Ezekiel_roma's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Ezekiel_roma's arguments, looking across every debate.

It would be a better argument if you just stated reasons why abortion does not have detrimental effects on the human body since that is my argument in the first place. Disputing and stating errors on websites would stray far from the topic of the debate.

Source 2 does not over-extend any conclusions. Would you kindly give statement saying such over-extension? We can conclude from the given data since it has been proven through statistics and trends in the research.

As for source 3, you should consider analyzing the argument rather than simply looking for sources since from the statements of the website itself can their points be assessed. Again I am also not responsible for the errors of the websites since I am more focused on the scientific effects of abortion to the body rather than looking for citations.

You have only stated the errors in the sources rather than the arguments present. I am not the one who created the website therefore I am not liable for its errors.

Source 1 has stated numerous side effects and it also has been cited by a physician. "NOTE: Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and the Physician’s Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth stated in 1996 that this type of procedure “… is never medically necessary to protect a mother’s health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.”

Source: ProtectTexas, Texas Department of Health, 2003

When the child is ready to make his own choices, then he can just simply change his beliefs and leave the religion. Teaching an ideology to a child is`t necessarily forcing it to them but rather a form of introduction.

Children are too young to comprehend such beliefs even if they are taught by their parent. A 3 year old child for an example would find it difficult to comprehend the such concepts thus it would only be a burden to both parties if explained.

I believe that is already part of the system in a religion. As mere individuals in a family we can only do so much as to prevent or assert these influences in our child. Probably when the child gets older then he may dispute such authority from his parents. Children are too young to understand such doctrines anyway and not realize such kind of abuse until they grow of age.

Yes since well give power to a lunatic? What is this world war 2 again?

No since it has causes detrimental risks to the mother and the child. It also has a respectable failure rate causing unplanned deaths.

Wisdom since knowledge is useless unless you know where and when to use it.

I believe sharing is different than forcing. I can share you some food but I can`t force you to eat it, you`ll have to eat it willingly. This analogy may apply to the case presented. I can share to my children my beliefs and if sometime they grow weary of it, then I think it would be alright for them to follow their own.

Yes since being in a religion should be voluntary and being done out of passion for the movement. Being forced however to follow something you don`t even believe is torture in an intellectual sense.

Me too. I prefer dogs since they are easier to train and they`re are`t as cranky as cats. They also make great jog buddies.

I have already disputed your statements before. Therefore you clearly are`t paying attention to what my arguments are about. I was only adding additional scenarios for you to understand how little does gender play in the morality of a person.

Reeeeaaaaallllyyy? So I guess I should never bother to explain to my sons that "no means no?" Any age girl is fair game? And if they get pregnant they should just run off and find someone else ASAP. I'll make sure my daughters never learn that by being irresponsible, she could be robbing her child of a chance to have a decent father and a whole family. It is better to go around tracking down 15 different men for paternity tesets just hoping for some child support.

This statement dose`t even make sense. The topic is about homosexuals being involved in adoption not straight people letting their children be adopted. The moment for an example your child gives your grandchild to the orphanage as per your statement, there is no certainty that your grandchild would have a decent home even with straight people. As for your daughter`s case what if she is`t just ready? Would you rather risk her and her child`s future just to be a family even though they would only end up in poverty?

True. People are only brave enough to make arguments on how wrong that person is but when it comes to doing anything they just don't care.

That`s right. When a women gets murdered people go raging on males when if a male gets murdered almost no body cares. If we want equality then we must care for both sexes.

We are given free will to make our own decisions. He helps us by giving us choices. Therefore he cannot directly help us since he already gave us free will which would contradict his gift.

Obviously you are a narrow minded person. You said it yourself that being educated and straight does`t have to do anything with each other therefore why restrict an educated homosexual to adopt if they are worthy to do so.

Let me make another example that even a person like you can understand. Who would you rather be with in a room, a straight murderer or a homosexual who has good morals? In these times gender is only a small factor in the thinking of man. Nurture plays a bigger role than a nature in the decisions of an individual in our society. Try improving your argument rather than putting stupid and moron in your arguments. You only sound like a sore loser.

Sexuality is only a small factor in teaching ethics. Maturity, educational attainment, experience and the like play a bigger role in teaching ethics. Would you rather have an illiterate straight couple rather than an educated homosexual couple who can provide you what you need?

Would`t you feel lonely, insane, or lacking a purpose


Students should be able to love learning not fear it. Having a strict teacher only puts stress in students thus making learning a chore rather than a fun experience.

I believe that he also prioritized money rather than inventions. He also tried to ruin Tesla`s hard work with ac just to make him the big man of the light game.

Karl Marx. I believe that his ideologies got out of hand which resulted to countries like North Korea who value very little of life.

Inaccuracies are meant to occur during experiments. It helps us perfect our prototypes.

ezekiel_roma(526) Clarified
1 point

I referred to the Torah since it was the one that contains the Genesis, the book where the moderator was referring to. I believe that the Torah was not written by Moses alone, I believe it was the Israelites who were with him that completed the task. He was attributed to the Torah because he was the Israelites` savior from Egypt which would probably explain his prominence in the chapters.

The Bible was written by Jews during their enslavement in Egypt therefore they still have some basis on what they write in their texts. Not all of them are insane.

Mice can easily reproduce unlike humans. I know it can be immoral but it is necessary to develop our scientific field.

The Lord of the Rings .

No since we need to do so for the development of science and technology especially in the medical field. I would rather see a mutated animal than a mutated human.

If they can provide for the needs of the child and be able to shape them into good individuals then they are eligible to do so.

Yes since no one has the right to control your own happiness.

God did`t write the Bible. People inspired by him wrote it.

How is it unrealistic if its already being applied ?

Your arguments are already going far from the said topic since people control is`t synonymous to population control. Anyway, laws are present in our society to keep people in their place. We don`t necessarily need a dictator, only a leader to follow.

Just because something its`t evident dose`t mean it is completely non-existent since as a race, we still have more to discover in our universe so counting God`s existence out is made by pure assumption.

Yes since there has been no present scientific and logical evidence to prove or disprove God.

Inter-specie intercourse causes more diseases than regular intercourse therefore it is wise to choose the lesser evil. How can the animal say yes or no regarding the matter wherein animals have no voice of reason. They merely act upon instinct. Animals look at humans as their master or their superior being since humans are the alpha race.

Population can be easily controlled through proper family planning since it is much more practical, cheaper, and environment-friendly. Remember that diseases evolve along with us so it would be wise to prevent it rather than to cure it.

No since abortion can only be committed if premature baby also known as the fetus is aborted from the female.

Smoke is a leading cause of diseases that lead to death and is also a major contributor in world pollution.

But it can still cause diseases with humans therefore must not be done. Prevention is always better than cure and viruses also evolve along with us. As per your statement you said that you had sex with your German shepherd and it would mean that you forced it to have sex with you. Animals are less likely to develop a sexual relationship with their master unless the latter forced them to. This can be also attributed to animal abuse which is against the law.

What about the detrimental effects of over population in a small country? How would they be able to sustain their people if they cannot feed them?

yes because the quality of life must be prioritized over its quantity.

Not every Christian is like that you know, only the narrow-minded ones. Christians also value respect to others and engage in charity which help people in need. In my country religion has helped people find homes, food, and education.

Yes since it serves as a guide to the lost and gives hope to the hopeless. Although its leaders are give trouble to the world, its teachings help humanity become more humane although one must not believe in everything they read in spiritual texts. Its fine to follow religion as long as it does not hurt anyone.

No since society itself is not ready to accept a naked person in public. People with different beliefs would judge the person immediately leading to chaos and misfortune of the nudist. Children would also misinterpret the act of being naked their own way and may go wayward in their beliefs and delve into something they are`t supposed to.

No since they only worsen the situation instead of helping the country. They also engage in their own interest rather than helping the country itself. The US also abuses the people whose country they occupy. Therefore its not their place to do so.

No since they are the proof of genetic or external diseases which affected the human body.

1 of 8 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]