and there are other forms of birth control besides murder. Let me put it this way.
Let's say A is subcategory of B.
A always has to be B but B is not necessarily A.
Abortion is a form of birth control. But that doesn't mean birth control is saying abortion.
Your argument means nothing against mine unless the only form of birth control is abortion even if you are right, since my initial argument implied a different form of birth control than abortion.
So how is other birth control besides abortion murder? If you proved how then birth control = murder, not just one form of it.
Abortion kills a living human being as a means of birth control. Some forms of birth control prevent the sperm and egg meeting to create a human being. They are NOT killing an already existing human being. That is the difference.
In the case of abortion the birth control method is murder. It is the taking of an innocent human life. Abortion as a birth control method cuts short a life.
Right and what I'm saying is regardless of if it's murder, with the chip we don't have to deal with the issue to begin with. It sounds like your argument supports my side rather than yours.
In the case of abortion maybe, but even if it is my argument isn't whether or not abortion is murder. My argument is that a preventative chip sidesteps the murder debate.
Also, girls over 21 can still choose to have it on.
Half of the roughly 1.2 million U.S. women who have abortions each year are 25 or older. Only about 17 percent are teens. About 60 percent have given birth to least one child prior to getting an abortion.
Anti-choicers should really acquaint themselves with the facts.
Someone over 21 is not necessarily a good parent but I'll bet there's a lot more good parents over 21 than 16 year olds. Also for a 16 year old it's a lot harder to be a good parent.
A sixteen year old does not a good parent make, other than in some potentially weird circumstance. If that same sixteen year old instead waits until they're a lot more experienced then there's at least A REALISTIC CHANCE that they will be one, even if that's not always the case.
Basically, someone over 21 is OFTEN A DECENT parent and a sixteen year old is RARELY, IF EVER, a good parent. The kid will probably go to adoption if it's young grandmother has any brains anyway just for that reason.