- 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.
Though it may be "morally wrong" to promote smoking, you have no right to ban commercials. You, as a citizen, can choose to not watch it, but ultimately, the television companies must make the decision. To them, it's simply business and that's all it should be.
I know the way I would state my opinions would not prove helpful towards this discussion, so here is a quote, in place, by respected novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand. I find that this quote, in the end, sums up my opinions on this matter.
"An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn). Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"
What are you talking about? Atheists do not love themselves by the denotation of being an atheist. Atheist, meaning "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings, holds no other associations besides its very definitions. The atheists your thinking of is the false stereotype used by the churches to cast a shadow upon any outliers. Atheists, like religious people, like anyone, have all the emotions attributed to human nature. Weddings, connotatively, are said to be religious ceremonies filled with the presence of god. But really, all marriage does is publicly profess one's love for another.
People ask of us, not to use words as we see fit. But why? Why must we bend our will to fit the emotional needs of others? In the United States, Congress may pass no law limiting our freedom of speech and I, as a rational, self-interested being, take advantage of that right and speak my mind where, how, and when I see fit. Now, taking violent actions against someone who you would call a "retard" or a "faggot" is a different matter, because that violates one's personal rights. Man, in this country, does not have the right to condemn people to act in accordance with his emotions.
First, we should define some terms that should be obvious, but to those unaware, here they are.
Fact:a truth known by actual experience or observation
Evolution:change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
Now evolution, through observation of valuable fossils, has been determined as the history of species on Earth. There is evidence, a corollary to fact, which supports it. No longer is it just a theory. There is empirical evidence to support it.Therefore, science classes, instruments of teaching what academia has shown to be fact, should teach Evolution.
I believe that one should be allowed to do as they please, as long as they don't invade upon the personal rights of another man. While they sing the national anthem in spanish, personally, I believe, they should be aware of its origins in English, and English, having been the first form of it, should remain the national version that the federal government upholds.
You say that science considers babies alive, so tell me this: How is it that something that cannot support itself continually, and naturally, can be considered alive? I believe that if the baby has reached an age where it would be able to support itself it should not be aborted, but ultimately the choice should be the mother's. You, me, nor anyone, has the right to force someone to do anything that interferes with their own beliefs and personal interest. Why should the fetus cling, as a parasite (defined as "an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment"), to the mother, if she wished it not to be so, and it can change.
To sum it up, a quote by Ayn Rand: "An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn). Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"
Objective morals exist, although in a different sense of the word morals. When morals, devoid of the compulsion implied by religion, is defined, the word is nearly synonymous with ethics. Now ethics, a more proper word, is defined as such: a branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct. Objective morals (otherwise known as objective ethics) consist not of a "moral responsibility" to the life of others, but a responsibility to the preservation of one's own values based on objective, and earthy, substance.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!