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.
I'm not going to let a Republican "MAN" tell me what to do with MY vagina.
First of all, why make it sound so sexist? Second, no one is telling you what to do with your vagina. Abortion murders fetuses, so that's why the prolife movement wants to abolish it.
Whom says any politicians can tell you what to do with your body. Talking points fed to you by the politicians that you believe should control the masses.
The republican man is not telling you what to do with your virgina. He is informing you what you are doing with your mouth. You are openly admitting to a crime in pubic this is clearly done with your mouth and brain not your virgina. What the republican man is wondering is why all woman must be forced to make an admission to a crime by law.
The Republic united states of Female Specific Amputation is the republican man telling all woman they do not in fact have to make the admission you are demanding from all of us.
Then don’t let the republic. Go to jail. Officially stop admitting to the crime. Take a chance at trial. That’s the prochoice and prolife option. It clearly was not the republics choice as the united states republic serves the United States Constitution.
The question raised with Pregnancy abortion is about truth or lie. Is pregnancy abortion a lie? Why this question is important is Pregnancy abortion is self-incriminating. It is always admitting a crime publicly that may not exist. First you must be able to say, Pregnancy Abortion is not an admission of guilt to any crime it describes, in any way. Do not confuse this idea with the basic principle innocence’s of the crime admitted, is the use of the word abortion in relationship to pregnancy admitting a crime publicly?
My answer is yes it is admitting a crime. Why my answer is yes, abortion is stating a person is officially ending something that has been documented as officially starting. Human life. This makes abortion an assumption of control, on basic principle a woman never has complete control of her own pregnancy. As a united states they are asking for something beyond the law of nature without question.
Do all woman need to admit to the crime of officially stopping life? Again as a united State the words Female Specific Amputation say no. All woman do not need to admit publicly to the act of officially ending life.
Does this mean abortions cannot be proven? No it does not. A Female Specific Amputation can be proven when addressed in the proper way to be a pregnancy abortion. It also can be proven only when properly questioned not to be pregnancy abortion. This is a united states which is impartial.
Woman have already proven to the public and other woman they are willing to murder children of their own posterity. A lie on official documents is not the same crime as the willingness to end officially life. They should not be treated as such as this again is a test to United States Constitution. Why the United States Constitution has been sacrificed as the blame of injustice in this matter is. All life which is brought to an intentional end was expected to go before a judicial constitutional separation to insure that all people in the public could not be trapped as accessories to murder. As this crime negates the right of Vote upon conviction.
So again the most important question is. Do the words Pregnancy abortion create an admission to a crime? If no why not? It is not due to the question of when life starts, abortion describes a start is understood so the word is not telling the facts that are being described. This is a type of lie.
As for the augment of rape. It may be advisable by law a woman should not take responsibility of the official end of life in this matter. As the basic principle of wrong may be left open to argue it is the person convicted of sexual assault who should take this responsibility. Again the Constitutional argument is based on the embryo a woman holds dies by law of nature every month. So it is reasonable within her powers to insure the law of nature is seen through, or not. This United States Constitutional debate should not be hindered by the improper use of admission to crime.
There's only a few of them left all alive today, but the National Socialist German Workers' Party doesn't exist anymore. The nazis surrendered in 1945, so that was the end of their reign.
your POTUS is keeping it alive.....................................................................
Actually, the president has nothing to do with nazis, so I don't know where you're getting this from. If you have a source, I'll read it.
There's only a few of them left all alive today, but the National Socialist German Workers' Party doesn't exist anymore. The nazis surrendered in 1945, so that was the end of their reign.
your POTUS is keeping it alive.....................................................................
Actually, the president has nothing to do with nazis, so I don't know where you're getting this from. If you have a source, I'll read it.
He's your POTUS as well, considering you're also an American. Also, Trump isn't a Nazi and isn't keeping the ideology alive. Nazism died in the 1940s, so I believe you're referencing neo-Nazism.
I am prochoice. I am pro do whatever you want with your body. A fetus is not a baby until it has brainwaves. This is how you know if someone is alive and a complete sentient person.
Where does God tell you the time frame an unborn baby is ok to kill? You call yourself a Christian and could not care less what God says about unborn babies he knows in the womb.
You put your own selfish pro choice beliefs over God. Who do you think you are kidding?
Ok, now spew your same old extreme case excuses while you support the choice to kill any unborn baby up to it supposedly has brainwaves. LOL, what a phony!
The United States Constitutional argument rebuttal states. Prove a pregnancy abortion it is not a person’s admission to a crime. There is an international game of obstruction of justice being played using an admission of guilt publicly.
The ability to brag has clouded common sense of many people. Pregnancy abortion is and admission to officially ending life. The legality of any admissions to a crime has consequence outside the type admission itself. The nature states that the embryo dies every month during a woman’s natural process of menstruation is not GOD, but close enough to make a constitutional argument of precedent.
There are a great deal of woman who may have actual not understood the United States Constitution. By this laps in ability made an error in judgement and called a Female Specific Amputation a Pregnancy Abortion.
Well not to be rude excon and make a direct comment I was disputing what FromWithin had written. The idea of basic principle tells us that the argument of female specific amputation begins at embryo destruction naturally during a woman’s mensuration. As an embryo is alive as it is science which had developed preservation techniques through cryogenics.
The point here is the embryo dies if the woman does not have sexual copulation, intercourse. Of course unless the (living) embryo is frozen, and this natural process may only be lengthen.
A male sperm is produced in qualities which by nature set murder as a common united states, an event of copulation in any possible scenario. Upon copulation a large number of sperm simple die by the lack of ability to find the embryo of a woman. Yet any one woman could never provide suitable embryos for all viable sperm that are transferred to her by a male during copulation, or sex intercourse if you do not understand the word copulation.
The point here is the (living) sperm die if the man has intercourse. The sperm given the same extension by cryogenics on Time of death as a woman’s embryo.
Science has already made its own distinction of when life starts, and it is this scientific fact that helps make any admission to assuming the burden of officially ending life semi-pointless. Or simply alarming as the wording Pregnancy abortion violates the Hippocratic oath.
To be perfectly clear excon. If you are really an excon can you see any reason why every woman, or simply said all woman must make an admission to a crime? Pregnancy abortion is an admission to a crime, it is not the accusation it pretends to be. Why else have an alibi?
Prove a zygote is a baby................................................................................................................................
You have literally argued a million times that it is a baby. Now you've changed your mind for the 100th time. If you want the answer to "prove a zygote is a baby............" why dont you go back and look at your own fucking arguments? You stupid stupid woman.
Yes, it is simply in a different stage of life. Does a two year old child look like he does as an adult?
Our bodies are in a constant state of change until the day we die. Pro choice people live in a state of selfish denial and put convenience over a human life.
Okay, if the embryo is alive before it is a zygote then unless something has changed dramatically it is still alive as a zygote. Anything else I can help you with YeshuaBought?
A fetus has brain waves beginning at 8 weeks, and most women can only tell when they're pregnant at 9 weeks. Others have been able to tell at earlier points, though.
You were a fetus in your Mommy's womb but now you have no brainwaves whatsoever LMMFAO. Why didn't Mommy and Daddy abort you for the lack of brainwaves you don't have. ROTFFLMMFAO
I'm pro abortion, pro choice, and anti life. The fetus has no sentience (i.e. it lacks self concept), and if aborting it improves the quality of life for the existing sentient then forbidding it is cruel and without merit. Besides, I think that creating sentient being is one of the cruelest things a sentient being can do.
Ah. I see, so you are really pro-choice who only validate the decision of the parents/mother. but sometimes, have you think that their decision is always right and cannot be wrong?
Call it whatever you like. From my perspective it is neither right nor wrong. My preference is to live in a social environment where it's permissible, though, and I don't put any restriction or caveat on that permissibility.
So, if your grandmother is in a coma, can I shoot her and get away with it?
aborting it improves the quality of life for the existing sentient then forbidding it is cruel and without merit
Why would anyone be happier with killing a baby? The baby has so far done nothing to you, and yet you want to end its short life abruptly and without reason. Also, no one is forcing you to keep the baby. Put them up for adoption if you hate them that much.
is one of the cruelest things a sentient being can do.
First off, stating what you think is cruel doesn't really do much in the way of your argument. Explain why. Is there a reason? If so, elaborate. Secondly, your feelings don't dictate what is and isn't murder. Third, so, you said a fetus isn't sentient but then you talked about creating a sentient being? Also, why isn't killing a sentient being on your list of extremely cruel things?
So, if your grandmother is in a coma, can I shoot her and get away with it?
No, but not by virtue of that body being a person. Just as I would not endorse you being able to perform an abortion on another person without their consent, I would not endorse you being able to shoot a comatose person to whom you have no proximate connection (i.e. there other who's entitlements I would preference to yours).
Why would anyone be happier with killing a baby? The baby has so far done nothing to you, and yet you want to end its short life abruptly and without reason. Also, no one is forcing you to keep the baby. Put them up for adoption if you hate them that much.
I never said it would be a popular option. I just think it's fine for it to be an option.
First off, stating what you think is cruel doesn't really do much in the way of your argument. Explain why. Is there a reason? If so, elaborate.
I believe that existence is predominantly suffering, and that we are evolved for sufficiency rather than pleasurable existence. To create sentient life is to create a consciousness capable of suffering but incapable of reconciling it's need for meaning and significance with the reality of an indifferent universe.
Secondly, your feelings don't dictate what is and isn't murder.
Of course they do. Feelings are the only things that dictate that sort of thing, regardless of who is doing the defining. Where else do you suppose that sort of thing to come from?
Third, so, you said a fetus isn't sentient but then you talked about creating a sentient being?
I'm presuming it becomes sentient later, as is the common trajectory that people anticipate when they conceive life. I'm speaking here more to the intention than the immediate condition.
Also, why isn't killing a sentient being on your list of extremely cruel things?
It is, though not for that sentient's sake (they're dead, they experience nothing).
Okay, so if it's my grandmother, I can shoot her and get away with it? No, of course not. The connection doesn't matter, because it's still murder.
Actually, its legal in many places for the next of kin to end the life of a comatose relation. Regardless, acts that constitute 'murder' are so by extrinsic convention only; there's nothing inherent or immutable about that designation.
Okay, but it would be a popular option.
Given how popular and strong the opposition is to my position, I seriously doubt it would be. Either way, it doesn't affect my position.
I'm all for options: contraception, adoption, and parenting. Notice how murder isn't in there anywhere.
Your point? I know you're opposed to my position, but that's not an argument.
Okay, but it's not your fault that they're able to suffer. That's how living things are. It's not cruel, it's our primary biological function.
Fault is an incoherent and irrelevant notion. We no more determine whether we reproduce than we control the conditions of existence. To be cruel is literally to cause suffering, so any action which does that is a cruel action. Creating life is one of the cruelest acts because it is that act of creation which makes possible all suffering that occurs during that life.
No, not your feelings. Because, as it happens, you aren't a judge. If you were, then they would contribute to a decision.
As it happens, judges don't typically define murder either. Regardless, 'murder' is merely human intuition backed by that unique social capital which we call 'politic'. What constitutes 'murder' in one place and time won't constitute it elsewhere, and there's no objective standard for it... so it's a bit silly to make absolute statements about what murder is (it being entirely relative). And at that point, there's really no reason that the legal sentiment is any more credible than mine or yours or anyone else's.
So you don't think it hurts when you die? If so, you should stop using the word cruel because cruel means "causing pain or suffering".
I understood us just to be speaking of the loss of life as a harm itself. If we're talking about the method of killing/death and if that method causes suffering then it would also be cruel. Whether it is one of the cruelest acts, though, would be heavily contingent on the context. None of this is at odds with my larger position, though, so what's your point?
Well Dummy how is it you came to exist ???? Did your Mommy and Daddy think you lacked self concept ???? And that was the reason you were hatched ROTFFLMMFAO
First, I'd like to get a few definitions out of the way:
Pro-life: "opposed to abortion"
Murder: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"
Person: "human"
Human: "of, relating to, or characteristic of humans"
So, since it's illegal to kill a person, and since a fetus is a person, meaning it's a human because it resembles a human very closely, shouldn't that make abortion illegal?
Murder is also a moral term. Abortion can fail to meet a legal definition, yet stoke ones moral sense as an unjustified killing of a human life, ie murder. Similarly, libertarians refer to taxation as theft and Marxists refer to capitalists as theives. Though neither fit the legal definition.
Incidentally, Constitutionally a corporation is a legal person. But you can’t murder one.
Constitutionally speaking, a PERSON is a person.. Speaking again, Constitutionally, a CITIZEN isn't a person.. A fetus isn't a person.
Let's look at the 5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation..
Clearly, all the protections offered by the amendment apply to "persons".. Now, some people of the right wing persuasion say that 5th Amendment protections are only for "citizens". But, the WORDS belie that interpretation.. Of course, the founders COULD have used the word citizen if they chose to.. But, they didn't.. That wasn't a mistake..
In LEGAL terms, I have NO other frame of reference than the Constitution.. It doesn't parse the word "person". That is NOT a mistake.. If it did, we'd be arguing about WHO is actually a PERSON, and protected by the Constitution, and who isn't.. And, isn't that what we're doing??
In common vernacular, however, you're a person.. I'm a person. A citizen is a person.. A foreigner is a person.. A dog lover is a person. Etc, and so on.. Again, using common vernacular, you could even SAY a fetus is a person, and you wouldn't be wrong either..
But, you cannot transpose common vernacular with legal definitions to win a legal debate..
So, if the constitution doesn't mention the word "people", then how can it have a constitutional definition? And what's the legal definition of a person, since the constitution doesn't have one?
And what's the legal definition of a person, since the constitution doesn't have one?
Hello again, the:
Read the 5th Amendment.. It uses the word "person" exclusively. If you are UNABLE to tell who it address's, you can't believe it offers protection to ANYBODY.. That may be what your intent is. I can't tell.
The 5th Amendment quoted by the Mental Midget what does the 5th Amendment say ?
Let's take a look
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Hello again, the:
Read the 5th Amendment.. It uses the word "person" exclusively. If you are UNABLE to tell who it address's, you can't believe it offers protection to ANYBODY.. That may be what your intent is. I can't tell.
Okay just to get s few things out of the way. What makes Pregnancy abortion illegal is the lie it is saying on an official document as perjury, and the self-incrimination to crime it shares to the public without judicial separation. The fact that both of these crimes are much harder to prove than the admission that is made by the admission which is set as a lie from the very start.
Two things not all woman officially have control at all times regarding pregnancy in any united states. The state pregnancy creates sits in a line with the medical profession and the Hippocratic Oath. By obligation to the republic and the United States Constitution. If it is believed that the mismanagement of representation directs issue of national security. These things are lies which are in effect the reason or cause for perjury, or perjuries on a grand scale. To put it simply the murder is at no point ever a single event that all woman and doctors face.
The question you need to be asking is. Why must all woman make a admission to murder? EVER?
Ehem. How bout you, do you care about the unborn baby? you both don't care on the views of each other so why bother to each other when no one from the two of you is open to change their mind, no one seeks the right, only on who is right.
Who said I don't care about rape victims and that they're all lying? I merely told you I don't believe you because you've no proof to back up your claim.
You're an old fart. Do you remember a comedian named Dr. Irwin Corey??? His schtick was SOUND reasonable while uttering MUMBO JUMBO. I don't think this fellow is joking, though..
Pro-life or prochoice does not matter. Both of the responses would need to now answer the question is pregnancy abortion an admission to crime? This is a yes or no answer an alibi for the admission is not necessary at this point of separation?
Is Pregnancy Abortion an admission to a crime? Yes or no?
If it is not an admission must it have an alibi?
If it is an admission to a crime under certain conditions it can become illegal as perjury, not the criminal act that is admitted too.
Also if Pregnancy abortion is found to be an admission to a crime justified with alibi or not, why must all woman make this admission to crime?
An extreme examples: A woman tells us she has had a dreadful experience. A female specific amputation due to medical events, and natural conditions which have left her devastate emotionally. This is completely different then a woman telling us she is officially taking control of her life by assuming the burden of a control over a brand new life.
If the public is expected to presume innocents before guilt there cannot be an admission made publicly before them openly. We argue the lie with pregnancy abortion. The word Abort means to officially stop and the alibi is saying nothing has officially started. So in order for an abortion to be a truth on any official document the start must be confirmed in advance?
What we agree on is this processes of confirmation does not need to happen when constitutional separation is applied to remove the admission form the general public.
If It has a heartbeat it is alive.. the only way i condone abortion is if It saves the life of the mother or if a young girl is raped.. or anyone raped actually .. but you can always go the day after and get sterilized if that is the case ..
That's a stupid precondition because most animals don't even have hearts, which precludes them from your definition of alive.
Conversely, every animal (except perhaps the sponge) has a central nervous system. When fetuses are aborted it is before they have developed a central nervous system. They are incapable of feeling physical pain.
This is what pro abortion supporters do to deceive the public & hide the inhumanity of their policies.
1) Steer the abortion conversation to life of mother & rape pregnancies, to Zygotes & first trimester abortions, all to deflect what they really support which is No Restriction abortions of all babies, even viable babies for any reason up to birth. This is the first thing pro choice people do.
The GOP has allowed extreme case exceptions since abortion was legalized yet we still hear every day about these extreme rare cases. Lie, deceive, exaggerate, etc. all to condition the electorate to think the GOP will deny these extreme case abortions.(by the way, rape pregnancies can be prevented within a day or two with a doctor visit)
2) They talk about the medical name of an unborn Baby..... Fetus. By using the name Fetus, they somehow believe it changes the status of the life growing inside the mother. Somehow in their thinking, a Baby that has not yet traveled through the birth canal is somehow different than it is after it is has moved down that canal. WOW, TALK ABOUT DENIAL!
3) They talk about the supposed hard life these unwanted children will have if allowed to live. So in all their God like powers, they know the future of every Baby aborted? How many great people have come from poverty or foster homes, etc.? To be so arrogant to allow the deaths of innocent life because of some perceived hard life is beyond diabolical.
4) Pro choice people like to say they do not personally believe in abortion, but would afford other's the choice to end the lives of their unborn Babies. Gee, how nice of them. I always wonder how a person who personally believes that aborting his own Baby is wrong because it is ending a human life, can support allowing other babies to die. HYPOCRITE PHONEY!
5) After all the scare tactics and deceptions, their next step is to lie and say they do not support late term abortions for any reason. They refuse to accept accountability for supporting all late term abortions of even viable babies every time they vote for Democrats who support it.
6) The Democrat Party and the Left even supports killing viable special needs babies, for any reason up to birth, for merely being special. That's like the Nazi mentality where we only want blond haired blue eyed people being born in Germany. In all their arrogance, they will deem who is deserving of life. Where is all their talk about diversity, inclusiveness, compassion? I guess these special Olympic children actually mean nothing to them. Their lives are disposable.
I am not here trying to judge any woman who has had an abortion. I'm trying to bring humanity back to our nation by protecting our most innocent vulnerable lives.
I endorse no restriction abortion of all babies for any reason, including late term abortions. So, what's your argument for those of us who bite that bullet?
I find that to be socially acceptable behavior on the part of proximate parties. In other words, I think that proximate parties (i.e. parents/guardians) have an entitlement to what happens to the fetus or pre-self-concept child over and against that of other parties.
I have more respect for a killer who admits his inhumanity verses killers who pretend to be tolerant of human life while keeping the No Restriction killing legal.
You are the result of a Godless culture. In your world, self is the all and end all of life. If another human life gets in the way of your convenience, you justify killing the baby. You want to be able to sleep around like animals, and then use abortion to bail you out.
Those on the Left are just like you but for election purposes refuse to admit it.
My motives aren't to do with denying responsibility; I don't believe in it, so there's no need to deny it. Nor did godlessness create my beliefs. That acts of of those around me did that.
But I won't belabor the details. I am a godless egoist, and I have no issue with abortions at any stage. Honesty will make most positions more palatable; there's one less psychological trigger for disgust.
I'm not keen on being compared to the Left, and they're no keener to embrace me than you are. My libertarian streak and anti-identitarian views tend to make we rather unpopular.
Try reading up on Narcissism. You sound like you might be caught up in yourself. Your beliefs even supersede humanity. You can't even allow any notion of possible faults and irresponsibility.
Have you ever contemplated suicide? Often times Narcissistic people are depressed and very insecure.
Whether I'm a narcissist with a history of suicidal ideation isn't relevant.
My beliefs cannot supersede that which does not exist, but I do value myself above others and I'm not ashamed of that.
I can and do allow for the notions of fault and irresponsibility, but I understand them differently than people tend to. To have faults is to be other than one would desire. To be irresponsible is to not act in such a way as to secure what one would desire. I understand them as subjective, deterministic perspectives on what necessarily is.
I agree she does not. However it is the rapist who has killed the baby not the woman who has been sexual assaulted. A woman has a natural right by United State to maintain the path taken by her menstrual gestation. The proven inability of a woman to preserve, defended, and protect the United States Constitution. Does not mean those who stand righteous in this constitutional endeavor will abandon her. A knight with no King or Queen still serves honor.
Again I see no point to any admission when ones was not meant by honor.
No, unless the rapist forces the woman to get an abortion and even then, it's a case of "Who's responsible, the hitman or the man who ordered the hit man?"
It's not even killing anything. Because a zygote or fetus is not a baby.
Right, but both of those things are living, so you are killing something. There's no debate there. The argument lies in the significance of the killing.
""If the victim was impregnated by the rapist ,then go ahead kill the fetus, easy as that. The fetus don't have value anyway. "" is this what you want to hear ? I doubt it so become a pro life
