- 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
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
Here are some sites that tells about abortion risks.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.