- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
The fundamental issue regarding the abortion debate is not women's rights or other factors which concern personal autonomy, but over the status of the unborn child. Variants of the personal choice argument presuppose that the unborn child is not a human person, for if the unborn child is indeed a human person, then no amount of freedom justifies its elective termination. Henceforth, variants of the personal autonomy argument beg the question by presupposing their conclusions: they are valid if and only if the unborn are not human persons.
First premise is that it is prima facie morally wrong to kill any person. Jane English makes an interesting point that this is not always the case. For example, would not self-defense be a legitimate example of when killing a person is justified? However, the abortion opponent could also claim that fetus' are innocent entities, but even then prima facie it would seem that self-defense would still be legitimate.
A fetus is a person because it posses "intrinsic potentials". However, before that he admits that an argument that shows unborn are persons because they have the persons to become persons is absurd...
Thank you for giving that interesting point.
Homeless should help themselves and not rely on others for codependency but the truth is many of them have accepted the fact that they can't do that and so defend on the street asking for spare change and so fourth. So I do agree to that.
Where can we possibly supply the money to help these poor masses? Welfare you say? The government is digging into taxpayer money to pay for many other problems, and this just adds another weight onto their shoulders. Just too much is being spent on things to try to help this one group when it could be spent on things for the contributing members of society to use. This money should not be spent on the homeless. They aren't helping to pay for anything through taxes.
There are about 300,000 homeless people in Canada and about 750,000 in the United States.
When put into proportion these numbers can become quite significant. To provide every single one of these people with shelter would become quite expensive. Also, in many urban areas it may be hard to set aside land to build social housing. Many tax-payers would much rather have their tax dollars go towards things that directly benefit them, like healthcare and education.
I agree with you on that, but can you be more specific on why they are forced to be homeless?
Some people have taken advantage of welfare. They are being provided for WITHOUT contribution.
How can we expect the homeless to leave themselves in that kind of predicament? You can not apply this to EVERY homeless person.
No! We should not! >:[
U.S. is already dumb enough! We ranked 23 out of the WHOLE world in the Science area. India and China are WAY ahead of us!
Shortening our time at school is ridiculous. What type of schedules would we have? How would our parents know where we are, and what we are doing? D:
Responsibility? PUH-LEESE, at my school, you can see students gathering behind Big Savers getting down. And there was a girl who took pictures of herself...ahem and the police got involved. WHAT KIND OF RESPONSIBILITY IS THAT?!
[Thank you :D]