- 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.
To answer the question you gave, "Is abortion the taking of human life?" I will point out that actually, abortion can be the saving of human life.
If a young girl gets pregnant before her body is able to safely deliver the baby, if there is an ectopic pregnancy, or if there are such serious medical complications that the baby cannot be delivered alive, an abortion will save the life of the mother. It may not save the life of the fetus, but in the case of medical emergency the fetus cannot always be saved.
As to whether it is human, it consists of human cells. This cannot be denied. Whether it is life is another matter. In its very earliest stages the zygote is not a life in its own right -- it is organic, but it is currently a cluster of cells without any kind of consciousness.
I'm normally not one for conspiracy theories, but it does seem a little coincidental that Diana's bodyguard, with whom it was rumoured she was having an affair, was removed from his position and was killed three weeks later in a motorcycle accident.
I'm not convinced that Phillip would have made the decisions, though; Diana's actions were reflecting poorly on the rest of the Royal Family and I think it more likely that someone else (maybe someone who was responsible for maintaining their public image) made a private decision to have her killed.
That's not what he was actually saying, if you had read the OP.
He was saying that MANY Americans aren't interested in the rest of the world. Not the elite or those in power who have vested interests in what happens outside the USA, but the average American on a site like this one.
We aren't talking about the people who offer the UK gas, or keep a check on China. Those aren't the everyday Americans writing debate after debate and hypocritically belittling those who don't understand American issues because well, those people aren't American.
I have seen many a site where most people assume you to be American and are very surprised when they find out you aren't because "everyone's American on the Internet".
Considering the number of very samey US-centric arguments on here, this site is not much of an exception.
Jeffrey, I know we've had many disagreements on this site, but I completely agree with you on this.
I've seen several debaters trying to make specifically American issues relate to the whole world. For example, those who criticise "liberals" when what they actually mean is the American Democrat party and their supporters, or those who criticise "conservatives" when they mean Republicans.
I can see how it might be interpreted that way.
On the other hand, modern black culture is not all a result of white people. The concept of a collective culture may have been formed as a response to slavery and oppression, but the people who engage in that culture were the ones who shaped and influenced it.
the most violent race of human beings throughout the history of mankind.
We can only assume this. In recent history, from perhaps the 1600s onwards, this is perhaps true, as white people were the most powerful racial group.
But we have no records for the time in history when all humans had a tribal mentality and would gang up on each other to steal land and resources, and wipe out other cultures. Furthermore, there were plenty of very violent non-European civilisations such as the Mongols, Atzecs and so on. There were plenty of very violent non-European leaders such as Mao and Pol Pot.
So in short; yes I agree with you on everything but the bit I quoted above. When Empress Wu was torturing her subjects and Attila the Hun was leading invasions, the Europeans were a disorganised rabble who still painted their faces with woad.