#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.
|
Do 3D prints of ultrasounds prove unlimited abortion for no good reason is evil?
Get a life-size 3D-printed figurine of your unborn baby
Why would you stick with a boring old ultrasound when you could have a replica fetus thanks to the magic of 3D printing?
Yes
Side Score: 44
|
 |
No
Side Score: 43
|
|
0
points
That's great! If the Left refuses to show abortion procedures from fear of the truth getting out, then these new 3D ultrasounds might get through to anyone still possessing a conscience. That visual shows exactly what is being dismembered during abortions. Then Planned Parenthood pays someone to piece the body parts back together. Today's Democrat Party is truly sick for supporting even late term abortions of viable babies! You vote for them, you are responsible as well! Side: Yes
|
0
points
What a hideously stupid argument. You are saying that we can all take innocent life if it is a burden to us. That kind of depravity leads to mothers throwing their babies into dumpsters because they decided they no longer want to be mothers. NEWSFLASH, if a woman does not want to be pregnant, USE BIRTH CONTROL or don't choose to have sex with some loser who would walk out on the mother and child. IT'S THAT SIMPLE! As with most every Liberal position, personal responsibility and accountability is no part of the equation. The Left says, if someone does mindlessly stupid risky things time after time, it is not their fault.... kill the baby! IT'S THE BABY'S FAULT! Side: Yes
1
point
What a hideously stupid argument Now you see, this is exactly why people are under the impression that you are insane. You rage against abortion because you read it in the Bible, but you think a woman's right to own her own body is a "hideously stupid argument". Evidently, you have severe mental health problems. How would you feel if I drove nails into you and then passed a law forbidding you to remove them? You wouldn't like it, would you? You are saying that we can all take innocent life if it is a burden to us. Wrong. Your very language is false because life begins after a woman raises it in her belly for 9 months. Your assumption that life begins at conception falls apart with less than 10 seconds worth of scrutiny. A young fetus (i.e. under 8 weeks) has no central nervous system and cannot think, sense or feel pain. Your description of this as "innocent life" is clearly erroneous because these things are a common denominator for all human life on Earth. That kind of depravity leads to mothers throwing their babies into dumpsters And so we see you using your initial error as the basis for yet further false analogies which use emotive language to appeal to others rather than actual critical thinking. This is what insanity essentially is. It begins with an irrational thought and then actions and further justifications are produced from the irrationality of that initial thought. Side: No
0
points
I will waste one response to a hateful bigoted insane person, who likes to call other's insane. I will respond this one time since you actually re framed from hateful vulgar speech towards me, other than calling me insane. First of all you are a science denier (what a shock). Science says life begins at conception, but like Flat Earthers, you deny it. Secondly, since SCIENCE says it is a living human life at conception, it's the mother that is choosing to drive nails into the other living human life, to purposely kill that life! As always, the Left brings the conversation back to early 8 week old babies, to thereby detract from the fact that they support killing even viable babies for any reason! You know, the ones who do have a central nervous system and DO feel pain!!!!!!!! OK, I've wasted enough time with a Science denier because there is nothing anyone could ever say to change the heart of a hateful bigot. Only God could do that, and you hate the God you say does not exist. OK, NOW RESORT BACK TO YOUR CHILDISH IMMATURE VULGAR INSULTS. IGNORE! Side: Yes
1
point
I will waste one response to a hateful bigoted insane person, who likes to call other's insane. Lol. Did you learn to abuse the apostrophe at the same place you learned to abuse people? I will respond this one time Nobody cares about your stupid dramatics you narcissistic moron. Either get on with it or shut your deranged face. Thanks. First of all you are a science denier Cool. First of all, just to clarify, you (i.e. a devout Christian who interprets the Bible literally) are calling me a science denier? Shortly before I implode with uncontrollable mirth, can I just clarify that I read that correctly? Science says life begins at conception Science cannot even define what life is, you PITIFULLY DECEITFUL FOOL! See:- Although biology is the study of life, even biologists don't agree on what 'life' actually is. While scientists have proposed hundreds of ways to define it, none have been widely accepted https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/ Since you are now a PROVEN LIAR, I see no point in continuing this charade and I shall just ignore you because you are mentally unbalanced. Have a nice day. Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
that it is complex in some cases doesn't make it any less true. if a person thinks you are an alien impostor trying to kill them, so they try to kill you - can you shoot them in self-defense? even though their intent isn't actually to kill you, but the alien? If you kill them, should you go to jail? If they kill you and successfully argue temporary insanity, would they avoid jail? Side: No
1
point
if a person thinks you are an alien impostor trying to kill them, so they try to kill you - can you shoot them in self-defense? even though their intent isn't actually to kill you, but the alien? If you kill them, should you go to jail? You obviously shouldn't go to jail but that still doesn't make deliberately killing a person an act of defence. What is defensive about blowing a hole in somebody's face? The problem is that capitalists have sold the American public an Orwellian lexicon of complete opposites, where left is right, attack is defence and fascism is socialism. Side: Yes
1
point
"You obviously shouldn't go to jail" Then you agree that it can be an act of self-defense. "that still doesn't make deliberately killing a person an act of defence" If a person does not intend to harm you, but poses you significant harm nonetheless, and your only means to prevent that harm is by killing them, then it can be allowed as an act of defense - even though you kill them deliberately and they don't consciously mean to harm you. Side: Yes
0
points
Then you agree that it can be an act of self-defense. Are you actually stupid buddy? I just literally explained to you that shooting someone in the face is not defence. It's attack. You can't define your own behaviour on the basis of what somebody else is doing, because you have no control over their behaviour. You only have control of your own behaviour. If my wife talks smack to me and I slap her in the mush, is that defence? Side: No
1
point
1
point
You said that someone who shoots someone that legitimately poses them harm "obviously shouldn't go to jail" That is correct. I also said shooting someone is not an act of defence. How is it possible that you acknowledge the first thing I said but not the second? A defensive act is one which protects you from damage and an offensive act is one which causes other people damage. Hence, shooting someone is an offensive act. A gun will not protect your body against a bullet, a knife, a fist or a bat. It will mitigate absolutely zero damage to you. I just cannot begin to comprehend how on God's fucking Earth your mind has been twisted to the point that you believe attack and defence are the same thing. That's literally how rapists justify attacking people (i.e. he/she deserved it). Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Other people understand shooting to prevent harm as self-defense Ah, the appeal to popularity. Yes, that is another logical fallacy. Predominantly it was used by the Nazis (i.e. "everybody knows Jews are shifty" etc...). Given the fact you are creating mythical arbitrators and then appealing to these as a form of authority I think we can safely say you're done. Shut your stupid mouth. read "People are allowed to take life for self defense." Read a fucking dictionary. If you need a book to teach you the difference between attack and defence then obviously you're a retard and need clinical supervision. Side: No
1
point
1
point
Attack: an aggressive and violent act against a person Yeah, no way that can be confused with shooting someone. Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
And that makes it wrong how exactly...? Because neither of us are lawyers:- A legal language is a formalized language based on logic rules which differs from the ordinary natural language Side: No
0
points
2
points
1
point
I posted a regular dictionary, a legal dictionary, and the wiki article on it and everything agrees that self defense would include the use of force. If a woman kicks her rapist in the balls, she is "defending" herself, whether or not you want to call it an "attack". Side: Yes
1
point
I posted a regular dictionary Which literally reads:- a plea of justification for the use of force or for homicide the act of defending oneself, one's property, or a close relative https://www.merriam-webster.com/ The first line is the legal definition and the second is the general definition. You are misleading people like the crooked little cunt you are, Amarel. Shut your poisonous little mouth you moron. Side: No
1
point
1
point
both apply and support my usage. Neither supports your usage, liar. The first is the legal definition, which I have already demonstrated is irrelevant:- a legal language is a formalized language based on logic rules which differs from the ordinary natural language in vocabulary, morphology, syntax, and semantics, as well as other linguistic features,[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ And the second (i.e. general definition) makes absolutely no mention of inflicting any form of violence onto anybody else. You are a complete, unadulterated fucking liar. Side: No
1
point
you not understanding the legal definition doesn't make it irrelevant. "Self-defense is defined as the right to prevent suffering force or violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence." https://criminal.findlaw.com/ Side: Yes
1
point
you not understanding the legal definition doesn't make it irrelevant. Self-defence IS a legal definition you laughably narcissistic retard. It means when you seriously hurt someone you can make a plea called "self-defence" and try to convince a jury that you had a really good excuse for doing it. You are purposefully trying to confuse it with the meaning of "defence" in ordinary language because you are a deceitful little fascist retard with nothing better to do with his time than distort the English language on the internet. Side: No
1
point
1
point
Self defense means both the act of using force defending oneself and the legal defense for doing the same. NO IT DOESN'T!! I've told you THREE TIMES that self-defence is a legal plea against violent crime:- Self-defence is a legal doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ The word "self-defence" is not a license for you to attack people you fucking imbecile. In an ordinary everyday conversation about defence you do not need to specify who you were defending, because the answer is fucking obvious. Self-defence is a specific legal doctrine. You seem to not understand that it means the former. You seem not to understand that attacking someone is not defence. Side: No
1
point
Yes - it does. That is why all of those dictionaries gave you multiple definitions. 1 : the use of force to defend oneself 2 : an affirmative defense (as to a murder charge) alleging that the defendant used force necessarily to protect himself or herself because of a reasonable belief that the other party intended to inflict great bodily harm or death https://www.merriam-webster.com/ If you think the words self-defense do not mean to "defend" one's "self", then there is not much I can do for you except recommend some remedial reading courses. Side: Yes
1
point
"The defence of one's person or interests, especially through the use of physical force, which is permitted in certain cases as an answer to a charge of violent crime." Side: Yes
1
point
Amarel, just stop. Your own link confirms I am right:- in certain cases as an answer to a charge of violent crime. Self-defence is a legal term, which your entry makes abundantly clear. Here is the part directly underneath which you omitted:- ‘he claimed self-defence in the attempted murder charge’ https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/ Legal terminology has no relevance to the meaning of the English language you retard. You keep ignoring this FACT, despite me having illustrated it to you THREE times:- a legal language is a formalized language based on logic rules which differs from the ordinary natural language in vocabulary, morphology, syntax, and semantics, as well as other linguistic features,[1] legal English differs from ordinary English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LegalEnglish For heaven's sake stop trying to deceive people. And switch to your main account you sneering fascist imbecile. Side: No
1
point
1
point
You keep ignoring the fact that the legal definition and the generic lay-person definition don't contradict one another. I am ignoring nothing. You are ignoring that defence does not mean attacking someone else. They both include the use of physical force to "defend" against harms. Nobody is arguing otherwise you pitifully deceitful retard. Force can be used in defence to block attacks and restrain an offender. You on the other hand are trying to label shooting someone in the face an act of defence. Side: No
1
point
You can defend yourself with all reasonable force necessary to prevent the harm - not just blocks and restraints. Try telling a 100 pound woman she can only use blocks and restraints to prevent getting raped by a guy twice her size. Or, next time you play a video game, try to prevent harm to your character by only using blocks and restraints and let me know how that works out. Side: Yes
1
point
You can defend yourself with all reasonable force necessary to prevent the harm - not just blocks and restraints. YET AGAIN you are, in wretched desperation, trying to change the conversation from one about the meaning of language into a definition of the (US) law. You are just absolutely sad, Amarel. The fact that you have attacked someone is literally fucking BUILT IN to the plea of self-defence, idiot. Self-defence is a legal answer to the question: why did you attack that person? It assumes on the part of the defendant that he does not deny attacking another person. Insanity is another potential answer. If someone pleads insanity at trial then it does't mean they haven't attacked someone you pointlessly persistent imbecile. It means the law rules they are not legally responsible for their attack. The exact same applies to the concept of self-defence you boring, pathologically narcissistic stumblebum. Side: No
1
point
1
point
a legal dictionary Which of course is completely irrelevant. and the wiki article on it Which again is completely irrelevant. You are just like Bronto in that you spam conversations with blind link drops and desperately hope people will be conned into believing they support your argument without bothering to scrutinise them first. If a woman kicks her rapist in the balls, she is "defending" herself Kicking someone in the balls is a form of attack. Why you are kicking them in the balls has absolutely no relevance, you pitifully stupid, soulless corporate retard. If I drop a nuclear bomb on a city then that is also a form of attack. It does not suddenly become an act of defence because one of them gave me a mean look or threatened to rape my dog. Does that compute, retard? Side: No
1
point
When discussing whether abortion should be legal on the basis of self-defense, the legal definition of self-defense is the only definition that is relevant. "Kicking someone in the balls is a form of attack" By your use of the word, it would be both an attack and a defense. "Why you are kicking them in the balls has absolutely no relevance" Intent absolutely is relevant. You've already said you are not a lawyer, you don't have to go to this extent to prove just how ignorant you are. Side: Yes
1
point
When discussing whether abortion should be legal on the basis of self-defense, the legal definition of self-defense is the only definition that is relevant. But nobody is discussing that you completely farcical twat. You literally went from talking about kicking someone in the balls to talking about abortion, you deranged, rambling fucking moron. By your use of the word, it would be both an attack and a defense. I've literally just explained that kicking someone in the balls is always a form of attack. Are you retarded, Amarel? What exactly do you find defensive about hurting other people? You literally are trying to convince us to redefine your behaviour to its precise linguistic opposite on the basis of whether you feel you have some form of moral justification for it. If I smash your idiot face with a cricket bat, then I'm attacking you regardless of how good an excuse I can make for why I'm doing it. How is that difficult for your mentally defective brain to compute? Side: No
1
point
You literally went from talking about kicking someone in the balls to talking about abortion No, I went from abortion to kicking someone in the balls back to abortion. The original question "People are allowed to take life for self defense." was meant to show that people are allowed to kill someone to prevent harm and not go to jail (which you've already agreed to.) Therefore society generally doesn't consider self-defense "evil", therefore the answer to whether abortion is evil (the topic of the debate) is no. You've already agreed with my point - everything else is just you not understanding words. Side: Yes
1
point
No So yet another word you don't understand the meaning of? I went from abortion to kicking someone in the balls back to abortion. At NO POINT did you ever discuss abortion with me you pathetic Nazi. The original question "People are allowed to take life for self defense." That is a STATEMENT. Questions are not the same thing as STATEMENTS. You're babbling, Amarel. You always babble when you reach the point that you have lied so much you have nothing else to lie about. You've already agreed with my point I agree with nothing you say because you are a lying corporate parasite. I hope that alleviates your confusion in this matter. Side: No
1
point
I'm not Merriam Webster, that doesn't mean I can't use the dictionary. You are quite welcome to use a legal dictionary in a conversation about law. Not in a conversation about the semantic difference between attack and defence. Your false analogy here is literally so appalling it could only have come from Amarel, so I am now fully aware that you are one of his puppet accounts. Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
2
points
Yes, of course, you are so clever. I clearly spent 10 years curating multiple accounts - including having long debates with myself - all so I could someday tell a person on my side of the argument to be more precise with their description of data that they admittedly won't actually examine. It all seems so obvious now. Otherwise, two different people would be telling you that you are incorrect, and we all know that must be impossible. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
If you don't like using the word defense for actions which can be taken in offense or defense This doesn't seem to be penetrating your rock thick skull. I have no emotional investment in the word. That's you. I'm simply asking that you use accurate language. Calling the purposeful slaughter of another human being defence is about as inaccurate as language gets. It's borderline farcical. Legal terminology like "self-defence" is not even supposed to be used by the public in the first place!! It's specialist language. Look dummy, in no universe is shooting someone an act of defence. You're attacking someone you believe is going to attack you, which is fucking attack. Learn how words work and shut your mouth. Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
Yeah. Great find. It definitely punched a hole in my argument. I still maintain the position I held then, I just can’t rely on what would be broadly accepted legal principles when Texas is there to piss all over said principle. I’ve shared that find with some very strong 2nd Amendment supporters, and they find it crazy as well. Side: Yes
1
point
I don’t believe picking it back up would be fruitful. We had gone around several times about the key points, both of us rejecting the others’s points and rebuttals. At the end I was tired of it and became a little insulting (my apologies, the round and round is frustrating). I would be happy to go at a different topic, but if it becomes stymied in the same way as the last one, we need to address it or disengage. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
You are able to act in self-defense for more than just preventing imminent certain death - from serious bodily injury (every state) all the way down to shooting at someone to prevent someone else's stuff from being taken while they aren't home. Every pregnancy brought to term would fall in this category. Side: No
1
point
You are able to act in self-defense for more than just preventing imminent certain death - from serious bodily injury (every state) all the way down to shooting at someone to prevent someone else's stuff from being taken while they aren't home. In which universe is killing a man (or a woman), defence? The people running the US are literally creating their own language and wrapping it around pro-gun ideology. Guns are designed to kill organic life. There is nothing defensive about that. Side: Yes
1
point
0
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
Republicans are passing laws to make abortion illegal in this case as well. I know. Completely nuts. It's a difficult situation because you have a party which has been taken over by corporations, and which is kept relevant because of the decades spent nurturing the vote of the crazed religious lunatic, of which America appears to have a vast overabundance. Side: Yes
1
point
Why is it ok to kill a baby merely because his father is a criminal? What we should be doing is educating every woman what to do after a rape to prevent conception. There is no need for most rape pregnancies. A doctor can prevent conception within a day or two. Why do you suppose the Left seldom educates women to this fact? Side: Yes
2
points
"Why is it ok to kill a baby merely because his father is a criminal?" it undermines your assertion that "if a woman does not want to be pregnant, USE BIRTH CONTROL or don't choose to have sex" "Why do you suppose the Left seldom educates women to this fact?" The left does. It is the right that seeks to institute abstinence-only education and make many forms of contraception illegal. https://reason.com/2014/06/04/ https://twitter.com/tperkins/status/ https://www.theguardian.com/us- Side: No
1
point
Hogwash, I can not remember ever hearing a news story from all the fake news networks speaking to what woman should do after a rape! I constantly hear them railing about killing babies conceived by rape. Funny how the Left does not limit conversations about rape pregnancies, to just sex ed. classes. THEY RAIL ABOUT THEM NON STOP ON THE NEWS! When will they educated every woman on this planet about the critical importance of going to a doctor after a rape, to prevent conception? It's all political. The Rape excuse is what they constantly use to keep NO RESTRICTION ABORTIONS LEGAL! This is how they operate. Grab at the heart strings of women to keep the vast majority of convenience abortions legal. The Left is allowing women to continue getting pregnant from rape, just to use it as their political weapon. Side: Yes
1
point
Here's what PlannedParenthood says about emergency contraception: Here is what the Family Research Council says: "between 2011-2017 Planned Parenthood gave out an average of 1.79 million emergency contraception kits annually. Emergency contraception, such as Plan B, can kill a human embryo if fertilization has already occurred." Can you tell which one cares more about providing it and which cares more about blocking it? Side: No
1
point
You are totally ignoring my words, so it is time to stop the conversation. I was talking abut fake news networks refusing to speak out on what women should do after a rape. They constantly talk about rape abortions, but seldom about the critical important thing to do after a rape.. Ignore Side: Yes
What we should be doing is educating every woman what to do after a rape to prevent conception. No, what we should be doing is teaching proper sex education, teaching boys when NO mean NO, and yes, we still need to teach them. Why is it ok to kill a baby merely because his father is a criminal?. Because a fetus isn't a baby yet and why do you think it's ok to continue punishing the victim of such a despicable act? There is no need for most rape pregnancies. A doctor can prevent conception within a day or two. That's if she goes to the doctor within a day or two, you clearly don't understand the psychological harm done when someone is raped. Hogwash, I can not remember ever hearing a news story from all the fake news networks speaking to what woman should do after a rape! That's because your ears are plugged to Fox news. Everything else is just "fake news" to you. You are totally ignoring my words, so it is time to stop the conversation. AKA- he was owning you with evidence to back his stance up and now you're trying to blame him for it. You want to say you're in it to protect the baby, yet you: A. Don't want free birth control. B. Don't want sex ed taught in schools. C. Don't want adoptable children to go to any loving family that doesn't conform to your specific tastes (no gays or lesbians). D. Don't want to have taxes raised to go to schools you don't agree with. (Inner city schools that have a lack of funding already) E. Don't want to let a woman have her own rights of bodily autonomy. In short, let me sum this up for you....as much as you don't want us in your wallet, we don't want you in our uterus. And you REALLY have to figure out by now that your care for an unborn baby stops as soon as it's born. Side: No
1
point
WHAT I DON'T WANT IS FOR DEPRAVED PEOPLE TO KEEP THE KILLING OF INNOCENT HUMAN LIVES LEGAL WHEN THEY ELECT DEPRAVED POLITICIANS, UNLESS EXTREME CASES! THAT'S WHAT I DON'T WANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can deny science until the day you die, but what you call a Fetus is the medical name given to a living growing human life! You are not kidding anyone, not even yourself. Your selfish support of killing babies out of mere convenience is truly pathetic. I agree, we should always be teaching boys that no means no! But guess what, the bleeding heart no fault Liberal ideology no longer holds kids responsible for the actions. Democrats keep making it harder and harder to discipline students, to kick them out of school, etc. when they are unruly disruptive jerks. There in lies the beginning of the rape culture. The word "NO" no longer has any meaning to them. They have learned from moronic Liberals that there is little repercussions for their actions. Side: Yes
1
point
|
