CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Abortion
The abortion debate refers to discussion and controversy surrounding the moral and legal status ofabortion. The two main groups involved in the abortion debate are the pro-choice movement, which supports access to abortion and regards it as morally permissible, and the pro-life movement, which generally opposes access to abortion and regards it as morally wrong. Each movement has, with varying results, sought to influence public opinion and to attain legal support for its position. In Canada, for example, abortion is available on demand, while in Nicaragua abortions are illegal.[2] In some cases, the abortion debate has led to the use of violence. - Wikipedia
I think the first solution to the problem is abstinence.
2nd is adoption.
3rd in a very rare case of rape or if the mother is in danger but I really don't like abortion and think that it should be avoided if possible.
I believe that the choice is made when the mother and father choose to have sex. After that it is not their choice if the baby lives or dies. If they don't want the kid put them up for adoption. There are plenty of good people that want kids and can't have them.
I think it does come down to the way we are educated on the subject of sex. It is pretty hard to contest the magnitude of power the sex media has over a population. We are no longer the Puritans our forefathers anymore. We are taught that sex is pleasurable and casual (for the most part). It is a glorified act. Due to the irresponsibility of the media, our public sex education needs some alterations. Do you know of any good ways for our schools to be more safe sex friendly rather than abstinence friendly? I want to hear what you have to say about it. If you still think abstinence is the way to decrease the abortion rate, then why hasn't it been working for our society?
Safe sex is a very good solution to the problem, but if it fails, it's just an excuse to abort an unwanted baby. If there was a way to guarantee that a baby is not conceived, then by all means, go at it, but until then, I think abstinence is key. If a couple is not ready to raise a child, that couple should not be fooling around and risk getting pregnant.
Safe sex rarely fails. In addition, not all types of sex lead to pregnancy (you can still get STD's though, so once again, wear a condom).
I don't know if what you're suggesting is abstinence only education, but if so, know that it has been proven to be ineffective.
As far as abortion itself, if it doesn't have consciousness, can't think, and can't feel then I don't see what is being harmed. Potentiality for life does not equal life.
I agree we should find ways to reduce the number of abortions, however, abstinence is unrealistic. Not to be crude, but people like to fuck. We're hardwired by nature to want to. If you want to reduce abortions, you need to take this fact into account.
A fetus, at any stage in development, is not just "potentiality for life"; it is alive. Gametes are potentiality for life. The sperm and the egg: alone, they have no hope of producing life, but together, they have the potential for life. That's why abortion is unjustified, according to my moral standards.
And people who are getting abortions because they didn't abstain are the worst people to go and get abortions! They are the last people that should be getting abortions. They are the ones who are irresponsible to fool around and then don't want to carry the responsibility of a baby.
And people who are getting abortions because they didn't abstain are the worst people to go and get abortions!
As opposed to those people getting abortions because they did abstain?
People are always saying having sex is irresponsible. Obviously not practicing safe sex is stupid, but if something happens to go wrong (say the condom breaks) why should these people have to suffer the rest of their lives.
I think you cheapen the definition of life when you say that something that can't think or feel, and does not have consciousness (I feel like a broken record) has equal rights to a human being who can do all these things. Clearly there needs to be a point where life is established, however, a handful of cells that do nothing but replicate (as is the case early in the pregnancy) isn't a human.
Sorry about the wording. That came out wrong. I didn't mean every single person that fails to abstain. I'm talking about the fact that people who get abortions for the sole reason of not abstaining are the worst. They could easily give that child up for adoption. Who knows what that child could grow up to be!
And as far as I'm concerned, life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit certain biological processes such as chemical reactions or other events that results in a transformation(growth and eventually reproduction). Therefore, a zygote is alive. That cell carries out life processes just like any other single-celled organism does. A zygote will inevitably become a human being. It is not fully a human, but it will be one and it is considered human life.
"life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit certain biological processes such as chemical reactions or other events that results in a transformation(growth and eventually reproduction)"
Mold, fungus, and bacteria all fit this definition. You might wanna revise it if you ever have to clean your bathroom.
Consciousness seems to me the only reasonable place to draw the line.
Also what about killing animals for food when we have easy alternatives? Why is life not sacred in that case?
It seems to me you have no justification for your stance other than your religious beliefs.
Taking away human life is murder. Humans are omnivores, which means we eat both plants and animals. Killing animals for food is necessary for sustainment of human life. And as for mold, fungus, and bacteria, we clean these out of the bathroom because they can be harmful to our health. if you want to give animals the same rights as humans, then go join PETA, where they actually care. We, as humans, are the superior species of the planet, which means we have the responsibility to care for the world and ourselves.
I honestly don't believe this has anything to do with religion, since if my religion changed it's stance on abortion, I would not change mine. Specifically, the church believes abortion is always wrong, except in extreme cases of endangerment to the mother's life, while I believe it is also acceptable in some cases of rape.
I still think conception is when life begins, but I feel I will never sway you into believing that, so I won't debate about that. That's why I created a separate debate.
Actually being omnivorous means we can digest either plants or animals, not that we must. It's actually quite easy to live a healthy life without eating meat, I've been doing it for a year now.
You've just dodged around this important question without answering it. Why is life not sacred when it comes to animals?
There are different kinds of souls. All organisms have the most basic: they have nutritive souls and only have the "desire" to grow and thrive. All animals have nutritive souls as well as sensitive souls, which makes them desire movement, pain, feelings, etc. Humans are much more unique in that we have rational souls as well. This means we have the capability of logic and thought, unlike any other organism on the planet. That's why animal life is not sacred. We were given the teeth pattern to eat animals, so why shouldn't we? Obviously, I would never eat a dog or an ape, since animals like these are just too close to humans emotionally or physically.
What is a soul? Can you prove that something has a soul? Can you observe a soul? Measure a soul? Or are you making all this up?
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to step on your religious beliefs, however when your religious beliefs influence your decisions in ways that can affect me then that becomes a violation of my rights.
It's not religious at all. It's Aristotle, an ancient philosopher. He came up with this way before Jesus lived. Anyway, I agree with him I mean, can any other animal develop civilization like us, with complex communication (languages, technology, etc) and extreme advancements in technology? As far as I know, we are the only species that can.
I never said that Aristotle "was never wrong about anything." And although I'd love to prove that there is a soul, I can't. It's not a physical part of us. It's who we are: our emotions, our faith, our moralities, our entire beings. True, brain proportion did help us in our advancements, along with opposable thumbs ;), but what about apes? They have those gifts, but are they building cities and speaking languages? Same goes for dolphins, squids, whales even. I believe humans have that extra "umpf" that other animals don't have.
And by the way, I never heard the one about the teeth, but very funny one! :D
Ok, but the problem is that there's absolutely no evidence for some external, magical, invisible thing called "the soul." Aristotle was just using the idea to speculate about issues science was not yet advanced enough to address.
Nowadays we know that "the soul" is simply the combination of our thoughts and feelings. We can indeed argue that less intelligent animals have lower quality souls because they think and feel less keenly than more intelligent animals. Following that logic however, if an organism has no consciousness than it has zero thoughts or feelings, and hence no soul at all.
Well according to statistics, that child has a greater chance of growing up to be a violent criminal. In the book Freakonomics the argument is made that the main reason for the drop in murder rates during the beginning of the 1990's was because of the legalization of abortion. Looking at the dates, we can see that homicides decreased almost exactly 18 years after Roe v. Wade. In addition, those states which had legalized abortion before Roe v. Wade saw their homicide rates drop a few years earlier. This is strong evidence that those children who were aborted had a higher chance of becoming criminals.
Correlation does not mean causation. A decrease in crime could have happened because of multiple factors, which I'm sure it was more than one factor. And besides, this may sound mean, but wouldn't only be fair to punish someone after they commit the crime? How fair would that be if I came to your home and arrested you saying, "Oh, you're going to kill somebody in 18 years." That's basically what you're saying would be the solution here. You want to abort these innocent babies, which, to be honest, you don't know what they'll grow up to be! :)
Of course correlation does not imply causation, and the writer of Freakonomics addressed this issue by showing that those states that legalized abortion before Roe vs. Wade had their homicide rates drop first.
Of course there were other factors, and the author of Freakonomics addressed this as well. He determined that factors such as increased law enforcement and other measures accounted for half of the decrease in homicides. The rest could definitively be linked to the decision to allow abortions.
As much as I appreciate you putting words in my mouth, I don't want to abort any babies. There is a reason it's called pro-choice, and not pro-abortion. Nobody likes to abort a fetus, but everyone deserves the choice as to whether they want to be a parent.
The only point I was making with the homicide rate thing, is that some homes are not healthy places to raise children, and often abortion is the best choice, no matter how difficult of a decision it may be.
(If my arguments seem a little off this week, it's because it's my tech week at school. I'm at school from 7:30am to 9:00pm, so I'm absolutely exhausted. -_-)
Abortion is not the only way for a woman to avoid being a mother. She can very easily put the child up for adoption. It's not as if these children will remain in adoption centers (or foster homes?) for the rest of their lives. In the 1990's, 120,000 children were adopted each year, roughly. That's 1.2 million adopted children in one decade. Furthermore, this number is typically proportional to the population of the US. Therefore, if we continue to expand in our country, the adoption rates should go up (although, this would go hand in hand with pregnancy rates as well). There is a link below and this link also has some interesting statistics, although there is a lot of information on the page to sift through.
Yes, but same sex only fails less than 1 percent of the time (I am talking about a regular condom). I just do not think that our natural desires to have sex can be inhibited and shouldn't have to if you are smart about sex. Like I was saying before, the power of the media is unstoppable. The more we shy away from adhering to the Bible, the more we are going to have sex. This is simply because there will be no one telling us not to. "The proportion of the [American] population that can be classified as Christian has declined from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2001." ARIS Study. That is a pretty big drop. I am presuming that 77 percent is even lower now.
Frankly, abstinence is too much to ask of our current generation (I'm 19) and will be intolerable for the generation to come. I have a well rounded group of friends my age, and only about ten percent haven't had sex yet. Not saying that is any hard evidence, but sex is not uncommon here in Amherst, MA.
Along with abstinence, safe sex should be included. I failed to mention that. But most kids already know how to be safe, I think its best if they are taught to wait until they are married. It is in their best interest so that they can enjoy their lives and have much freedom.
Think of all the choices a young person has without an unwanted pregnancy. Opposed to the latter.
I think a lot of you will change your minds, if and when you have kids.
Will you have the opinion that its okay for them to have sex as long as they ware a condom? Will you give out free condoms to your kids and all of their friends?
"Will you have the opinion that its okay for them to have sex as long as they ware a condom?"
Yes. Actually, you're supposed to use two forms of birth control (i.e. condoms and birth control pills). If the .00001% chance happens and an unwanted pregnancy occurs, then an abortion should be obtained before the embryo becomes alive. Adoption should also be considered in that case.
The thing is, sex is important to human fulfillment.
"Will you give out free condoms to your kids and all of their friends?"
My kids maybe. I would expect their friends to obtain their own.
Uh huh. Come to San Antonio, see how common this knowledge is. While the basics are known, there are countless myths about sex that need to be dispelled. I remember sex ed in middle school and all the retarded questions I heard. Hell, there are even more in my Human Sexuality class this semester.
"Will you have the opinion that its okay for them to have sex as long as they ware a condom? Will you give out free condoms to your kids and all of their friends?"
Yes!
THEY WILL DO IT EITHER WAY. TRUST ME, I'M ONE OF THEM.
Oh, yeah that makes since, just because you do something, you are going to let your kids do it.
-yeah right
People change. Your opinion now may be different one day. I'm not saying anything about how you raise your kids I'm just saying that you may change your mind.
America is emerging from a period of extreme sexual repression. Go to Europe, ask parents if they're okay with their kids having sex. Since I understand the mistakes of prohibition and abstinence, I will seek to avoid those mistakes. Probably make my own, but that's how it happens.
As far as when I have kids, I am going to make sure I don't create a "forbidden fruit" environment, where I say something like "having sex is wrong until your married." Instead, I would explain to them that they should think hard before they choose to have sex, and when and if they do choose to have sex, they should do it with protection. If my child asked me to by him/her a condom, I would. Not because I would want them to have sex, but because I know that if they want a condom then they are definitely going to have sex. Not providing them with protection would be irresponsible.
I agree that unwanted pregnancies are bad, but with proper sex education most of these pregnancies can be completely avoided.
Well, I guess you can raise your kids however you want. Would you at least have an age limit? Just curious. I have never heard anyone seriously talk about raising their kids that way.
I mean obviously if he/she is 12 years old I'm not going to give a kid a condom. Let's be honest though, what 12 year old kids are having sex. I would probably talk to my kids around 15 (when they begin high school), and if they asked for a condom after that I might give it to them. In all likelihood though, I don't know anyone who would be comfortable asking their parents for safe sex materials.
Obviously though, you are right that my opinions could change when I actually become a parent. My main goal would be to raise my children with a healthy attitude towards sex.
"I think a lot of you will change your minds, if and when you have kids."
What? You will actually think that your kids are going to be abstinent? I feel that is kind of unfair of you as a parent to expect your children to stay virgins until marriage.
And I think that you should set aside your comfortability about your own kids having sex. Yeah, we want to protect our children, but it won't work for everyone.
If parents are uncomfortable about telling their kids about contraceptives, have someone do it for them. It is a simple solution to the problem.
We say that kids are aware of the importance of safe-sex, but obviously they are not that aware.
"What? You will actually think that your kids are going to be abstinent? I feel that is kind of unfair of you as a parent to expect your children to stay virgins until marriage."
Wow, what has the media done to you? There was a time(a better time) when abstinence until marriage was normal and not considered old fashioned. The freaking media is brainwashing young people to think the opposite, and that parents don't and shouldn't have any influence on their kids saying that it's unfair. You are just a follower.
What about children who are deformed, some beyond the point of viability (which often isn't detectable until late in the pregnancy)? Most late-term abortions are of this type.
I also disagree with the last statement about "plenty of good people that want kids and can't have them." Your leaving out that they want their own kids and don't want to raise another's. Orphanages are overflowing with unwanted children as it is.
"What about children who are deformed, some beyond the point of viability (which often isn't detectable until late in the pregnancy)? Most late-term abortions are of this type."
Do you have any proof of this?
"I also disagree with the last statement about "plenty of good people that want kids and can't have them." Your leaving out that they want their own kids and don't want to raise another's. Orphanages are overflowing with unwanted children as it is."
If you adopt a child it is because you want to, duh.
"If they don't want the kid put them up for adoption. There are plenty of good people that want kids and can't have them."
Well, two things.
It's not just as simple as putting the child up for adoption. There is a hell of a lot more drama and pain and life long pain that goes along with adoption.
Secondly, there are a lot of good people willing to adopt. But there are still a lot of children in the system. Why? Because it's broken, and the children aren't placed in homes. Many people aren't allowed to adopt. The day we don't have any more orphanages, is the day you'll see many a fewer abortions. Maybe you should work on letting gay couples adopt, so we can clean up the system.
I've really constructed both sides of the debate. What i've found is that both sides can actually be very logical in their stance.
Now, religion isn't the ONLY factor deciding this. I was once against abortion (and i wasn't religious at all) because i didn't like the idea of killing another life "just cause". even in rape or incest, there's still the fact that adoption is always available and that this is A LIFE that we're talking about.
But, i've decided for my own convenience that abortion should be legal. and since i've become very misanthropic over time, i also encourage it as much as possible (especially in poor neighborhoods). But, i don't like any tax dollars (at least of mine) going to helping someone kill their own problem. I'll save my money for MY problems.
But, if i wanted to, i could either be pro-choice or pro-life for purely debate purposes. I hate the irrational arguments on both sides, so i create rational ones. 2 things i hate to hear:
1. Who the fuck are you to tell me what to do with my body?
2. You're killing God's creatures.
1. It's not YOUR body we're worried about, it's the baby's body you stupid cunt.
2. When you can prove to me God is against abortion, i'll listen to your argument.
You're still creating a group of people for the sole purpose of being locked away after doing harm to a society that didn't want them in the first place. Anyway you cut it, it's still More expensive, and institutionalizing the "labor system" has another name, slavery. Slave labor decreases job competition, and dilutes the market with cheap labor, thus lowering wages, so again we lose.
1. we know we have to punish criminals, regardless.
2. it's not slavery because technically they're working FOR food and shelter. It can easily be taken away if they don't work. as criminals, they are subjected to punishment. how that punishment is done is up to the County. As long as it's not cruel and unusual.
3. Work can always be found. If people are put in jail, w/e they were doing before is no longer being done. Someone else is getting that job now. The prisoners just fill in the gaps of shit jobs that no one else is currently doing.
If the child is put up for adoption and is adopted then that child is wanted. If you don't want somethong you can give it away instead of destroying it.
Not every child is wanted. There are many many children in the system, who just age out and are forced onto the streets.
Yes, there are people who want to adopt them, but not enough who are allowed to. Again, another reason gays should be allowed to adopt.
Plus, it's not as simple as giving the child away. You, as a simple sperm donor can't really understand. It's the impact that pregnancy has on your body and your mind. It's the impact that pregnancy has on your relationships, your family, your career, and ultimately your future. You can become diabetic, or develop depression as a result of a pregnancy. There are many many many possible destructive results of a pregnancy on a woman's life and body.
That factor's into the decision. It's not just "I want to kill the baby because I'm too lazy to have it."
"Not every child is wanted. There are many many children in the system, who just age out and are forced onto the streets."
I was saying that you can't just get abortion because you think the child will grow up unwanted. As for the many children in the system that is unfortunate, but there are many agencies that can help them.
"You can become diabetic, or develop depression as a result of a pregnancy. There are many many many possible destructive results of a pregnancy on a woman's life and body."
That is true, but bad things can happen after and abortion. Things like: infection, sterilization, depression, and hemorrhaging. Are you calling me a sperm donor because that is false and violates my religious and moral principles.
"It's the woman's life, so it's her choice."
What about the life of the unborn baby? Will the baby choose to be aborted because its mother might get diabetes or depression? Those are both treatable.
I am curious about what you think about partial-birth abortion.
I completely disagree with partial-birth abortion. In fact, abortion, in my opinion, should only be preformed electively in the 1st trimester.
"I was saying that you can't just get abortion because you think the child will grow up unwanted."
The decision to have an abortion or not is seriously very complicated. No one would ever have an abortion for that reason, it's a jumble of complicated personal reasons.
Bad things can happen during or after an abortion procedure. But the risk is much lower earlier on in the pregnancy, and when done legally in a doctor's office... instead of illegally in a kitchen.
On top of that, complications regarding abortion are far less than pregnancy.
The baby doesn't have a choice. It's not a conscious being, it doesn't have the ability to make choices.
I actually used to be against late-term abortions, but I learned some information about them and it made me change my mind.
Most late-term abortions are really rare and sensitive cases. They make up less than 1% of all abortions. Most of them consistent of really morally ambiguous situations. Often the girls are 11 years old and they never told anyone they were raped so no one noticed until much later. Another situation is with women who have cancer and need chemotherapy. It is dangerous to be pregnant and receive chemotherapy, regardless of the fact that it is incredibly inhumane to subject a fetus to the chemotherapy the mother needs as it is incredibly detrimental. Another possibility is sometimes babies can be so deformed that they have no real chance at living and they are posing a danger to the mother's health. I just named a few of the most common examples, but there are infinitely many. Obviously abortions, especially late term abortions, are often very sad, but having a blanket rule that makes all abortions beyond a certain date illegal completely ignores a lot of these complicated situations where late-term abortions are wholly necessary. The vast majority of people who get late-term abortions are not people who changed their mind on a whim, but even so it is wrong to take away late-term abortions which are imperative in certain situations just because some people abuse them. The law is not equipped to handle these sensitive moral issues. That is why it is an issue best left up to doctors. Late-term abortion doctors have the right to refuse to give late-term abortions so they work as a firewall to only do the procedure for legitimate reasons. Is it really fair to force an 11 year old girl who kept her rape a secret because she was threatened until her family noticed in her second or third trimester to give birth to a child of rape when she is just a child herself? Is it fair to force a woman to give birth to a child with almost no chance of living at risk to her own health? These decisions are very personal and have no business being made by the government.
"The risk is much lower...when done legally in a doctor's office... instead of illegally in a kitchen."
Even though you were referring to early abortions, I totally agree, but don't you think this same logic can be applied to late-term abortions? If a woman is disparate enough for an abortion at any time in her pregnancy, whether it is a licensed doctor or a back alley abortion clinic. I'm sure you are aware of the thousands of women would die each year due to complications from abortions before Roe v. Wade, and this effect could occur with late-term abortions as well.
Pyg, I'm glad you are taking both sides of the issue into consideration. How mature and intelligent of you. I am going to do the same thing, but I am sorry if my pro-choice side roars a little too loudly at times.
In '05 when GWB was trying to choose a new Supreme Court member, nominated senators from the Republican (pro-life) and Democrat (pro-choice) sides were throwing out a lot of false claims surrounding abortion. Check out this site at the bottom for the details on the false statements. Sadly, these public false effects of the legalization of abortion in America has shaped our stances on the issue. Pro-life argue that crime and female suicide has increased since Roe won - not entirely true. Crime today is now 2 percent lower now. Female suicide has dropped by one-third since Roe.
On behalf of the pro-life, the argument surrounding the large death toll of women who have illegal abortions is slightly dramatized. There have been claims that THOUSANDS die every year because of illegal abortions. That number might have been true if penicillin and birth control would have never come along. "The best evidence indicates that the annual deaths from illegal abortions would number in the hundreds, not the thousands" (Factcheck.org, Abortion Distortions).
Maybe some of these stats are not contingent on the legalization of abortion at all. But they do assist people in choosing their sides of the debate.
There has been a lot of evidence showing that the abortion rate goes up more and more as the world gets older. And there is really no talk of banning abortion with Obama in the seat. I think we should now ask ourselves how society can decrease the rising number of abortions each year. Please expand on any ideas you may have to solve this issue.
I can see no point in legalizing abortion. Its the fact that they are bearing another human life inside their womb is enough that that they should continue their pregnancy. There are 115,000 abortion cases every single day that is almost 5000 an hour and this figure is morally sickening. There are claims that fetuses are not babies. Then what do you call them? They are another human life. Human. As said, all they need is a little love, energy and time.
I know. Debating on this issue is like beating a dead horse, but I like to talk about it anyway. I can see both sides of the argument. I can understand why people choose pro-life because they are partial to their religion (mainly Christianity in America). I can also see the other side of the argument. The American government is supposed to be separate from the Church. Therefore, all religious transgressions are irrelevant when making policies. What do you think?
I oppose abortion, not because of my religion, but because I find it morally wrong. I honestly think it's murder, even if the life of the fetus isn't as complete as it would be if it were a full born baby. I don't believe the issue of abortion should have anything to do with religion, which it doesn't. Just look at former New York governor, Mario Cuomo, a roman Catholic, who legalized abortion because he did not want people to think he was supporting the church. In my opinion, this decision should not have derived from religious practice, but rather from morality..
The opinion you take on religion is always based upon your beliefs.
Christians make up your majority of Republicans, therefore Republicans believe that abortion is murder.
Democrats, on the other hand, are very diverse. Democrats contain you atheists (I'm speaking in general) and a slur of other minority religions. Therefore Democrats base opinion on the "do whatever you want" principle.
Personally, I am a Christian Republican. I believe abortion is murder. I can imagine how extremely diffucult it would be to go through with a pregnancy that involves one of the major "risk factors" (mentally ill child, mother's life at risk), but I believe Christian values should triuphant all. I know how hard that is in today's shallow society, but we must be strong.
The thing about all things stated, there are more logical debates AGAINST them. Unfortunately, the religious debate is instead portrayed by secularfags because they can't stand logic.
Abortion - Killing a human being (because at conception it does have human DNA and is alive).
Gay Marriage - Doesn't and never has existed. Even during the Roman times where homosexuality was highly accepted, marriage was granted towards straight couples in order to better regulate rights and encourage reproduction. Not to mention that most psychologists believe that man-woman parenting results in much better results for children than gay couples.
Republicans aren't for any laws forcing people to wear flag lapel pins... don't know where you were going with that one. i mean, yeah, they look down upon those who don't respect the flag... but just how jews look down on those who march along side nazis.
As for how Secularfags have oppressed religion. For one thing, they want religion to be BANNED from the private sector. or anything remotely related to religion. A school actually banned a Jazz Concert from the school band because one of the songs was the Ave Maria (instrumental by the way, no lyrics). Then there are the people who want airports to take down Christmas trees. Or the people who want Nativity scenes to be banned from being displayed at fire departments.
Even though many fail at passing any legislation, what they usually do is sue which costs the others a shit load of money just to defend.
The thing about all things stated, there are more logical debates AGAINST them. Unfortunately, the religious debate is instead portrayed by secularfags because they can't stand logic.
You want to talk about logic? That's a nice Ad Hominem you started off with, there.
Abortion - Killing a human being (because at conception it does have human DNA and is alive).
This isn't a logical argument. This still has value judgment added, that all human life is desirable. A logical argument would be that abortion is a good thing, because we're already at about 14X capacity for humans on earth. Not to mention someone's earlier comment that unwanted children create more problems for society.
Gay Marriage - Doesn't and never has existed. Even during the Roman times where homosexuality was highly accepted, marriage was granted towards straight couples in order to better regulate rights and encourage reproduction. Not to mention that most psychologists believe that man-woman parenting results in much better results for children than gay couples.
Also illogical. It does not follow that something shouldn't exist because it didn't before. Even the Romans didn't cure cancer, so we shouldn't! And show me a link for "most psychologists," please. All the research papers I've read have said TWO PARENTS are better, not necessarily any gender match. You did get that information from research, right? Not from an Op-Ed, or .gif-covered website?
Then there's overpopulation again. Gays usually don't reproduce, as they tend to adopt. Gays are unable to have children they aren't absolutely sure they want. This more than accounts for any gender mix possible. Not to mention the adoption process involves extensive investigations and waiting periods, so finalized adoptions are almost never characterized by single-parent households or abuse. In contrast, any old straight person can have a kid by accident, and raise it terribly without raising suspicion.
Republicans aren't for any laws forcing people to wear flag lapel pins... don't know where you were going with that one. i mean, yeah, they look down upon those who don't respect the flag... but just how jews look down on those who march along side nazis.
The lapel pin was a joke. Reference to when Obama was attacked for not wearing one. Wait, what? Nazis? You're really forcing that in there. I don't see what it has to do with anything, except fulfilling the Reductio ad Hitlerum.
"As for how Secularfags have oppressed religion. For one thing, they want religion to be BANNED from the private sector. or anything remotely related to religion. A school actually banned a Jazz Concert from the school band because one of the songs was the Ave Maria (instrumental by the way, no lyrics). Then there are the people who want airports to take down Christmas trees. Or the people who want Nativity scenes to be banned from being displayed at fire departments."
[I'm assuming you meant to say the Public Sector] Yes, there are wackos on both sides of the argument. But really, do you need a Christmas tree in your airport and a nativity scene at your fire department to practice your religion? No? Then your religion isn't being oppressed. The only reason we consider it normal is because we're used to it. Can you tell me an actual way someone's actual practice of religion has been inhibited?
[Personally I object to Christmas shit because it's tacky and repetitive, not for any high-minded reason :P Around that time of year, if you want to see even more ugly decorations and hear the same idiotic songs another dozen times that day, then I suppose I can't knock you for being a braindead cultist.]
"Even though many fail at passing any legislation, what they usually do is sue which costs the others a shit load of money just to defend. Sounds like oppression to me."
Are there any examples of lawsuits about this that haven't been thrown out of court? I looked a bit, but the only actual lawsuits i could find were people trying to sue institutions for banning religious decorations.
i kind of tl;dr'd, but I think you MISSED the point i was making.
I don't actually agree with any republican views on the issues stated, but there is MORE to their argument than just "ZOMG, RELIGION". unfortunately, secularfags like to make it sound like it's ONLY a religious debate because they are afraid of REAL arguments.
it's not illogical to decide "we're not going to allow the deaths of babies". It's not illogical to decide "we're not gonna create a new government institution meant for special interest groups". so, no, they do have reasonable arguments. do i agree with them? no. but I wasn't trying to refute their beliefs at the moment, i was understanding the other side (because, that's what i do).
If you "TL;DR'd," my argument, don't respond. You're wasting my time.
It IS a religious debate in America, in terms of public policy, because the main thrust of the pro-life movement's argument is religiously based. This is the only way they can make the presumption that life begins at conception, and that all human life is inviolable.
Not all pro-choice movements are in favor of subsidized abortions. And if a baby is technically part of your organism, you have the right to terminate it.
I know what you're getting at with arguing both sides. But if you're going to do it on CD, you can't sidestep rebuttals.
Your "unpopular view"? Sadly, policies are made based on your "unpopular view". Stem cell research was halted under the republican administration of Bush because he had the support of the large majority of Christians who believe that "life is sacred" without exactly being able to prove when life begins, but because they believe there is some "soul" aspect, or bigger purpose that should be upheld.
Your view is not unpopular at all. .... and smart hawkish politicians are climbing into power because they find how to capitalize on the support given by those who exercise a blind faith on issues determined by "god".
Abortion should be examined carefully by science, in order to determine when suffering actually begins, a moral qualification given by Peter Singer that would allow us to qualify what life is or isn't. In this sense, we are causing more suffering by killing a full grown pig than a forming fetus.
This is probably the funniest tag I've heard in a very long time. "Don't be a fool, wrap your tool" Ingenious. By the way, I'm for abortion, but really, if you don't want a baby, then just use protection! I don't see what the problem is. People are always whining about needing an abortion because they can't take care of a baby at 15 years old when it's their own fault. I do think abortion is OK, but only as a last resort. If you made a mistake, you need to take responsibility. I believe if you're under the age of 18 and you made a mistake, then you should be able to have an abortion. But if you're over 18, and you didn't want a child to take care of and love, then you should have had safe sex instead of being reckless and irresponsible. That's the reason most people screw up their lives. Because they aren't thinking straight, and they're irresponsible. Examples are getting pregnant when you don't want to be, getting addicted to tobacco drugs or alcohol, or even worse things. When you have unsafe intercourse, it's like playing chicken on the railroad tracks. Just spend a few bucks on a condom, people! It's not so hard to do!
Personally I have nothing against abortion and believe that people should not be condemned for choosing to have an abortion. In some cases women will put up their child for adoption while they are still pregnant and then become attached to the "child" and can find it impossible to give the child up when it is born. For these people it would be like building a house and then when it's finally done you weren't allowed to live in it.
Abortion should not be taken lightly. People that have gone through it feel bad about it and, at the same time, some sense of relief. It's better to avoid these conflicting emotions.
