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.
In my opinion, it's the person that's against terminating a pregnancy, feeling that it's a life, yet wouldn't mind allowing those lives to become criminals so they can have them killed.
I'm not a pro-abortionist because I don't support abortion, I have no affiliation with it, yet you say I am because I fall under it's definition.
You say you're not for the killing of criminals yet the definition of being pro-death penalty is just that, while I say you are because of said definition. When we argue, and they dissolve to this semantics battle, we never get anywhere.
You are pro-abortion as you say by definition and by your own actions. You fight to keep it legal. That's what makes you pro-abortion. That's also what makes me pro-death penalty.
You might not like abortions anymore than I like the death penalty.
But when we fight to keep something legal? That makes us pro whatever that thing is.
LOL, that's why I don't argue about my title, I know what I am, and I don't see why you should argue about yours, unless maybe you don't know, but all I have truly to say is, you want criminals killed.
And in my opinion someone who fights to save a non life, but wants criminals killed is a bigger hypocrite than a person who wants women to have abortions but doesn't want criminals killed.
My reasoning is this: The first is an example of a person who claims to try to save lives, yet is totally cool with killing them on another hand, whereas the second example is of a person who simply does not want people killed. The fetus isn't alive so ending it isn't killing it, and they want the criminals to live also. All life.
1. I don't want criminals killed. You have no way of knowing what my wants are and I have never been so arrogant as to tell you what your wants are.
2. You are entitled to be wrong but you aren't entitled to your own facts. Children in the womb are just as alive as you are. Your denials of that fact not with standing.
3. Your reasoning is flawed because you remove the component or aspect of guilt or innocence and substitute wants in p ace of it. Your denial of the fact that it (a child in the womb) is alive is a huge red flag on that.
I'm surprised that more pro-aborts don't call you on it.
The death penalty and abortion are very important decisions that should only be a last resort. A death penalty should not be used as oppose to minor rehabilitation or as a warning, and if you truly treasure life (pro-life) you should care about everyone, not just a foetus.
That's not self defence, it's execution. There is a huge difference.
If you understood philosophy/metaphysics/theology to a certain depth, there is no reason to blame people for their actions. There is only programming. You can't pay with your life, unless you spend a life in service or your death is towards a greater good. The only reason I can see to use a death penalty is if someone is addicted to killing/raping and seriously dangerous, or they pose a constant threat in some way.
It's pro-life, there's no innocent about it. You can't pick and choose.
Our Constitution says that a person can be deprived of their life by due process.
Criminals are afforded due process before they are executed. There are more laws protecting them than there are protecting innocent children in the womb.
You are the one picking and choosing... not us.
We defend all lives equally and pressume even the most obvious criminals innocent until proven guilty.
You deny a child in the womb even a fraction of the same due process that you would demand for a criminal.
I'm getting sick of your constitution, seriously. A human complex enough to commit a crime is more important than one less complex than a dormouse. The death penalty may have loads of laws surrounding it in your country, but think of China, North Korea, and other countries where it is used unjustly. I believe that abortion is a last resort, and it will be eventually phased out as we become more civilised, but we still need it to an extent. "Guilty until proven innocent," is used under some systems, also.
And not a criminal, a defendant, suspect or accused.
Thank you very much. It is true. In real life I am actually against the death penalty, and against abortion. The fetus is so innocent and deserves a chance at life.
Okay,... so how is a child in the fetal stage of their life any less alive than is a sperm cell or a plant?
That's the point! They are just as alive as one another. Yet we carelessly disregard plant life, and we careless disregard the life of reproductive cells.
Semen and plants are not the young of two parent human beings.
Semen is the young of a human, if we're using your definition of young. It's one of the earlier stages of a human's life. Whereas a plant is just a life Why is a plant's life not as sacred or assured rights, I guess I should say, as a human's?
But that wouldn't make a child in the womb any less a child or any less alive - as you have been trying to claim they are.
My argument is that the fetus in the womb, the semen in the mature stage of it's life, and the plant at any stage of it's life, is not alive enough to justify fighting for it's rights because it has none. We start fighting for the rights of every plant, semen cell, and fetus. Then we become hardcore buddhists who seep the ground we walk on so as to not kill any bacteria.
Semen is the young of a human, if we're using your definition of young.
My definition of young is the product of conception. A sperm cell is only half the ingrediants necessary for conception to take place. Without conception, there can be no young.
Why aren't plants as sacred? Or assured rights?
Again, I don't know don't care. If you want to fight for plants rights too?
Go right ahead.
My argument is that the fetus in the womb, the semen in the mature stage of it's life, and the plant at any stage of it's life, is not alive enough to justify fighting for it's rights because it has none.
After 12 weeks, the time that the fetus develops recordable brain activity, abortion is no longer an option unless carrying on with the pregnancy would be dangerous to the mother.
Pro-aborts who deem an innocent child in the womb to be less than themselves and fair game to be killed for the convienience of others while feigning outrage over the executions of tried and convicted felons - are among the biggest hypocrites on the planet.
Neither are hypocritical. You can believe that a born human being deserves an absolute right to life in all circumstances but a fetus only has a right to life in limited circumstances.
