- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Everyone has a right to be respected as a human being, stranger, relative and what you may be. it is right in terms of politeness and good manners. Respect is right and a right that people should have. If your still not certain about respect being a right then consider having no respect as a wrong.
:: is thinking and acting in a positive way about yourself or others.
:is thinking and acting in a way that shows others you care about their feelings and their well-being.
Hey ally, I see you're not a pro life yet and we cannot support each other with that, well I might aswell try to change your beautiful mind.
Psalm 22:10 (BBE) I was in your hands even before my birth; you are my God from the time when I was in my mother's body.
'I was in my mother's body" meaning the speaker was already an invidual inside the mother's womb.
Also it zygote are a child since this pro life claim is irrefutable 'when you were a fetus you weren't parentless' KJVPrewrath , you very first existed as a zygote and as a child. Don't believe me? Alright I'll give you another point, sperm cell and the egg cell are parents of the zygote. but it's not directly the sperm cell and the egg cell that are considered as parents but the owner of that sperm cell and egg cell.
The fetus is an individual because That fetus was you KJVPrewrath. You experience being a fetus and you were not your mother's organ, fetus have its own life that is needed to be value.
As a Christian KJVPrewrather, let us value unborn children.
Before I start my argument I would like to invite marcusmoon to a definition battle, ehem this article in this link https://www.britannica.com/science/
: to become the father of (a child) : to make a woman pregnant so that she gives birth to (a child)1 a : a man who has begotten a child;
How can you call someone a child? When you beget someone
: to cause (something) to happen or exist
That man beget the zygote. If a man and a woman have procreate, that something that existed when they unite using sperm and egg cells is their child additionally, without a man the zygote can't exist.
:1 a : an unborn or recently born person
:4 a : a son or daughter of human parents
Look ,these are children who can't speak yet. Let's stop pretending.
Con death penly supporters is a double negative statement in terms of grammar. Dude,
killing a body means killing an existence of life. Killing is not ontl vandalism and harm, it is taking away life, even angelo was ressurected Steven is still wrong as of even the tortured are alive the torturers are wrong. steven's intended to kill Angelo without its consent and without sympathy so he harmed Angelo for the sake of his needs so this is not a case of manslaughter and an excusable murderer because all murderers kill for their own needs just like what Steven did. You know, I give mercy to Angelo and I call him a poor man but you call him selfish, bro, You have thought that Angelo is selfish now that he didn't kill anyone, let's put it in this way, You died suddenly because a soldier use you as a shield now do you think that's right? Oh no, your doubting condemning a murderer.It's not just a loss of life buddy, it's also harming and forcing someone to became an involuntary sacrifice Okay, another one let's put it in this way. Like.in the situation above where you are steven and you killed your only child to save yourself and your brothers then God decided to ressurect him,base on what you think what will he say to you? It's not your kindness (its okay for you to be killed) that makes it right or wrong, It's the evil intention of the murderer. He killed Angelo and he doesn't care of Angelo. If the murderer really intended to save then he would kill himself instead so the selfish one is probably Steven. People make mistakes and they shouldn't be killed for that. People change, and they shouldn't be killed for what they were like for a short period of their life Nice one bro, you really sound like a con death penaly supporter, no one learns by killing a killer and even serial killer has chance to change but I know you usually condemn murderers but in this situation you're doubting condemning a killer which you shouldn't doubt for. Actually this scenario is just base on a educational app called 'Edx' not on myself.
I was arguing that it can be favourable when achieving a positive outcome, but that it's difficult since the outcome is typically not certain.Positive outcome but using an unfair method, this scenario is comparable to the dirty players at sports who plays a dirty game for their own victory.I disagree. In the scenario you can save lives through murder. Your supporting the suspects's side not the victim and now you sound like the con-death penalty supporters.I'm not sure what you mean by this, could you explain? If you were Angelo, you wouldn't think what they done is right especially it was out of consent then I don't think they should be condemned for it. No, yes maybe they were involuntary saved by Angelo but they should pay for their action , they should'nt escape from the fact that they intenionally killed an innocent.I don't think murder is inherently badyour just saying that because you were not a victim, give empathy to those who were killed then you will understand that murder is completely wrong If you say anyone neutral or above deserves resurrection then I believe all of them should be resurrected. Smart man! but as I am trying to tell you 'murderers deserve death' ,am i wrong?
Can you justify murder of one for an increased chance of survival of another?Your question was like 'kill one to save many' the answer to your question is the saying 'two wrongs cannot make a right'. Never will cannibalism and murder be a favorable action , I knew you would'nt agree on murder and cannibalism if it weren't your advantage. If ever the boat reach no land in that situation resulting to deaths of the three of you then a righteous god came to the boat and plan to ressurect from the four of you, in your opinion who would he choose? (it can be more than one)