But how can something be 1. alive, and 2. potentially a human being, without being considered a human being? It seems to me that when something possesses both of those traits, it has to be considered a human being. Just because the heart hasn't begun beating doesn't mean it's not a human being. By that logic, this is not a human being: http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm22.html

It's an online debate community. I declared you my enemy because I want to follow what you're doing and engage in some healthy debates with you, not because I hate you.

Fruit cakes, ding bats, and nut jobs? What a well thought-out, mature classification. But since you provided no evidence, I have to ask: what about them makes them fruit cakes, ding bats, and nut jobs?

Absolutely not. He has not done one thing to help our country get out of our economic woes, he has not displayed ANY leadership throughout the debt ceiling, budget debates, or congressional issues, he ram-rodded through Congress the most partisan piece of legislation this nation has ever seen in ObamaCare while at the same time calling for Republicans to embrace bipartisanship, and is sending more troops to Afghanistan after promising to take them out.

Get him out of there.

Well, as far as I can tell, you haven't come up with any refutation to my argument, so why would I use anything else for my leading point? Isn't that the concept of a strong argument: one that can't be refuted (or at least, not easily refuted)? If I proclaim that destroying a fetus is murder (which I believe it is), you'll call that argument "full of idiocy." So far, you've come up with no refutations to my logic-based argument other than saying that "there are far too many reasons for and against abortion for that to be your leading point."

Many of them do it only because they want to lessen the blood on their hands. To become rich through business, it is a requirement that you destroy the lives of many, many people. Just because one of them gives a little bit of their total unused cash to some poor people doesn't mean that they haven't already killed people. See, this is the problem with the left's perspective on businesses. You assume that all successful businesses have to have "killed" someone, whether that means literally or metaphorically. What's wrong with just having intelligent business techniques that beat out the competitors? Why do "many, many people" have to die (again, can't tell if you're being literal or metaphorical) in order to qualify a businessman as being successful? You are stereotyping a whole class of people as being murderers, cheats, and liars, which despite what the left will tell you, isn't true.

Just because successful business strategies involve putting others out of business doesn't mean successful business are evil. It just means they're smarter.

You know, you really should watch ABC's "Secret Millionaire" sometime. It's a show about philanthropists who give because they care, not because they're trying to "lessen the blood on their hands"... whatever that means. You should also look up philanthropic practices of these people: Henry Ford, George Soros, Eli Lilly, Bill Gates, Cornelius Vander Starr, Oprah Winfrey, Andrew Carnegie, and John D. Rockefeller. Maybe that way you'll realize that the upper class isn't evil.

I'm not being "a hostile ass" at all. First of all, I didn't call anyone "a hostile ass," so maybe the hostilities here are coming from you and not me.

Second, you used a legitimate argument. "The only absolute is that there is no absolute." Maybe you perceived that as a joke, but many call that a truthful statement, so I treated it as such.

And third, this website is called CreateDebate. If you're getting pissed because someone happens to disagree with you on just about everything, maybe you shouldn't be on this website.

Life does begin at conception. Once a sperm and an egg meet, that entity has the potential to become a human being just like you and me. How is that an abandonment of logic?

I understand that the gun crime rate is lower, and I'm sorry for demeaning your source. I just appreciate when people provide links to the data they are talking about.

Personally, I like the idea of being able to defend myself from violent gun-wielding criminals (which will exist in any state, regardless of regulations) with a gun of my own. If a burglar came into your home, wouldn't you feel safer pulling out a firearm and defending yourself and your family? Because I sleep safer at night knowing I not only have the ability to defend myself, but the right to defend myself.

Consider this. "'Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been 'scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim'; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either 'often' or 'regularly' worried that they '[m]ight get shot at by the victim'; and 57% agreed with the statement, 'Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.'" (Source: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html) ) I understand that stricter gun control policies can help reduce the number of gun-related crimes, but you can't deny the fact that the United States's policy helps enable its citizens to defend themselves against armed assailants.

Absolutely. Just look at that erect nipple. He apparently has the hots for wiener-shaped mascots now.

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB125935466529866955.html#articleTabs_panel_article=1

"Assholes?"

Read the Second Amendment. If you believe in the Constitution, you're for it. Case closed.

See, but that's relying upon the assumption that banning guns means that no one will have any guns whatsoever. I disagree. That's hoping for some kind of utopian community in which guns do not exist, and murderers have no means to obtain them.

I don't necessarily trust your source, because you didn't give me a link or some location at which I could see the figures you're talking about. They seem a bit low to me. But regardless, those gun crimes you were just talking about from your "home office study"... if the UK's ban on guns really worked like you say it does, there would be not 21,521 gun-related crimes, but 0 gun-related crimes. There would be not 50 gun homicides, but 0 gun homicides. And rather than 6.6% of all homicides making use of a firearm, 0% of homicides would involve firearms.

Now you'll probably wonder, how are gun-related crimes possible when we have a national ban on firearms? Simple: the hard criminals who want to get guns and use them for bad purposes will get them, be it through smuggling, trafficking, the black market, or what have you. The bad guys will get guns and use them for bad things. If I ever come across one of those bad guys, I'm going to want to have something with a little more "umph" than my bare hands to defend myself with.

The least you could do is provide some kind of source for your arguments. You indicated a "home study," but you provided no link to the actual numbers. Until such time, I'm relying solely on your "word of mouth," as you put it. Oh hey, funny how that works out, isn't it?

And no, you're wrong when you say that banning guns will eliminate gun crimes. Criminals will find ways to get guns, be it through smuggling, the black market, etc.. You can dispute that all you want, but if you believe in your cited "home study," you will see that there are in fact gun crimes in the UK. So interestingly enough, this notion that banning guns eliminates gun crimes is wrong not only through my arguments, but also through your own.

So... murderers, rapists, robbers, and criminals who really want a gun will get a gun. When my life is threatened by one of these types of people holding a gun to my head, I want to be able to draw on him and defend myself with something other than just my bare hands.

Facts don't require credit.

Really, can I quote you on that one?

An unnecessary equivocation.

A cowardly ducking of a legitimate argument. Way to go, lefty!

One word: Wow.

Saved the auto industry by rewarding irresponsible and stupid corporate actions with a second chance they didn't deserve with federal funds derived DIRECTLY from the American taxpayer at a huge cost to the taxpayer and the nation in general.

Got Osama in 2.5 years after nearly 7 years of hard fighting, intelligence-gathering, and continuation of nearly every single Bush policy (Guantanamo, enhanced interrogation, keeping troops in the MidEast after ripping Bush for keeping them in place for so long)... of course it was going to happen (because Bush had it right despite your best efforts to portray him as stupid and clueless).

Jobs and GDP have increased consistently every month he's been president, while they both had decreased every single month just about for nearly 7 years before he was elected. NOT ONE WORD YOU JUST SAID WAS TRUE. First of all, unemployment has gone UP 1.3% since he was elected. (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000). Also, the highest GDP growth we've seen from this president was in Q4 of 2009 at 5%; both before and after then, we have seen levels as low as 1.6% growth in Q3 of '09, 1.8% growth in Q1 of '11, and 1.7% growth in Q2 of '10. To say that they have increased consistently every month he's been president is a flat-out lie (see attached link for source).

Plus a president finally brave enough to fix our ridiculous health care system. You think Obamacare FIXED our system? Think again. Obamacare will make the already-bad system worse by tenfold. Not only does it cut obscene amounts from Medicare (far more than Rep. Ryan's budget proposal), but it simply shifts the costs of care to insurance premiums from the patient to the "evil, greedy, selfish insurance companies." Simple business economics will tell you that when any company has to pay more to provide a product, the costs will go up, making our system that much MORE expensive.

Republicans are too puritan and uneducated at their base to elect anyone who has even a passive chance of beating Obama this time around. Right, and that "education" you're referring to has done a bang-up job of fixing everything, hasn't it? Gee, you'd think a president who was hailed as one of the smartest we've ever had would be "educated" enough to do something to help this economy get going again. I guess we can only hope for so much, right?

You're going end up with a nominee who thinks Adam and Eve ran around with dinosaurs, a bigoted and stupid comment, what's wrong with believing in Adam and Eve? thinks global warming is a hoax, not one candidate has said that, and won't be able to answer a single substance question unless it's on Fox and they are given the script beforehand. Give one LEGITIMATE example of Fox doing that, and then I'll believe you. Oh, and legitimate does not include MediaMatters, ThinkProgress, MSNBC, or TheYoungTurks. Nice try though.

Republicans really don't have a chance this time, even though a Washington Post/ABC poll shows that Mitt Romney was tied with Obama 47% to 47%... and this was 5 days after he declared candidacy (http://langerresearch.com/uploads/1124a2_2012_Politics.pdf), and after the silliness in Wisconsin Dems have a really good chance of taking back the House as well. Does the "silliness" you're referring to have anything to do with the 14 Democrats that fled the state to avoid a completely fair vote on legitimate legislation? Last I checked, political cowardice doesn't win you back seats in the House, and neither do lying perverts like Anthony Wiener.

It is fun watching your "nominees" jump in and out of the race. Yeah, none have jumped out of the race.

Jeez I hope Palin runs, that would be hilarious.

Not as hilarious as it'll be when Obama loses in 2012!

Again, I disagree with you. What about the notion that we exist? Not necessarily physically, but mentally. Someone can argue that your body isn't real all day long using any kind of wacky and radical ideas, but at the end of the day, how did they come up with those ideas? Using thought. As Rene Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am."

"I think, therefore I am." - Rene Descartes

Religious arguments aside, the only true absolute in life is that we exist. One could toy with the prospects of quantum theory, theoretical physical concepts that disprove the existence of time, or any kind of radical notion, but no one can deny the existence of us, if not physically, then mentally.

So basically you're saying: "Let's be neutral about this issue and accomplish absolutely nothing. Taking a stand on what you believe in just causes problems no matter who you are, so it's best to just pull a Switzerland and not do anything." Not only that, but you say that neutrality is the best morality as well? So when you have kids and they hit puberty, because of your "neutrality" mentality you'll tell them to do whatever they'd like, regardless of what's smart, responsible, or sensible? Good luck making tough decisions in life, my friend.

You seem to base your argument for neutrality off of logic. You say that neutrality is logical. I disagree. In an earlier post, I made a spirited argument of why logically, abortion is wrong, because according to the laws of reason that govern this earth, every action has a consequence, and to say that just because you don't want to face that consequence does not mean you don't have to.

Please tell me what is "full of idiocy" about this argument.

Based on the laws of reason, you can't do any action without expecting some kind of consequence, good or bad. In this case, you can't have unprotected sex without expecting to get pregnant, and it is WRONG to believe that you shouldn't have to endure the consequences of your actions. If I murder someone, can I expect that I won't have to receive criminal punishment, simply because I don't want to face the consequences of my actions?

No I cannot.

Yeah sure, I'm pro-choice... pro-choice in the sense that the choice is made when the soon-to-be mother chose to act irresponsibly and have unprotected sex.

So many liberals out there try to paint this idealistic picture that you can make stupid decisions without any real consequences, but that's simply not true. When you have unprotected sex, a baby is conceived. At that moment, whether the baby has a pumping heart or not, it becomes a mother's natural and personal responsibility to do what is best for the baby. That could mean one of many options, such as raising the baby yourself, putting it up for adoption, or any number of alternatives. But I will tell you, as basic human decency should tell you, that anyone arguing that the termination of that baby is what's best for the baby is wrong in the most perverse way conceivable.

You chose to act irresponsibly. Now you must face the consequences, and just because you don't want to does NOT give you the right to terminate the existence of a potential human being.

Now, of course there are cases of rape and/or incest conceptions. In these cases, I do not feel that the mother should be forced to carry a child she does not deserve to have. She did nothing wrong, and should not be forced to carry the offspring of her rapist. But at the same time, I still believe that life begins at conceptions, and at that point it become a moral judgment for the mother to make. Do you believe in giving life to another human being, filling it with opportunity to make a name for himself or herself, or do you believe that you'd like to deliver children following consensual and natural intercourse between a man and a woman? At that point, the government should have nothing to do at all with the mother's say; she is no longer the irresponsible one, but rather the victim of a gruesome and despicable crime.

As terrible as the atomic bomb's effects were on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they actually saved lives. Combined, the bombs killed as many as 240,000 people. This number sounds incredibly high, which it is. Any loss of life is regrettable at least. But where a bombing was devastating, a full-scale invasion of Japan would have been catastrophic - for both sides.

Think about the population density of the island of Japan. I can't find any exact numbers, but see it logically. Japan has always had a population very disproportionate to the amount of land it controls. Could you imagine the civilian deaths that would have been suffered from months upon months of constant shelling from offshore naval craft? What about the disease and the starvation that surely would have accompanied a siege on Japanese cities? Not to mention the military deaths that would have been suffered on both sides. My guess is that the death toll would be approaching 4 million. I've attached an article that has further proof to back up my points.