Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

debateorg_w_effect_for_conservative

like 0

My opponent has forfieted his final round and has additionally failed to meet his BoP regarding the unconstitutionality of abortion. Vote Con!

IndependentTruth

My opponent has forfieted his final round and has additionally failed to meet his BoP regarding the unconstitutionality of abortion. Vote Con!

Politics

Abortion-violates-the-Constitution./1/

Decades ago, in 1973, a major verdict had just hit the news. The Supreme Court had just decided in favor of Jane Roe, leading to the legalization of abortion. In the Constitution, written by our founding fathers, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are extremely important elements, vital to the rest of the Constitution, paramount to our God-given rights. So, tell me, if we are to remain a free society, what place does abortion have? It exists only to take away the most vital of rights: life. Abortion, by definition, is a procedure to terminate the life of the unborn child in the womb. In fact, since Roe v. Wade, more than 57 million children have been killed before they were even born. Without giving these children their inalienable, God-given right to live, what will come next? We have already seen the consequences of this merciless bloodbath. Government-funded corporate empires like Planned Parenthood make billions every year, off of a combination of services, some less than legal, as evidenced by the recent undercover Planned Parenthood videos. And so we must ask ourselves, should we be calling this "women's healthcare"? Does a business of killing really qualify as healthcare at all? These questions are all that I wish you ponder. Let's have a nice, clean debate. I wish not to attack each other, but rather that we can better each other through learning from this debate.

Xelleld

Decades ago, in 1973, a major verdict had just hit the news. The Supreme Court had just decided in favor of Jane Roe, leading to the legalization of abortion. In the Constitution, written by our founding fathers, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are extremely important elements, vital to the rest of the Constitution, paramount to our God-given rights. So, tell me, if we are to remain a free society, what place does abortion have? It exists only to take away the most vital of rights: life. Abortion, by definition, is a procedure to terminate the life of the unborn child in the womb. In fact, since Roe v. Wade, more than 57 million children have been killed before they were even born. Without giving these children their inalienable, God-given right to live, what will come next? We have already seen the consequences of this merciless bloodbath. Government-funded corporate empires like Planned Parenthood make billions every year, off of a combination of services, some less than legal, as evidenced by the recent undercover Planned Parenthood videos. And so we must ask ourselves, should we be calling this "women's healthcare"? Does a business of killing really qualify as healthcare at all? These questions are all that I wish you ponder. Let's have a nice, clean debate. I wish not to attack each other, but rather that we can better each other through learning from this debate.

Politics

Abortion-violates-the-Constitution./1/

I commend your response, Con. It was very well put together. However, I believe that no matter how small, people are people. And that as they can't stand up for themselves, we must protect every life. All life is precious, and every single one should be able to make a difference in the world. In light of the recent Planned Parenthood videos, I have much mistrust in them and think that PP should cease the activities seen in the videos immediately. Unfortunately, most common abortion methods cause intense, long lasting pain, both emotional and physical, to not only the unborn child, but to the mother as well (with the emotional pain only coming to the mother, of course). If we wish to end this pain, we must move away from abortion and towards adoption for mothers that can't support a child. As for the Constitution, no, it does not mention the unborn. However, this makes sense as this was long before anyone even thought about terminating a pregnancy. Before much was known about development of the child while in the womb. As such, I personally believe that under the Constitution, the unborn should be considered people too. Once again, thank you for the great, well-written response.

Xelleld

I commend your response, Con. It was very well put together. However, I believe that no matter how small, people are people. And that as they can't stand up for themselves, we must protect every life. All life is precious, and every single one should be able to make a difference in the world. In light of the recent Planned Parenthood videos, I have much mistrust in them and think that PP should cease the activities seen in the videos immediately. Unfortunately, most common abortion methods cause intense, long lasting pain, both emotional and physical, to not only the unborn child, but to the mother as well (with the emotional pain only coming to the mother, of course). If we wish to end this pain, we must move away from abortion and towards adoption for mothers that can't support a child. As for the Constitution, no, it does not mention the unborn. However, this makes sense as this was long before anyone even thought about terminating a pregnancy. Before much was known about development of the child while in the womb. As such, I personally believe that under the Constitution, the unborn should be considered people too. Once again, thank you for the great, well-written response.

Politics

Abortion-violates-the-Constitution./1/

Since no arguments have been put forth, I am will begin by saying that outlawing abortion is wrong because it robs a woman of her right to control what is done to her body. I also would like to begin with the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States of America believes that outlawing abortion is unconstitutional because it goes against the privacy clause. <URL>...

rogue

Since no arguments have been put forth, I am will begin by saying that outlawing abortion is wrong because it robs a woman of her right to control what is done to her body. I also would like to begin with the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States of America believes that outlawing abortion is unconstitutional because it goes against the privacy clause. http://www.oyez.org...

Health

Abortion/124/

It's not the woman's body, God owns it, but allows the person to control. You do not belong to yourself, you belong to God."- I am not a Christian and do not view this as a rational or valid argument. Even so, we have a strict policy of separation of church and state in the United States of America, so to incorporate that into a lawful decision is unconstitutional. "There should not be death involved for the irresponsibility of the mother. Why does the baby (or fetus) have to die because of the mother's irresponsible and lack of self control."- First of all a woman can still get pregnant even if she uses all recommended protection. So it may not be the case of her being irresponsible. Also, no matter how you try, people are never going to stop having sex when they do not want a baby. It is not just the woman who "cannot control herself" but the man as well. You cannot stop people from having sex when they do not want a baby, so instead of letting millions of unwanted babies who probably won't have very good lives since the amount of children put up for adoption is very low come into the world and suffer, let us keep abortion legal. "In the case of rape, the woman shouldn't kill something innocent because of the actions of the father. Two wrongs don't make a right."- So what if the mother has post-par dom depression because the baby disgusts her since every time she sees it it reminds her of the night that ruined her life? She could easily hate the baby for being sprung from the man that scarred her for life. Is it right that a woman should have to suffer and waste at least three to four months of her life because of someone else's crime? "The mother shouldn't have a choice to abort or keep. The choice should be keep or put up for adoption. This would allow people to become parents and it was shown in a survey that there is a lack of adoptable babies because abortion is legal."- Whoa what? Cite that survey. I do not believe it. At least in other countries there is an absurd amount of orphans who need to be adopted. Even if the United States has a lack of orphans, other countries do not and we can do them a favor by adopted those children instead of adding to the number of unwanted children. Also, studies may be skewed because in the United States, orphans are not called orphans but "wards of the state." "There is no doubt that abortion is murder. If that "fetus" will turn into a human being and have the same characteristics and qualities as you and I, it should be considered living. If you look at studies, a baby has a heartbeat as early as the first month. So, when people normally abort their kids, they are actually killing because whatever has a heartbeat is alive."- This is a really unsupported assertion. The heart sometimes beats for a while after the brain is dead. Also, a heartbeat is not what makes someone worth anything or human. Lots of animals that we kill every day are alive with heartbeats when we kill them. Is our species really what makes us a person and something of worth? I think not. I think you become a person when you develop a personality and people who care about you. That is what gives someone worth. No one cares when a person who has lived in the woods their entire life and never spoken to anyone dies. That fetus might as well be a bunch of cells. In fact, it is a bunch of cells. It is ok to kill an unborn baby if it is not wanted. It is ok to kill an unborn baby if the mother's life would be greatly changed for the worse if it is born. It is ok to kill unborn babies because if we kept all the babies that have been aborted alive, we would not be able to sustain all of the people alive on Earth and almost all of us would suffer and die. "here's an analogy: if I'm a construction worker and I'm going to blow up a building, but I don't know if there's someone alive in there should I still blow it up? There's someone in there that I don't know yet, but I will just blow it up anyways. Does that sound good? Would you do that."- This is really a terrible analogy. First of all if I was a construction worker I could go inside and see if anyone was in there. Second of all with a fetus you know exactly what is in there and I for one do not view it as a person. A construction worker has a family and friends who likely would be very sad if he died. A fetus has no one who will be sad if it dies. Even it won't be sad because it has never felt emotion. It won't feel pain either. Try another analogy. Hahahahaha abortion is not safe. But what about pregnancy? Let's talk about pregnancy. Do you know how much more dangerous pregnancy is? If not here you go: <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... Also, your site cites one study. One related to death after pregnancy. You site also clearly has an agenda whereas mine do not. Most of the deaths related with abortion are because of psychological disorders. No psychologist or behavior scientist will argue that the abortion made them suicidal. For someone to commit suicide or hurt themselves they have to have the capability in them previous to a traumatic event to want to commit such acts. Those women could have hurt or killed themselves for any number of reasons other than the abortion. Correlation does not imply causality. Even so, a woman should also have the right whether or not to take the risks of the abortion. "With all these, abortion should not even be considered safe and should only be considered dangerous and murderous."- Pregnancy is more physically dangerous and just as psychologically dangerous.

rogue

It's not the woman's body, God owns it, but allows the person to control. You do not belong to yourself, you belong to God."- I am not a Christian and do not view this as a rational or valid argument. Even so, we have a strict policy of separation of church and state in the United States of America, so to incorporate that into a lawful decision is unconstitutional. "There should not be death involved for the irresponsibility of the mother. Why does the baby (or fetus) have to die because of the mother's irresponsible and lack of self control."- First of all a woman can still get pregnant even if she uses all recommended protection. So it may not be the case of her being irresponsible. Also, no matter how you try, people are never going to stop having sex when they do not want a baby. It is not just the woman who "cannot control herself" but the man as well. You cannot stop people from having sex when they do not want a baby, so instead of letting millions of unwanted babies who probably won't have very good lives since the amount of children put up for adoption is very low come into the world and suffer, let us keep abortion legal. "In the case of rape, the woman shouldn't kill something innocent because of the actions of the father. Two wrongs don't make a right."- So what if the mother has post-par dom depression because the baby disgusts her since every time she sees it it reminds her of the night that ruined her life? She could easily hate the baby for being sprung from the man that scarred her for life. Is it right that a woman should have to suffer and waste at least three to four months of her life because of someone else's crime? "The mother shouldn't have a choice to abort or keep. The choice should be keep or put up for adoption. This would allow people to become parents and it was shown in a survey that there is a lack of adoptable babies because abortion is legal."- Whoa what? Cite that survey. I do not believe it. At least in other countries there is an absurd amount of orphans who need to be adopted. Even if the United States has a lack of orphans, other countries do not and we can do them a favor by adopted those children instead of adding to the number of unwanted children. Also, studies may be skewed because in the United States, orphans are not called orphans but "wards of the state." "There is no doubt that abortion is murder. If that "fetus" will turn into a human being and have the same characteristics and qualities as you and I, it should be considered living. If you look at studies, a baby has a heartbeat as early as the first month. So, when people normally abort their kids, they are actually killing because whatever has a heartbeat is alive."- This is a really unsupported assertion. The heart sometimes beats for a while after the brain is dead. Also, a heartbeat is not what makes someone worth anything or human. Lots of animals that we kill every day are alive with heartbeats when we kill them. Is our species really what makes us a person and something of worth? I think not. I think you become a person when you develop a personality and people who care about you. That is what gives someone worth. No one cares when a person who has lived in the woods their entire life and never spoken to anyone dies. That fetus might as well be a bunch of cells. In fact, it is a bunch of cells. It is ok to kill an unborn baby if it is not wanted. It is ok to kill an unborn baby if the mother's life would be greatly changed for the worse if it is born. It is ok to kill unborn babies because if we kept all the babies that have been aborted alive, we would not be able to sustain all of the people alive on Earth and almost all of us would suffer and die. "here's an analogy: if I'm a construction worker and I'm going to blow up a building, but I don't know if there's someone alive in there should I still blow it up? There's someone in there that I don't know yet, but I will just blow it up anyways. Does that sound good? Would you do that."- This is really a terrible analogy. First of all if I was a construction worker I could go inside and see if anyone was in there. Second of all with a fetus you know exactly what is in there and I for one do not view it as a person. A construction worker has a family and friends who likely would be very sad if he died. A fetus has no one who will be sad if it dies. Even it won't be sad because it has never felt emotion. It won't feel pain either. Try another analogy. Hahahahaha abortion is not safe. But what about pregnancy? Let's talk about pregnancy. Do you know how much more dangerous pregnancy is? If not here you go: http://www.americanpregnancy.org... http://www.babycenter.com... http://www.womenshealth.gov... http://www.cdc.gov... Also, your site cites one study. One related to death after pregnancy. You site also clearly has an agenda whereas mine do not. Most of the deaths related with abortion are because of psychological disorders. No psychologist or behavior scientist will argue that the abortion made them suicidal. For someone to commit suicide or hurt themselves they have to have the capability in them previous to a traumatic event to want to commit such acts. Those women could have hurt or killed themselves for any number of reasons other than the abortion. Correlation does not imply causality. Even so, a woman should also have the right whether or not to take the risks of the abortion. "With all these, abortion should not even be considered safe and should only be considered dangerous and murderous."- Pregnancy is more physically dangerous and just as psychologically dangerous.

Health

Abortion/124/

"Yes, a woman can get pregnant even if she does all the safety requirements and I'm not saying you shouldn't have sex unless it's for a baby. I'm saying that there is birth control for a reason that works 99% of the time. So the mother is irresponsible. If she can pay $1000 to get her baby killed, she can spend less than that to simply avoid a pregnancy."- The point is that it only works that way in theory. My friend's parents got pregnant twice using birth control and condoms. Some people are more fertile than others. Is it ok to punish those who are responsible and still have a bad outcome? As for a lot of unwanted children. Here are my citations.: <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... There are clearly a lot of unwanted, unadopted children in the world. If you want to prove me otherwise, you will have to cite it. It is the most serious in Africa because of the AIDS crisis as you can see by my last couple of citations. Also according to my sources there is no lack of children up for adoption. "If there was so many "unwanted" babies, why on Earth would someone travel to different countries after waiting five years or more to receive a child and by the way, the trip costs thousands of dollars and this is not including the fees to adopt. I was adopted from China. If there were people who didn't want to adopt I would be in China right now and Steve Jobs would not have created Mac."- Because they know that the need is greater in those countries because those children have lives that are not nearly as good as our wards of the state. "Other countries take care of their own problems. Why help other countries when they can help themselves."- Except they cannot help themselves because they are poor third world countries who are worse off than we are. "There is no doubt that I feel bad for raped women, but which is better? Murder or rape?"- Under the law it is not defined as murder. Many people do not view it as murder. Until you can prove that abortion is truly murder under the law, which it isn't, that point is invalid. "The woman can hate the kid all she wants, but if she gives it up for adoption, then she won't have to look at it, love it, or care for it for the rest of her life because someone else will do that."- Ok but you are also forgetting about post-pardom depression, the nine months of her life she is wasting, and the hatred she could feel for the thing growing inside her. "She was part of the crime, she was victim so now she must take responsibility and not put it on something that had no part in the rape in the first place. Why kill something innocent for a crime that the father committed."- You sound as if you are partially blaming her for being apart of a monstrosity she could not stop. She had no part in the rape either so why should she be punished let alone something that doesn't think or feel or have anyone who cares about it? "Also, rape will stay with her no matter what. It's something that scars someone emotionally. Aborting the kid won't make it any better."- It is not necessarily true that it will not make it better. She will not have to waste nine months on a baby born out of a monstrosity that is part of the monster that raped her. She also won't have to risk her life and her well-being to bring in into the world. "It's almost like someone's kid who got ran over by a car and survived with much physical damage. Should the parent kill their child because it pains them to see their child in a helpless estate? Should the parent decide that instead of dealing with it like a mature adult, they'll just kill the child because it makes them hate the driver every time they look at the kid? You're almost saying the same thing."- First of all you have no right to say that a woman who has problems dealing with being raped is not being a mature adult. As if that is something that is easy to get through. It isn't like your analogy at all. First of all the kid in this situation is not the child of someone who scarred the parent for life. Secondly the child has become a person by developing a personality and people who care about it. People care about the child run over by the car. No one cares about a fetus. And for the record we do kill those who are in a helpless state and will never recover. Pulling the plug on vegetables is totally legal. "Why, if a heartbeat is not so important, do we do CPR and check for heartbeats when someone is knocked unconscious or is dying? We do it to see if they are alive. This is the same. We check fro heartbeats to see if a person's living, then the "fetus" must be living if it has one. The fetus is a baby."- So just because something is alive makes it worth saving? We don't seem to think so in cases of vegetables and animals. I never said the fetus was not alive, I said that it wasn't a person. It has never been the case in terms of laws and in society that something is worth saving just because it is alive. "No child is unwanted so there is no reason to kill it. Steve Jobs could have been aborted, but made a computer most people use today. Steve Jobs was adopted and obviously wanted by someone."- A baby is wanted by many people yes. But there are more babies that need homes than people who want babies making those who do not get adopted unwanted children. "Some of my best friends were adopted and in one situation, it was either my friend get aborted or a divorce. She is the greatest friend I have. So really I care a lot because just think, if they were aborted, all of my friends wouldn't be here and neither would I. Don't you know anyone adopted that you love? They could have been aborted, but their parents decided to make the right choice."- It isn't as if we would not have any more children to adopt if abortion wer illegal. In many countries people cannot get abortions. Some people cannot bring themselves to get an abortion. Others don't have the money. But it should be that person's choice as to whether or not they want to get an abortion. You cannot honestly say that you care about every aborted baby. Do you honestly feel that much pain knowing that those fetuses are getting aborted every day? Even if you friends were aborted, you would have developed other friends that you likely would love just as much. You only feel pain because of their absence because you know them. Had they been aborted, you wouldn't know them and therefore would not feel pain at their absence. "Ok. Fine, a lot can go wrong with a pregnancy, but that's what doctors are for. Doctors are supposed to be saving lives, not ending them through abortion. If the mother is going through complications, then doctors are there to help. A lot of things can wrong in anything you do. "- And DOCTORS save the lives of the mother by giving them an abortion. The mother can still die from pregnancy even with doctors. With an abortion she doesn't even have to risk her life. Painkillers are dangerous too. It is a much better health decision for the mother to get an abortion and put her life and well-being at less risk. The mother should be the priority because she is a person who feels pain while the fetus is not. I look forward to your citations.

rogue

"Yes, a woman can get pregnant even if she does all the safety requirements and I'm not saying you shouldn't have sex unless it's for a baby. I'm saying that there is birth control for a reason that works 99% of the time. So the mother is irresponsible. If she can pay $1000 to get her baby killed, she can spend less than that to simply avoid a pregnancy."- The point is that it only works that way in theory. My friend's parents got pregnant twice using birth control and condoms. Some people are more fertile than others. Is it ok to punish those who are responsible and still have a bad outcome? As for a lot of unwanted children. Here are my citations.: http://abbafund.wordpress.com... http://www.numberof.net... http://www.unicef.org... http://www.worldorphans.org... http://www.adoptuskids.org... http://blog.childtrends.org... http://www.howtoadopt.org... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.unicef.org... http://earthtrends.wri.org... http://www.un.org... There are clearly a lot of unwanted, unadopted children in the world. If you want to prove me otherwise, you will have to cite it. It is the most serious in Africa because of the AIDS crisis as you can see by my last couple of citations. Also according to my sources there is no lack of children up for adoption. "If there was so many "unwanted" babies, why on Earth would someone travel to different countries after waiting five years or more to receive a child and by the way, the trip costs thousands of dollars and this is not including the fees to adopt. I was adopted from China. If there were people who didn't want to adopt I would be in China right now and Steve Jobs would not have created Mac."- Because they know that the need is greater in those countries because those children have lives that are not nearly as good as our wards of the state. "Other countries take care of their own problems. Why help other countries when they can help themselves."- Except they cannot help themselves because they are poor third world countries who are worse off than we are. "There is no doubt that I feel bad for raped women, but which is better? Murder or rape?"- Under the law it is not defined as murder. Many people do not view it as murder. Until you can prove that abortion is truly murder under the law, which it isn't, that point is invalid. "The woman can hate the kid all she wants, but if she gives it up for adoption, then she won't have to look at it, love it, or care for it for the rest of her life because someone else will do that."- Ok but you are also forgetting about post-pardom depression, the nine months of her life she is wasting, and the hatred she could feel for the thing growing inside her. "She was part of the crime, she was victim so now she must take responsibility and not put it on something that had no part in the rape in the first place. Why kill something innocent for a crime that the father committed."- You sound as if you are partially blaming her for being apart of a monstrosity she could not stop. She had no part in the rape either so why should she be punished let alone something that doesn't think or feel or have anyone who cares about it? "Also, rape will stay with her no matter what. It's something that scars someone emotionally. Aborting the kid won't make it any better."- It is not necessarily true that it will not make it better. She will not have to waste nine months on a baby born out of a monstrosity that is part of the monster that raped her. She also won't have to risk her life and her well-being to bring in into the world. "It's almost like someone's kid who got ran over by a car and survived with much physical damage. Should the parent kill their child because it pains them to see their child in a helpless estate? Should the parent decide that instead of dealing with it like a mature adult, they'll just kill the child because it makes them hate the driver every time they look at the kid? You're almost saying the same thing."- First of all you have no right to say that a woman who has problems dealing with being raped is not being a mature adult. As if that is something that is easy to get through. It isn't like your analogy at all. First of all the kid in this situation is not the child of someone who scarred the parent for life. Secondly the child has become a person by developing a personality and people who care about it. People care about the child run over by the car. No one cares about a fetus. And for the record we do kill those who are in a helpless state and will never recover. Pulling the plug on vegetables is totally legal. "Why, if a heartbeat is not so important, do we do CPR and check for heartbeats when someone is knocked unconscious or is dying? We do it to see if they are alive. This is the same. We check fro heartbeats to see if a person's living, then the "fetus" must be living if it has one. The fetus is a baby."- So just because something is alive makes it worth saving? We don't seem to think so in cases of vegetables and animals. I never said the fetus was not alive, I said that it wasn't a person. It has never been the case in terms of laws and in society that something is worth saving just because it is alive. "No child is unwanted so there is no reason to kill it. Steve Jobs could have been aborted, but made a computer most people use today. Steve Jobs was adopted and obviously wanted by someone."- A baby is wanted by many people yes. But there are more babies that need homes than people who want babies making those who do not get adopted unwanted children. "Some of my best friends were adopted and in one situation, it was either my friend get aborted or a divorce. She is the greatest friend I have. So really I care a lot because just think, if they were aborted, all of my friends wouldn't be here and neither would I. Don't you know anyone adopted that you love? They could have been aborted, but their parents decided to make the right choice."- It isn't as if we would not have any more children to adopt if abortion wer illegal. In many countries people cannot get abortions. Some people cannot bring themselves to get an abortion. Others don't have the money. But it should be that person's choice as to whether or not they want to get an abortion. You cannot honestly say that you care about every aborted baby. Do you honestly feel that much pain knowing that those fetuses are getting aborted every day? Even if you friends were aborted, you would have developed other friends that you likely would love just as much. You only feel pain because of their absence because you know them. Had they been aborted, you wouldn't know them and therefore would not feel pain at their absence. "Ok. Fine, a lot can go wrong with a pregnancy, but that's what doctors are for. Doctors are supposed to be saving lives, not ending them through abortion. If the mother is going through complications, then doctors are there to help. A lot of things can wrong in anything you do. "- And DOCTORS save the lives of the mother by giving them an abortion. The mother can still die from pregnancy even with doctors. With an abortion she doesn't even have to risk her life. Painkillers are dangerous too. It is a much better health decision for the mother to get an abortion and put her life and well-being at less risk. The mother should be the priority because she is a person who feels pain while the fetus is not. I look forward to your citations.

Health

Abortion/124/

You ask why one doesn't just carry out the terms and have the baby? I have explained why many times. Pregnancy is dangerous physically and psychologically. It also can ruin opportunities for the mother that she may never have again. We are going in circles. You aren't punishing the fetus. The fetus was not supposed to have existed. It feels absolutely no pain whereas a mother while the mother feels a lot of physical and psychological pain because of a pregnancy that she did not want. "Yes, there are many unadopted children in the world, but they're not unwanted. If they were unwanted, no child would be adopted because no one would want to adopt and we would billions of kids running around parentless."- Ugh I just explained this. The number of children adopted is not even close to the number of children who are not adopted. This makes them unwanted. Whether or not they are unwanted is really irrelevant. The fact is that we have too many children who have no home and family and we should not be adding to that number. "Yes, there are many people in other countries, but I don't think you realize that there are people in those countries who want to adopt from that country. How many people really adopt internationally from the U.S.? Not many because they take care of their own country."- First of all that last bit didn't even make sense. Secondly This is all irrelevant. I REALIZE PEOPLE WANT TO ADOPT IN ALL COUNTRIES FROM ALL COUNTRIES. I THOUGHT THAT WAS CLEAR FROM THE BEGINNING. STOP SAYING THAT. The fact of the matter is that the number of children not being adopted far outweighs the number that are. Until there are not enough children up for adoption, I cannot take your argument seriously. "This is a little outdated, but still shows that adoption rates have gone up showing how many kids are wanted. The U.S. is not on that top 20 list because while we are trying to improve other countries, we are not improving ourselves. Other countries don't really adopt our children, but we feel the need to go and adopt from other countries. I'm not saying that adopting from other countries is a bad thing, I'm just saying we should start taking care of our citizens first. Other countries, however, do have good things about them. For example: China is a great country. Ever been there? It has a lot of the same things America has. We have poverty, so do they. There are farmers there, we have farmers. There are orphans there, there are orphans here. We are very much alike except population wise." Um no. China is actually very different from the U.S. culturally and yes I have been there BUT THIS IS ALL COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. "Not all countries are poor. Some are, but the countries we adopt from most of the time are doing just fine on their own."- Obviously I know not all countries are poor. For the record most countries in the world are in debt right now. I was obviously talking about the third world countries in Africa and South America which your source clearly shows as a popular place to adopt from. Even so IT'S STILL COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. "There are people who care about the fetus or baby. That's why people keep their child, because they care."- Correction. The people that keep the baby care about THEIR fetus and that is fine. But if the mother does not care about the fetus she should have the choice to abort it. I am sorry you have problems making friends but I assure you you would make friends even if they were aborted. You are still young and growing and maturing and you will probably get a lot more friends later in life. "Not every dies when they become pregnant. There can be problems, but that is where doctors come in. Did I mention how many health problems can go wrong with abortion? It's the same amount or more and most of the time,"- Ugh. I proved that wrong in the previous arguments. Abortion is much safer than pregnancy. "people don't go and commit suicide because they become pregnant and bear their child. They commit suicide because they feel guilty about killing their own kid."- I beg to differ. I already explained that people who commit suicide don't do it because of one single event such as an abortion. They most already have developed a mental disorder. Abortion does not cause suicide. Plus as I said before, correlation does not prove causation. There is no proof that those women committed suicide because of the abortion. We are going in circles. On the other hand pregnancy can cause post pardom depression which can lead to suicide which I cited in previous arguments. "No, but at least give the "fetus" a chance to live."- No. Not when the fetus completely messes up a woman's life. "By the way I take it, you believe the fetus is alive. So, whenever you take away life, it's killing. What else would you call it? That's my question."- Sure it is killing by definition. Just as I can KILL a fly or a couple skin cells. The point is that it is not murder.

rogue

You ask why one doesn't just carry out the terms and have the baby? I have explained why many times. Pregnancy is dangerous physically and psychologically. It also can ruin opportunities for the mother that she may never have again. We are going in circles. You aren't punishing the fetus. The fetus was not supposed to have existed. It feels absolutely no pain whereas a mother while the mother feels a lot of physical and psychological pain because of a pregnancy that she did not want. "Yes, there are many unadopted children in the world, but they're not unwanted. If they were unwanted, no child would be adopted because no one would want to adopt and we would billions of kids running around parentless."- Ugh I just explained this. The number of children adopted is not even close to the number of children who are not adopted. This makes them unwanted. Whether or not they are unwanted is really irrelevant. The fact is that we have too many children who have no home and family and we should not be adding to that number. "Yes, there are many people in other countries, but I don't think you realize that there are people in those countries who want to adopt from that country. How many people really adopt internationally from the U.S.? Not many because they take care of their own country."- First of all that last bit didn't even make sense. Secondly This is all irrelevant. I REALIZE PEOPLE WANT TO ADOPT IN ALL COUNTRIES FROM ALL COUNTRIES. I THOUGHT THAT WAS CLEAR FROM THE BEGINNING. STOP SAYING THAT. The fact of the matter is that the number of children not being adopted far outweighs the number that are. Until there are not enough children up for adoption, I cannot take your argument seriously. "This is a little outdated, but still shows that adoption rates have gone up showing how many kids are wanted. The U.S. is not on that top 20 list because while we are trying to improve other countries, we are not improving ourselves. Other countries don't really adopt our children, but we feel the need to go and adopt from other countries. I'm not saying that adopting from other countries is a bad thing, I'm just saying we should start taking care of our citizens first. Other countries, however, do have good things about them. For example: China is a great country. Ever been there? It has a lot of the same things America has. We have poverty, so do they. There are farmers there, we have farmers. There are orphans there, there are orphans here. We are very much alike except population wise." Um no. China is actually very different from the U.S. culturally and yes I have been there BUT THIS IS ALL COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. "Not all countries are poor. Some are, but the countries we adopt from most of the time are doing just fine on their own."- Obviously I know not all countries are poor. For the record most countries in the world are in debt right now. I was obviously talking about the third world countries in Africa and South America which your source clearly shows as a popular place to adopt from. Even so IT'S STILL COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. "There are people who care about the fetus or baby. That's why people keep their child, because they care."- Correction. The people that keep the baby care about THEIR fetus and that is fine. But if the mother does not care about the fetus she should have the choice to abort it. I am sorry you have problems making friends but I assure you you would make friends even if they were aborted. You are still young and growing and maturing and you will probably get a lot more friends later in life. "Not every dies when they become pregnant. There can be problems, but that is where doctors come in. Did I mention how many health problems can go wrong with abortion? It's the same amount or more and most of the time,"- Ugh. I proved that wrong in the previous arguments. Abortion is much safer than pregnancy. "people don't go and commit suicide because they become pregnant and bear their child. They commit suicide because they feel guilty about killing their own kid."- I beg to differ. I already explained that people who commit suicide don't do it because of one single event such as an abortion. They most already have developed a mental disorder. Abortion does not cause suicide. Plus as I said before, correlation does not prove causation. There is no proof that those women committed suicide because of the abortion. We are going in circles. On the other hand pregnancy can cause post pardom depression which can lead to suicide which I cited in previous arguments. "No, but at least give the "fetus" a chance to live."- No. Not when the fetus completely messes up a woman's life. "By the way I take it, you believe the fetus is alive. So, whenever you take away life, it's killing. What else would you call it? That's my question."- Sure it is killing by definition. Just as I can KILL a fly or a couple skin cells. The point is that it is not murder.

Health

Abortion/124/

First of all if it is wrong to kill anything with a heartbeat, as the article states, then is it murder when we kill vegetables that would still have a heartbeat and still be alive were we not to pull the plug? That is legal. Not to mention that Con never refuted my Roe vs Wade argument since abortion is really a legal issue, and the Supreme Court says that it is unconstitutional to outlaw abortion. As for the health risks, I have made it clear that pregnancy is a much more dangerous option psychologically and physically. As for "no unwanted children," I have also shown that while they are not "unwanted" necessarily, the number of children not adopted far outweighs the number that are, and there is no good reason we should add to that number. I am not going to even watch the video. Con has not provided any evidence that has not been refuted. She has refused to refute some of my arguments. Clearly Con has just kept asserting the same arguments over and over even when they has been refuted. Vote Pro.

rogue

First of all if it is wrong to kill anything with a heartbeat, as the article states, then is it murder when we kill vegetables that would still have a heartbeat and still be alive were we not to pull the plug? That is legal. Not to mention that Con never refuted my Roe vs Wade argument since abortion is really a legal issue, and the Supreme Court says that it is unconstitutional to outlaw abortion. As for the health risks, I have made it clear that pregnancy is a much more dangerous option psychologically and physically. As for "no unwanted children," I have also shown that while they are not "unwanted" necessarily, the number of children not adopted far outweighs the number that are, and there is no good reason we should add to that number. I am not going to even watch the video. Con has not provided any evidence that has not been refuted. She has refused to refute some of my arguments. Clearly Con has just kept asserting the same arguments over and over even when they has been refuted. Vote Pro.

Health

Abortion/124/

You said you would like to accept if I made the time to argue longer, someone has already accepted, but if you would like to debate with me about this situation I have increased it to 24 hours. If you would like me to increase it more, than comment and I will do so.

justsayin

You said you would like to accept if I made the time to argue longer, someone has already accepted, but if you would like to debate with me about this situation I have increased it to 24 hours. If you would like me to increase it more, than comment and I will do so.

Health

Abortion/166/

Yes, abortion IS that definition. However, it is a fetus, it is not yet a baby. Will it continue on to become a human being? Yes. But this is not killing a human being. It is getting rid of the fetus BEFORE it turns into a human being fully. If someone is against this simply because it is getting rid of something BEFORE it turns into a human being, this said person should also be against other things such as masturbation. This is the same thing, it kills sperm cells. Sperm cells which would become a human being. So are these the same things? Or is one okay and the other not? Also, while I will agree that abortion because someone does not use protection is wrong, in the cases that said protection fails or this person is raped.. should abortion not be an option? Sure you could put the child up for adoption, but will the child not face more emotion damage due to their own parents giving them away? If the woman does NOT want the child, why not let her make that decision? No one else should choose except for the woman carrying the child. It is her body, let her do with it as she wants.

justsayin

Yes, abortion IS that definition. However, it is a fetus, it is not yet a baby. Will it continue on to become a human being? Yes. But this is not killing a human being. It is getting rid of the fetus BEFORE it turns into a human being fully. If someone is against this simply because it is getting rid of something BEFORE it turns into a human being, this said person should also be against other things such as masturbation. This is the same thing, it kills sperm cells. Sperm cells which would become a human being. So are these the same things? Or is one okay and the other not? Also, while I will agree that abortion because someone does not use protection is wrong, in the cases that said protection fails or this person is raped.. should abortion not be an option? Sure you could put the child up for adoption, but will the child not face more emotion damage due to their own parents giving them away? If the woman does NOT want the child, why not let her make that decision? No one else should choose except for the woman carrying the child. It is her body, let her do with it as she wants.

Health

Abortion/166/

Kill the fetus, save the mother.

IncredulousVessel

Kill the fetus, save the mother.

Health

Abortion/192/

A full grown woman's power of will if far superior to that of a fetus, which by the way doesn't have a fully functional brain until it's a fully developed embryo. It will be born to a mother who doesn't want it, probably be thrown out and grow in foster care begging to be adopted and probably will be adopted by an infertile couple who take their anger out at the world by abusing it. Neglected babies tend to grow up to be harsh criminals <URL>... The baby will grow up to be a mother or father themselves and then take their anger out at the world by abusing the baby and the cycle will continue. The mother is a beautiful, amazing and undeniably valid being in our society for she is about to add to the overpopulation of the Earth as it is. <URL>... You are forcing many mothers to DIE at childbirth! <URL>... How DARE you be so immoral. Kill the baby, save the world!

IncredulousVessel

A full grown woman's power of will if far superior to that of a fetus, which by the way doesn't have a fully functional brain until it's a fully developed embryo. It will be born to a mother who doesn't want it, probably be thrown out and grow in foster care begging to be adopted and probably will be adopted by an infertile couple who take their anger out at the world by abusing it. Neglected babies tend to grow up to be harsh criminals http://www.theage.com.au... The baby will grow up to be a mother or father themselves and then take their anger out at the world by abusing the baby and the cycle will continue. The mother is a beautiful, amazing and undeniably valid being in our society for she is about to add to the overpopulation of the Earth as it is. http://www.overpopulation.org... You are forcing many mothers to DIE at childbirth! http://www.philly.com... How DARE you be so immoral. Kill the baby, save the world!

Health

Abortion/192/

Rebuttal 1 "The babies are scraped up and get there legs torn off during an abortin [sic] or a [sic] killed by poisons." "The posions [sic] can mess with the mothers [sic] body." "The sucking up scraping and removing of the baby can cause significant damage to the mother." "The mother can have permanent damage to her uterus causing her to never have the ability to have children." False as a solid diarrhea. Abortion doesn't involve any of this nonsense! LOOK HERE: <URL>... "There are two methods for performing an abortion: medical and surgical. In medical abortions , the fetus is expelled when an abortifacient , or abortion-inducing substance, is administered. Abortifacients have a long history; since the time of Ancient Greece, women have tried to induce an abortion by swallowing a mix of herbs or plants. However, the drugs used to induce to induce a medical abortion are fairly new, having only been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2000. The regimen approved by the FDA is 600 milligrams of mifepristone followed by 400 micrograms of misoprostol . The administration of mifepristone, which is taken orally, takes place in a clinic under medical supervision. Mifepristone, also known as RU-486, blocks the hormone progesterone, which is essential to the build-up of the uterine lining that will support the embryo in the womb. The dose of this drug causes the lining to break down, and bleeding similar to a menstrual period occurs. About three or four days later, once the lining is weakened, misoprostol is administered. Some doctors require that patients return to the clinic for the misoprostol dose, while others allow women to take misoprostol in their own homes. The FDA approved oral use of misoprostol, though some women have been advised to administer the dose as a vaginal suppository. The vaginal method has been linked with several deaths because the delivery method suppresses some of the body's natural immune responses. Misoprostol causes uterine contractions to begin, and the contents of the uterus are expelled in a process very similar to that of miscarriage. Bleeding can last up to two weeks. Because a medical abortion ends much like a miscarriage, the possible side effects are very similar; the woman may experience nausea, vomiting or diarrhea. There are more serious complications. Excessive bleeding can occur if a uterine muscle ruptures, or the cervix could become blocked if all of the tissue and blood is not expelled. However, medical abortions are effective 95 to 98 percent of the time when done in the first nine weeks of pregnancy. If the medical abortion fails, or if a woman is past the ninth week of pregnancy, then a surgical abortion will be performed. We'll cover that procedure on the next page." What do we notice? NO SCRAPING UP OF BABIES OR TEARING OF LEGS! NO POISONS! PROFESSIONAL DOCTORS APPROVE OF IT AS 100% SAFE AND WORTHY OF USE IN MEDICAL PRACTISE PRO IS A LIAR Rebuttal 2 "children are a gift of god and by someone choosing to get an abortion you are disobeying god and are sinning deeply." Who is god? God: used for emphasis or to express emotions such as surprise, anger, or distress. <URL>... What is sinning? Sinning: offend against (God, a person, or a principle). <URL>... ? I do not think babies and children come from a mere emphasis of emotion and I don't think I have to obey my emotions! I shall not obey this god! The best heroes in history were sinners! Look at Albert Einstein who failed all his exams but broke the traditional principle of giving up after failing! <URL>... Rebuttal 3 "It is said that abrotions [sic] can cause pain to a fetus." Fetuses can't feel pain! <URL>... Rebuttal 4 "Did i [sic] mention that having an abortin [sic] can cause damage to a mother." Learn to use question marks. Only when it's illegal and people have to use backstreet methods. <URL>... Rebuttal 5 "9 out 10 people who get an abortion regret it and are pressured into by there significant other." False. Rebuttal 6 "1.2 million babies are aborted every year. Those are 1.2 million lives that could of helped make a difference in the world today." As I said in round 2, they are very likely to be criminals. "It will be born to a mother who doesn't want it, probably be thrown out and grow in foster care begging to be adopted and probably will be adopted by an infertile couple who take their anger out at the world by abusing it. Neglected babies tend to grow up to be harsh criminals <URL>... " Rebuttal 7 "An abortin [sic] can also cause death to a mother by how far into there prgenancy [sic] they decide to get one." LOL THIS IS SO FALSE. It only happens when it's DONE WRONG! Rebuttal 8 "Don't have sex if you know the risks" What risks are there if there is abortion? NONE! Rebuttal 9 "If you have been raped it doesnt [sic] mean you abort the baby." Wrong. False. Incorrect. No evidence. Failure to humanity.

IncredulousVessel

Rebuttal 1 "The babies are scraped up and get there legs torn off during an abortin [sic] or a [sic] killed by poisons." "The posions [sic] can mess with the mothers [sic] body." "The sucking up scraping and removing of the baby can cause significant damage to the mother." "The mother can have permanent damage to her uterus causing her to never have the ability to have children." False as a solid diarrhea. Abortion doesn't involve any of this nonsense! LOOK HERE: http://people.howstuffworks.com... "There are two methods for performing an abortion: medical and surgical. In medical abortions , the fetus is expelled when an abortifacient , or abortion-inducing substance, is administered. Abortifacients have a long history; since the time of Ancient Greece, women have tried to induce an abortion by swallowing a mix of herbs or plants. However, the drugs used to induce to induce a medical abortion are fairly new, having only been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2000. The regimen approved by the FDA is 600 milligrams of mifepristone followed by 400 micrograms of misoprostol . The administration of mifepristone, which is taken orally, takes place in a clinic under medical supervision. Mifepristone, also known as RU-486, blocks the hormone progesterone, which is essential to the build-up of the uterine lining that will support the embryo in the womb. The dose of this drug causes the lining to break down, and bleeding similar to a menstrual period occurs. About three or four days later, once the lining is weakened, misoprostol is administered. Some doctors require that patients return to the clinic for the misoprostol dose, while others allow women to take misoprostol in their own homes. The FDA approved oral use of misoprostol, though some women have been advised to administer the dose as a vaginal suppository. The vaginal method has been linked with several deaths because the delivery method suppresses some of the body's natural immune responses. Misoprostol causes uterine contractions to begin, and the contents of the uterus are expelled in a process very similar to that of miscarriage. Bleeding can last up to two weeks. Because a medical abortion ends much like a miscarriage, the possible side effects are very similar; the woman may experience nausea, vomiting or diarrhea. There are more serious complications. Excessive bleeding can occur if a uterine muscle ruptures, or the cervix could become blocked if all of the tissue and blood is not expelled. However, medical abortions are effective 95 to 98 percent of the time when done in the first nine weeks of pregnancy. If the medical abortion fails, or if a woman is past the ninth week of pregnancy, then a surgical abortion will be performed. We'll cover that procedure on the next page." What do we notice? NO SCRAPING UP OF BABIES OR TEARING OF LEGS! NO POISONS! PROFESSIONAL DOCTORS APPROVE OF IT AS 100% SAFE AND WORTHY OF USE IN MEDICAL PRACTISE PRO IS A LIAR Rebuttal 2 "children are a gift of god and by someone choosing to get an abortion you are disobeying god and are sinning deeply." Who is god? God: used for emphasis or to express emotions such as surprise, anger, or distress. http://oxforddictionaries.com... What is sinning? Sinning: offend against (God, a person, or a principle). http://oxforddictionaries.com... ? I do not think babies and children come from a mere emphasis of emotion and I don't think I have to obey my emotions! I shall not obey this god! The best heroes in history were sinners! Look at Albert Einstein who failed all his exams but broke the traditional principle of giving up after failing! http://www.wired.com... Rebuttal 3 "It is said that abrotions [sic] can cause pain to a fetus." Fetuses can't feel pain! http://www.thedailybeast.com... Rebuttal 4 "Did i [sic] mention that having an abortin [sic] can cause damage to a mother." Learn to use question marks. Only when it's illegal and people have to use backstreet methods. http://www.spuc.org.uk... Rebuttal 5 "9 out 10 people who get an abortion regret it and are pressured into by there significant other." False. Rebuttal 6 "1.2 million babies are aborted every year. Those are 1.2 million lives that could of helped make a difference in the world today." As I said in round 2, they are very likely to be criminals. "It will be born to a mother who doesn't want it, probably be thrown out and grow in foster care begging to be adopted and probably will be adopted by an infertile couple who take their anger out at the world by abusing it. Neglected babies tend to grow up to be harsh criminals http://www.theage.com.au... " Rebuttal 7 "An abortin [sic] can also cause death to a mother by how far into there prgenancy [sic] they decide to get one." LOL THIS IS SO FALSE. It only happens when it's DONE WRONG! Rebuttal 8 "Don't have sex if you know the risks" What risks are there if there is abortion? NONE! Rebuttal 9 "If you have been raped it doesnt [sic] mean you abort the baby." Wrong. False. Incorrect. No evidence. Failure to humanity.

Health

Abortion/192/

Look, to start this off, I would like the Con to know that I myself do not believe in abortion. But the one thing I do believe in is the freedom of choice. I'm not sure what religion the Con believes in, but the God of Christianity would not want women's freedom of choice taken away over such an issue. I know for sure though, that if your amendment rights were taken from you, that you would get a little angry. (Who wouldn't, though?) For one, abortion is not always because a teen girl has unprotected sex. Though that is a contributor, it is not the leading cause for abortion. When thinking about abortion, you also have to consider those who were raped. And no, people don't get chose to get raped. Should a woman have to pay the price if SHE is the victim?? Another thought, if abortion was passed as illegal, then all the abortion clinics would be closed, leaving the women seeking abortion to call for desperate measures. Don't be surprised if "DIY Abortion for Dummies" is established if abortion was to be made illegal. My main point is to show the Con that I can understand what point she's looking from, but that she also has to look from other point of views as well. The God of Heaven wants everyone to have the freedom of choice, even if they make the wrong choice; without that choice, we're all just robots following the Lord. Even if you don't believe in a God, you can see what's morally wrong with abortion, but just take a turn at the tables and look at it another way. Maybe you'll see things just a little differently.

CentristX

Look, to start this off, I would like the Con to know that I myself do not believe in abortion. But the one thing I do believe in is the freedom of choice. I'm not sure what religion the Con believes in, but the God of Christianity would not want women's freedom of choice taken away over such an issue. I know for sure though, that if your amendment rights were taken from you, that you would get a little angry. (Who wouldn't, though?) For one, abortion is not always because a teen girl has unprotected sex. Though that is a contributor, it is not the leading cause for abortion. When thinking about abortion, you also have to consider those who were raped. And no, people don't get chose to get raped. Should a woman have to pay the price if SHE is the victim?? Another thought, if abortion was passed as illegal, then all the abortion clinics would be closed, leaving the women seeking abortion to call for desperate measures. Don't be surprised if "DIY Abortion for Dummies" is established if abortion was to be made illegal. My main point is to show the Con that I can understand what point she's looking from, but that she also has to look from other point of views as well. The God of Heaven wants everyone to have the freedom of choice, even if they make the wrong choice; without that choice, we're all just robots following the Lord. Even if you don't believe in a God, you can see what's morally wrong with abortion, but just take a turn at the tables and look at it another way. Maybe you'll see things just a little differently.

Health

Abortion/231/

Con, I see where you are coming from. But not all women want to go through that discomfort and pain that you speak of. That's why abortion clinics offer pre-abortion counseling; to help the woman make sure that she is making the decision she actually wants. But what I mainly argue here is choice. It's not yours or my choice if "so and so" wants to have an abortion. It's also not our duty to make them feel bad about it, either. Unfortunately though, abortion is just an option that some women want to take, and if that is their choice, we should leave it open to them. I enjoyed this debate with Con, and I give my thanks to her.

CentristX

Con, I see where you are coming from. But not all women want to go through that discomfort and pain that you speak of. That's why abortion clinics offer pre-abortion counseling; to help the woman make sure that she is making the decision she actually wants. But what I mainly argue here is choice. It's not yours or my choice if "so and so" wants to have an abortion. It's also not our duty to make them feel bad about it, either. Unfortunately though, abortion is just an option that some women want to take, and if that is their choice, we should leave it open to them. I enjoyed this debate with Con, and I give my thanks to her.

Health

Abortion/231/

Abortion shouldn't be legal. If someone has unprotected sex they should have to deal with the consequences. If you wouldn't kill a newborn baby, you shouldn't kill an unborn baby. If anything it should be illegal, people should be punished. It can also have very serious side effects that teenage girls are often not told about such as: cancer, the inability to have children or even death.

ahammer

Abortion shouldn't be legal. If someone has unprotected sex they should have to deal with the consequences. If you wouldn't kill a newborn baby, you shouldn't kill an unborn baby. If anything it should be illegal, people should be punished. It can also have very serious side effects that teenage girls are often not told about such as: cancer, the inability to have children or even death.

Health

Abortion/231/

I was not implying that only teenage girls get abortions, but that teenage girls are probably less likely to look up the facts. As for choice, I do believe that God would want us to have a choice, but abortion is not the only choice. For those who are raped, killing the baby is not the only choice. What about adoption? Would you not go through 9 months of discomfort and pain to give someone a chance at life? We don't know if the fetus can feel it, but what if it could feel the pain. How could you take away their life before they even get to live?

ahammer

I was not implying that only teenage girls get abortions, but that teenage girls are probably less likely to look up the facts. As for choice, I do believe that God would want us to have a choice, but abortion is not the only choice. For those who are raped, killing the baby is not the only choice. What about adoption? Would you not go through 9 months of discomfort and pain to give someone a chance at life? We don't know if the fetus can feel it, but what if it could feel the pain. How could you take away their life before they even get to live?

Health

Abortion/231/

I think that yes, abortion should be legal/allowed. For me, abortion would be the last thing I would even consider doing. But I am not every other woman on the planet, and I do not have the same mind as they. If they want to abort their baby, we shouldn't be able to say anything against that. Sure, I may not be one to abort my child, but I have no right to say that they can't. I am not that woman. I am not in control of her mind or body. For someone to come up to her and tell her that no, she must absolutely have the child, and that she has no choice, is ridiculous. I honestly don't even think that men should have any say in whether it should be legal or not. They are not female, they will never experience anything like abortion, and therefore should not be able to decide what woman should do with their own bodies if they don't even have any idea what they might be going through. And, of course, there is always the case of a rape. I personally would not want to live 9 months reliving what happened to me, and then have the baby as a reminder. I know it is not it's fault, not at all, but it's really just a sort of psychological issue that you may have with it. As you can see, I am pretty strongly opinionated when it comes to this, and feminism in general. No uterus, no opinion!

ToriDivine

I think that yes, abortion should be legal/allowed. For me, abortion would be the last thing I would even consider doing. But I am not every other woman on the planet, and I do not have the same mind as they. If they want to abort their baby, we shouldn't be able to say anything against that. Sure, I may not be one to abort my child, but I have no right to say that they can't. I am not that woman. I am not in control of her mind or body. For someone to come up to her and tell her that no, she must absolutely have the child, and that she has no choice, is ridiculous. I honestly don't even think that men should have any say in whether it should be legal or not. They are not female, they will never experience anything like abortion, and therefore should not be able to decide what woman should do with their own bodies if they don't even have any idea what they might be going through. And, of course, there is always the case of a rape. I personally would not want to live 9 months reliving what happened to me, and then have the baby as a reminder. I know it is not it's fault, not at all, but it's really just a sort of psychological issue that you may have with it. As you can see, I am pretty strongly opinionated when it comes to this, and feminism in general. No uterus, no opinion!

Politics

Abortion/233/

My opponent has a few good points, but this is where he has gone wrong. He says that abortion is murder, something I can prove otherwise. Why do pro-lifers think that embryos become precious immediately after conception? Does a switch get turned on that instantly makes the fertilized egg precious? What makes a person inherently precious, I think, is (dormant or active) consciousness: thoughts, feelings, memories, hopes, and awareness. Since consciousness depends on the development of the nervous system, and since it takes many months for the nervous system to mature, we can conclude that consciousness emerges gradually. Consequently, the inherent preciousness emerges gradually too. Granted, a sleeping or comatose person has no consciousness either. But a sleeping or comatose person's consciousness is dormant: if they wake up, they have memories, etc. For a fertilized egg, there is no consciousness and also no history of consciousness (unless you believe in reincarnation). Even though all the DNA is there, the fact that there's no higher brain activity strongly suggests that there's no consciousness. Nor does the later presence of a heartbeat and of primitive neural activity imply consciousness or preciousness. What's needed is higher brain activity and the consequent self-awareness. Now, I grant that nobody knows for sure what consciousness is -- philosophers have been speculating about the nature of consciousness for years, and scientists haven't yet tackled the issue. But it is quite clear that consciousness does not emerge full-grown immediately after conception. And since I believe in science, I have to presume that consciousness emerges with the gradual development of the nervous system. Since I made the character limit 2,000, I will have to continue in later arguments. Best of luck to my opponent. Sources: A) dbcuuc.org/sermons/001001.htm B) <URL>...

ToriDivine

My opponent has a few good points, but this is where he has gone wrong. He says that abortion is murder, something I can prove otherwise. Why do pro-lifers think that embryos become precious immediately after conception? Does a switch get turned on that instantly makes the fertilized egg precious? What makes a person inherently precious, I think, is (dormant or active) consciousness: thoughts, feelings, memories, hopes, and awareness. Since consciousness depends on the development of the nervous system, and since it takes many months for the nervous system to mature, we can conclude that consciousness emerges gradually. Consequently, the inherent preciousness emerges gradually too. Granted, a sleeping or comatose person has no consciousness either. But a sleeping or comatose person's consciousness is dormant: if they wake up, they have memories, etc. For a fertilized egg, there is no consciousness and also no history of consciousness (unless you believe in reincarnation). Even though all the DNA is there, the fact that there's no higher brain activity strongly suggests that there's no consciousness. Nor does the later presence of a heartbeat and of primitive neural activity imply consciousness or preciousness. What's needed is higher brain activity and the consequent self-awareness. Now, I grant that nobody knows for sure what consciousness is -- philosophers have been speculating about the nature of consciousness for years, and scientists haven't yet tackled the issue. But it is quite clear that consciousness does not emerge full-grown immediately after conception. And since I believe in science, I have to presume that consciousness emerges with the gradual development of the nervous system. Since I made the character limit 2,000, I will have to continue in later arguments. Best of luck to my opponent. Sources: A) dbcuuc.org/sermons/001001.htm B) http://capitalismmagazine.com...

Politics

Abortion/233/

I would first like to apologize to my opponent for the lack of argument against his first 5 points. As I went back to check them, I realized that they were all mostly about the conceptus and how they are somewhat alive. Well, at conception, the life form is called a zygote and it begins its journey by dividing into two identical cells, called blastomeres. They continue to subdivide once every twelve to twenty hours. When it reaches sixteen cells it becomes known as a morula, which usually occurs after three days gestation. A couple of days later a cavity appears in its center and it is now called a blastocyst, which contain an inner group of cells that will eventually become the fetus and an outer group that will form the placenta. At about twelve days or so after conception, the blastocyst starts to produce hormones that are detectable in urine. It is at this point where most physicians define the start of pregnancy. A vast majority of zygotes never make it this far. In fact, even at two months along, the embryo does not appear to be fully human. It has a reptilian brain and has not yet developed the capacity for consciousness. It is not yet sentient and is not defined as a fetus until the tenth week. Actually, over ninety percent of abortions are performed before the fetus reaches 13 weeks. So, to say that the termination of a human zygote, blastocyst, embryo or a fetus is a human being before viability, with a right to life, is scientifically unfounded and rightfully illegal. There is a huge difference between something being potentially human and an actual living, breathing human being. Even a fetus that is prematurely born or removed from a sick or dying mother is not a human being until it is actually apart from the mother. Due to the lack of characters, I am forced to stop now. I thank my opponent for his time and arguments and wish him the best of luck. Sources A) I guess this: <URL>... B) My own knowledge.

ToriDivine

I would first like to apologize to my opponent for the lack of argument against his first 5 points. As I went back to check them, I realized that they were all mostly about the conceptus and how they are somewhat alive. Well, at conception, the life form is called a zygote and it begins its journey by dividing into two identical cells, called blastomeres. They continue to subdivide once every twelve to twenty hours. When it reaches sixteen cells it becomes known as a morula, which usually occurs after three days gestation. A couple of days later a cavity appears in its center and it is now called a blastocyst, which contain an inner group of cells that will eventually become the fetus and an outer group that will form the placenta. At about twelve days or so after conception, the blastocyst starts to produce hormones that are detectable in urine. It is at this point where most physicians define the start of pregnancy. A vast majority of zygotes never make it this far. In fact, even at two months along, the embryo does not appear to be fully human. It has a reptilian brain and has not yet developed the capacity for consciousness. It is not yet sentient and is not defined as a fetus until the tenth week. Actually, over ninety percent of abortions are performed before the fetus reaches 13 weeks. So, to say that the termination of a human zygote, blastocyst, embryo or a fetus is a human being before viability, with a right to life, is scientifically unfounded and rightfully illegal. There is a huge difference between something being potentially human and an actual living, breathing human being. Even a fetus that is prematurely born or removed from a sick or dying mother is not a human being until it is actually apart from the mother. Due to the lack of characters, I am forced to stop now. I thank my opponent for his time and arguments and wish him the best of luck. Sources A) I guess this: https://theshalomcenter.org... B) My own knowledge.

Politics

Abortion/233/

The abortion takes place in the first trimester, when the fetus don"t exist. The Fetus is incapable of feeling pain when the process of abortion is going on. Women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies.

itzia_velarde

The abortion takes place in the first trimester, when the fetus don"t exist. The Fetus is incapable of feeling pain when the process of abortion is going on. Women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies.

Health

Abortion/265/

She"s the mother, she should decide what happens with her baby. There are already too many unwanted babies in our world. Why add more? Life doesn"t really start until birth. Every baby has the right to have a family that cares and loves him or her; if this is not possible, abortion should be okay.

itzia_velarde

She"s the mother, she should decide what happens with her baby. There are already too many unwanted babies in our world. Why add more? Life doesn"t really start until birth. Every baby has the right to have a family that cares and loves him or her; if this is not possible, abortion should be okay.

Health

Abortion/265/

I gladly accept. Thank you, Cheerboo, for setting up the debate. I will defend the position that abortion should NOT be illegal in all cases in the United States of America. I feel it's safe to say we both know what is meant by 'abortion,' but just in case I will make it clear that I am assuming a common definition to mean "a deliberate termination of pregnancy." Although you didn't state it specifically, I'll also assume that Round 1 was intended only for acceptance and allow you to present your arguments first. I look forward to the discussion.

MrDelaney

I gladly accept. Thank you, Cheerboo, for setting up the debate. I will defend the position that abortion should NOT be illegal in all cases in the United States of America. I feel it's safe to say we both know what is meant by 'abortion,' but just in case I will make it clear that I am assuming a common definition to mean "a deliberate termination of pregnancy." Although you didn't state it specifically, I'll also assume that Round 1 was intended only for acceptance and allow you to present your arguments first. I look forward to the discussion.

Society

Abortion/286/

I could easily take this debate into cases of rape, or incest, but I will resist the low hanging emotionally-charged fruit. I would like to remind those following along, however, that I only need to argue that abortion should not be illegal in ALL cases. If there is even one case where abortion should be allowed, then I have met my burden. However, I will actually attempt to go beyond that, and argue that abortion should be legal in any case where the child is not viable outside of the womb. I would also add that we are not debating morality, but legality, so any notions of what someone 'should' do from a moral standpoint are irrelevant in this case (I don't claim that Cheerboo was saying anything like that, just wanted to clarify the point). Cheerboo's argument rests on two claims as I see it, the first being explicit and the second being implicit. 1) Life begins at conception. 2) A fetus has a right to it's mother's body. I will take each of these on their own, but my argument will rest mainly on the second one. 1) LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. I will argue that EVEN IF this premise is shown to be true, it is irrelevant if the second premise is shown to be false. That said, not only do I not grant that life begins at conception, but Cheerboo seems to agree that it is not proved: "since there is no record of when life begins I believe that life begins at conception" I will agree with the spirit of the first half of her statement, there is no record of when life begins. Seeing as we can both agree on that, we are left with only an opinion that she 'believes' life begins at conception. Without argument to back that up it is nothing more than a bare assertion. Therefore the following statement, that having an abortion is akin to murdering a child, is unsupported. Regardless, I will argue that my next point will make the issue of when life begins irrelevant to the abortion debate. 2) A FETUS HAS A RIGHT TO IT'S MOTHER'S BODY. I put forth the idea that we all share a fundamental right to bodily autonomy. A fetus has no 'special rights' to claim ownership over the resources of it's mother. If a child requires a blood transfusion or a kidney transplant we do not force parents to give up their own blood or organs for the sake of their child, even if they are the only ones who are a genetic match. Regardless of what we may think a parent 'should' do for their child, we do not, and cannot, force parents to sacrifice their own bodies for the sake of their children. To do so would be to violate the parent's rights to bodily autonomy. Our bodies are our own, and no other human being has a right to lay claim to what we may or may not do with our own bodies. We do not force people to become organ donors through legislation, regardless of what we feel people 'should' do. Bodily autonomy is the right of every person. The fetus has the same exact rights as a born child does, and as the adult mother does. And those rights do not, and cannot, include laying claim over the body of anyone else. Therefore, unless the child is deemed to be viable outside of the mother's body, it is her right to seek a legal termination of her pregnancy if she so chooses to.

MrDelaney

I could easily take this debate into cases of rape, or incest, but I will resist the low hanging emotionally-charged fruit. I would like to remind those following along, however, that I only need to argue that abortion should not be illegal in ALL cases. If there is even one case where abortion should be allowed, then I have met my burden. However, I will actually attempt to go beyond that, and argue that abortion should be legal in any case where the child is not viable outside of the womb. I would also add that we are not debating morality, but legality, so any notions of what someone 'should' do from a moral standpoint are irrelevant in this case (I don't claim that Cheerboo was saying anything like that, just wanted to clarify the point). Cheerboo's argument rests on two claims as I see it, the first being explicit and the second being implicit. 1) Life begins at conception. 2) A fetus has a right to it's mother's body. I will take each of these on their own, but my argument will rest mainly on the second one. 1) LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. I will argue that EVEN IF this premise is shown to be true, it is irrelevant if the second premise is shown to be false. That said, not only do I not grant that life begins at conception, but Cheerboo seems to agree that it is not proved: "since there is no record of when life begins I believe that life begins at conception" I will agree with the spirit of the first half of her statement, there is no record of when life begins. Seeing as we can both agree on that, we are left with only an opinion that she 'believes' life begins at conception. Without argument to back that up it is nothing more than a bare assertion. Therefore the following statement, that having an abortion is akin to murdering a child, is unsupported. Regardless, I will argue that my next point will make the issue of when life begins irrelevant to the abortion debate. 2) A FETUS HAS A RIGHT TO IT'S MOTHER'S BODY. I put forth the idea that we all share a fundamental right to bodily autonomy. A fetus has no 'special rights' to claim ownership over the resources of it's mother. If a child requires a blood transfusion or a kidney transplant we do not force parents to give up their own blood or organs for the sake of their child, even if they are the only ones who are a genetic match. Regardless of what we may think a parent 'should' do for their child, we do not, and cannot, force parents to sacrifice their own bodies for the sake of their children. To do so would be to violate the parent's rights to bodily autonomy. Our bodies are our own, and no other human being has a right to lay claim to what we may or may not do with our own bodies. We do not force people to become organ donors through legislation, regardless of what we feel people 'should' do. Bodily autonomy is the right of every person. The fetus has the same exact rights as a born child does, and as the adult mother does. And those rights do not, and cannot, include laying claim over the body of anyone else. Therefore, unless the child is deemed to be viable outside of the mother's body, it is her right to seek a legal termination of her pregnancy if she so chooses to.

Society

Abortion/286/

Seeing as Cheerboo has forfeited his round there is not much left for me to say. In the end, even if the bodily autonomy argument were deemed to be insufficient on its own, it is clearly sufficient in situations where the mother's life is in danger. In that case, it is sufficient for the burden required in this debate. I do not feel Cheerboo upheld his proposition. It is clear that a bortion should be not be illegal in ALL cases in the United States of America. As a closing note, I will say that I am sorry to see this debate end in forfeit, as I was very much looking forward to continuing the conversation and being challenged by any rebuttals. Regardless of the forfeit, I would like to thank Cheerboo for sparking this debate. And I would like to sincerely thank anyone who has taken the time to read it.

MrDelaney

Seeing as Cheerboo has forfeited his round there is not much left for me to say. In the end, even if the bodily autonomy argument were deemed to be insufficient on its own, it is clearly sufficient in situations where the mother's life is in danger. In that case, it is sufficient for the burden required in this debate. I do not feel Cheerboo upheld his proposition. It is clear that a bortion should be not be illegal in ALL cases in the United States of America. As a closing note, I will say that I am sorry to see this debate end in forfeit, as I was very much looking forward to continuing the conversation and being challenged by any rebuttals. Regardless of the forfeit, I would like to thank Cheerboo for sparking this debate. And I would like to sincerely thank anyone who has taken the time to read it.

Society

Abortion/286/

Abortion should be illegal in all cases in the United States of America *This will be an opinion based debate.

cheerboo17

Abortion should be illegal in all cases in the United States of America *This will be an opinion based debate.

Society

Abortion/286/

Well my first argument is that when you have an abortion you are killing an innocent child! and since there is no record of when life begins I believe that life begins at conception. and so when you have an abortion you are breaking the law by murdering the child.

cheerboo17

Well my first argument is that when you have an abortion you are killing an innocent child! and since there is no record of when life begins I believe that life begins at conception. and so when you have an abortion you are breaking the law by murdering the child.

Society

Abortion/286/

I accept your challenge, and will use the following arguments(including, but not limited to), 1) Prohibition of a choice is taking our ability to make our own decisions away. 2) Accidental childbirth can result in having to give up personal goals. 3) Abortion is not the murder of a person, as the fetus is not developed enough to feel the pain

IncognitoTurtle

I accept your challenge, and will use the following arguments(including, but not limited to), 1) Prohibition of a choice is taking our ability to make our own decisions away. 2) Accidental childbirth can result in having to give up personal goals. 3) Abortion is not the murder of a person, as the fetus is not developed enough to feel the pain

Politics

Abortion/320/

Time and time again, a fetus has been ruled, in both American and Canadian trials, not a legal citizen. Technically, if we were speaking about it's rights, it would technically be an illegal citizen, since it has no papers under file. The Supreme Court decided in 1973 that the unborn fetus had no constitutional rights until the third trimester (24-28 weeks), as it is incapable of functioning independently from the mother until that time. Right-to-Lifers claim that because the fetus will develop into a human being, it demands the same paternalistic protection that is extended to animals, children and others subject to exploitation and maltreatment. The fetus must be accorded the same constitutional rights as its mother. Here's the thing though, it hasn't been born freely, so it does not have equal rights. If it cannot speak, cannot feel, we are doing nothing wrong. Unless, of course, the abortion happens after the 3rd trimester, which never happens. Here's a scenerio where Pro-Life screws a good person over. Although used often, it fits perfectly. Betty is No. 1 in her whole school. One day, she is walking home from school. She is attacked a brutally raped. Betty finds out later that she is pregnent. If she had a choice, she wouldn't have to go through the pain and suffering of a pregnency, and possible caring after a child. Her life suffers in the pro-life option. Her rank drops due to bullying, having to take time off of school for the birth, and later caring for the child. She could put it up for adoption, but she has gone through so much pain for this baby she didn't even really want, so to just give it up is not an option to her. But even if she did, she's already dropped her grades, she can no longer play sports because she blimped up during the pregnency, and kids tease her. But since she didn't, she can no longer go to college and, as awful as it may seem, many people find having a child as a turn off. So now she is a single mother who is about to be fired from her job at Mcdonalds because she has to bring the baby with, and it cries. All of this could have ended with the choice to cause an abortion to something that wasn't even supposed to exist and, unlike Betty, will not feel the pain of all of it ending. Fast forward 5 years, Betty has died from suicide, since her life was turned around so badly. The kid now jumps from foster home to foster home. With a father either in hiding, or locked up, or dead. And a mother who has commited suicide by this kid indirectly. Now the kid has a crappy life, and the mother HAD a crappy life. All because it's 'inhumane' to abort a fetus before it even has a conscience. That quote refers to abortion as a deadly drug, but it's not close. It stops the baby from developing, and is not the murder of a human.. Also, no matter what you believe in, the baby will be in a better place. Also, when dictionaries define 'abortion', they say that it is the termination, or destruction of a fetus. Never death. This is because it's not a death, but in fact is just stopping the birth. In the ancient Greek times, abortions were not as safe as they are today. Quite actually, the killing of the baby was practically killing themselves back them. That leaves me to believe the analogy means it is actually helping them kill themselves.

IncognitoTurtle

Time and time again, a fetus has been ruled, in both American and Canadian trials, not a legal citizen. Technically, if we were speaking about it's rights, it would technically be an illegal citizen, since it has no papers under file. The Supreme Court decided in 1973 that the unborn fetus had no constitutional rights until the third trimester (24-28 weeks), as it is incapable of functioning independently from the mother until that time. Right-to-Lifers claim that because the fetus will develop into a human being, it demands the same paternalistic protection that is extended to animals, children and others subject to exploitation and maltreatment. The fetus must be accorded the same constitutional rights as its mother. Here's the thing though, it hasn't been born freely, so it does not have equal rights. If it cannot speak, cannot feel, we are doing nothing wrong. Unless, of course, the abortion happens after the 3rd trimester, which never happens. Here's a scenerio where Pro-Life screws a good person over. Although used often, it fits perfectly. Betty is No. 1 in her whole school. One day, she is walking home from school. She is attacked a brutally raped. Betty finds out later that she is pregnent. If she had a choice, she wouldn't have to go through the pain and suffering of a pregnency, and possible caring after a child. Her life suffers in the pro-life option. Her rank drops due to bullying, having to take time off of school for the birth, and later caring for the child. She could put it up for adoption, but she has gone through so much pain for this baby she didn't even really want, so to just give it up is not an option to her. But even if she did, she's already dropped her grades, she can no longer play sports because she blimped up during the pregnency, and kids tease her. But since she didn't, she can no longer go to college and, as awful as it may seem, many people find having a child as a turn off. So now she is a single mother who is about to be fired from her job at Mcdonalds because she has to bring the baby with, and it cries. All of this could have ended with the choice to cause an abortion to something that wasn't even supposed to exist and, unlike Betty, will not feel the pain of all of it ending. Fast forward 5 years, Betty has died from suicide, since her life was turned around so badly. The kid now jumps from foster home to foster home. With a father either in hiding, or locked up, or dead. And a mother who has commited suicide by this kid indirectly. Now the kid has a crappy life, and the mother HAD a crappy life. All because it's 'inhumane' to abort a fetus before it even has a conscience. That quote refers to abortion as a deadly drug, but it's not close. It stops the baby from developing, and is not the murder of a human.. Also, no matter what you believe in, the baby will be in a better place. Also, when dictionaries define 'abortion', they say that it is the termination, or destruction of a fetus. Never death. This is because it's not a death, but in fact is just stopping the birth. In the ancient Greek times, abortions were not as safe as they are today. Quite actually, the killing of the baby was practically killing themselves back them. That leaves me to believe the analogy means it is actually helping them kill themselves.

Politics

Abortion/320/

I accept. My opponent has not provided an explicit resolution, but defaulting to the title, as is standard operating procedure, and from what I can glean from his initial statement, he will be arguing against abortion and I will be arguing in favor. He says that everyone should be give the opporunity to live, which implies that he would support banning abortion. Therefore, our discussion will be two-fold: is abortion morally justifiable under any or certain circumstances, and should be it legal? Because we are each arguing for separate claims, I think it justified that we each bear an equal burden of proof. Con's burden is to prove that abortion is categorically wrong and shouldn't be legal or tolerated, whilst mine is to prove that abortion can be justified and therefore should be legal. Of course, this makes his burden slightly higher than mine, for if I can find even one instance where abortion can be morally permissible, his remark that "everyone should be given the opportunity to live," which is his central thesis, falls apart entirely. With that said, I'll allow this first round to be used for acceptance, and will pass back to Con so that he can offer his opening contentions. Best of luck, and I'm looking forward to an interesting debate.

JohnMaynardKeynes

I accept. My opponent has not provided an explicit resolution, but defaulting to the title, as is standard operating procedure, and from what I can glean from his initial statement, he will be arguing against abortion and I will be arguing in favor. He says that everyone should be give the opporunity to live, which implies that he would support banning abortion. Therefore, our discussion will be two-fold: is abortion morally justifiable under any or certain circumstances, and should be it legal? Because we are each arguing for separate claims, I think it justified that we each bear an equal burden of proof. Con's burden is to prove that abortion is categorically wrong and shouldn't be legal or tolerated, whilst mine is to prove that abortion can be justified and therefore should be legal. Of course, this makes his burden slightly higher than mine, for if I can find even one instance where abortion can be morally permissible, his remark that "everyone should be given the opportunity to live," which is his central thesis, falls apart entirely. With that said, I'll allow this first round to be used for acceptance, and will pass back to Con so that he can offer his opening contentions. Best of luck, and I'm looking forward to an interesting debate.

Society

Abortion/322/

Giving my adversary a chance to respond to even out the amount of arguments. If he does not post an argument in the next round, I will provide my contentions regardless.

JohnMaynardKeynes

Giving my adversary a chance to respond to even out the amount of arguments. If he does not post an argument in the next round, I will provide my contentions regardless.

Society

Abortion/322/

My opponent has forfeited every round of this debate, so I merely need to provide a single contention that will go unrefuted. I will, however, address the first thing he said: "I feel everyone should be given the opportunity to live and abortion is taking away that opportunity from little unborn children." The first piece of this argument is that everyone should have the opportunity to live. That's relatively uncontroversial. However, how broadly do we define "everyone?" He claims that abortion is taking away the lives of "unborn children." At what point do you define a fetus as a child? CON has given us no reason to take this leap, so clearly we would accept that there's a point at which abortion is justified, or at least circumstances in which we could conceive of it. There's also the issue that we as a society DO NOT give "everyone" the opportunity to live. That is the norm, indeed, but we consider it relatively uncontroversial to -- legally -- respond to someone who is threatening our lives with equal force. Many conservatives, even so-called pro-lifers, justify the death penalty and warfare, which surely there is a case for in some instances. My case here is not that living isn't normatively good because it is -- and, trust me, I am not endorsing or advocating murder of any kind. The point is that we will make exceptions in certain scenarios, namely when our lives our in danger. In the case that a mother's life is threatened, having an abortion could be the only option to preserve her only life. She isn't maliciously committing a murder, nor is she a murderer. With that, I'm now going to offer my contentions. C1) Extreme Cases Subpoint A. Self-Defense (Exception for life and health of the mother) This is the point I made earlier; if your life is threatened, you have the right to respond such that you protect yourself. Having an abortion is not malicious in this case because, unfortunately, a life is going to be lost. It's certainly best if we could preserve both lives, but without the mother, the fetus wouldn't survive. Therefore, it is best that the choice be left to the mother. Subpoint B: Rape and Incest These cases should be fairly obvious: the woman as a victim of a violent, traumatizing assault. As a result, she deserves the right to determine her own future and how she will proceed with her own life. Being forced to carry the child to term for 9 months poses a massive physical, emotional and financial burden on her. She should only take on the burden if she herself has decided that it is best for her. C2) Life =/= Child There is morally gray area over what is a life and what is a child. For instance, fetuses cannot feel pain until 29 weeks [1. <URL>... ] and even that is highly contested [2. <URL>... ]. Therefore, there is a gray area as to when we actually will define a fetus as a "child," and it is pertinent that sentience be our guide. C3) Morality is Subjective The notion that life begins at conception, and thus personhood begins at conception, is flawed for a number of reasons. First it attempts to impose a religious position on people either of different faiths or no faiths. Second this view can be contested due to the fact that zygotes often miscarry in the first trimester. Is miscarriage the equivalent of murder? Most people would say "no." It is clear that this issue should be subject to individual person's consciences, in consultation with their famileis, clergy, etc. If there is no consensus over whether abortion is categorically wrong -- be it by virtue of religious differences of even extreme cases -- then it is not objectively immoral, meaning that my opponent's position cannot possibly hold. C4) Bodily Autonomy This is similar to the last point. Banning abortion would impose a significant strain on a woman and force her to share her body with a fetus for 9 months, which in may cases she didn't plan or doesn't want to carry to term. Why would my opponent want to force her to carry it to term? C5) Black Market Abortions are More Dangerous While many people who are genuinely opposed to abortion may be well-meaning, they fail to factor in that banning abortion will not spell an end to abortion. Women will still be able to attain them via back alleys. The difference is that abortion in this case would be much more dangerous, which means that the lives of the mothers would also be at risk. Why would my adversary want this? C6) There are better ways to reduce abortion Providing contraception or making sexual education available to teenagers is a much better, more effective, and less intrusive way to reduce the number of abortions. It recognizes that it is unavoidable that some teenagers are going to have sexual relations with another. It isn't encouraging it or endorsing it, but merely preparing ahead of time that the resulting pregnancy won't ruin one of their lives. Vote PRO.

JohnMaynardKeynes

My opponent has forfeited every round of this debate, so I merely need to provide a single contention that will go unrefuted. I will, however, address the first thing he said: "I feel everyone should be given the opportunity to live and abortion is taking away that opportunity from little unborn children." The first piece of this argument is that everyone should have the opportunity to live. That's relatively uncontroversial. However, how broadly do we define "everyone?" He claims that abortion is taking away the lives of "unborn children." At what point do you define a fetus as a child? CON has given us no reason to take this leap, so clearly we would accept that there's a point at which abortion is justified, or at least circumstances in which we could conceive of it. There's also the issue that we as a society DO NOT give "everyone" the opportunity to live. That is the norm, indeed, but we consider it relatively uncontroversial to -- legally -- respond to someone who is threatening our lives with equal force. Many conservatives, even so-called pro-lifers, justify the death penalty and warfare, which surely there is a case for in some instances. My case here is not that living isn't normatively good because it is -- and, trust me, I am not endorsing or advocating murder of any kind. The point is that we will make exceptions in certain scenarios, namely when our lives our in danger. In the case that a mother's life is threatened, having an abortion could be the only option to preserve her only life. She isn't maliciously committing a murder, nor is she a murderer. With that, I'm now going to offer my contentions. C1) Extreme Cases Subpoint A. Self-Defense (Exception for life and health of the mother) This is the point I made earlier; if your life is threatened, you have the right to respond such that you protect yourself. Having an abortion is not malicious in this case because, unfortunately, a life is going to be lost. It's certainly best if we could preserve both lives, but without the mother, the fetus wouldn't survive. Therefore, it is best that the choice be left to the mother. Subpoint B: Rape and Incest These cases should be fairly obvious: the woman as a victim of a violent, traumatizing assault. As a result, she deserves the right to determine her own future and how she will proceed with her own life. Being forced to carry the child to term for 9 months poses a massive physical, emotional and financial burden on her. She should only take on the burden if she herself has decided that it is best for her. C2) Life =/= Child There is morally gray area over what is a life and what is a child. For instance, fetuses cannot feel pain until 29 weeks [1. http://tinyurl.com... ] and even that is highly contested [2. http://tinyurl.com... ]. Therefore, there is a gray area as to when we actually will define a fetus as a "child," and it is pertinent that sentience be our guide. C3) Morality is Subjective The notion that life begins at conception, and thus personhood begins at conception, is flawed for a number of reasons. First it attempts to impose a religious position on people either of different faiths or no faiths. Second this view can be contested due to the fact that zygotes often miscarry in the first trimester. Is miscarriage the equivalent of murder? Most people would say "no." It is clear that this issue should be subject to individual person's consciences, in consultation with their famileis, clergy, etc. If there is no consensus over whether abortion is categorically wrong -- be it by virtue of religious differences of even extreme cases -- then it is not objectively immoral, meaning that my opponent's position cannot possibly hold. C4) Bodily Autonomy This is similar to the last point. Banning abortion would impose a significant strain on a woman and force her to share her body with a fetus for 9 months, which in may cases she didn't plan or doesn't want to carry to term. Why would my opponent want to force her to carry it to term? C5) Black Market Abortions are More Dangerous While many people who are genuinely opposed to abortion may be well-meaning, they fail to factor in that banning abortion will not spell an end to abortion. Women will still be able to attain them via back alleys. The difference is that abortion in this case would be much more dangerous, which means that the lives of the mothers would also be at risk. Why would my adversary want this? C6) There are better ways to reduce abortion Providing contraception or making sexual education available to teenagers is a much better, more effective, and less intrusive way to reduce the number of abortions. It recognizes that it is unavoidable that some teenagers are going to have sexual relations with another. It isn't encouraging it or endorsing it, but merely preparing ahead of time that the resulting pregnancy won't ruin one of their lives. Vote PRO.

Society

Abortion/322/

I feel everyone should be given the opportunity to live and abortion is taking away that opportunity from little unborn children.

Najaha

I feel everyone should be given the opportunity to live and abortion is taking away that opportunity from little unborn children.

Society

Abortion/322/

I believe abortion should be illegal and I don't believe an unborn baby should be aborted under any circumstances, such as: rape, a mistake, etc. I believe this because I believe abortion is punishing an unborn baby's future just because someone else has been raped or made a mistake which I believe is unfair. Also, there are alternatives to abortion, such as: adoption,interim foster care or asking for support whilst parenting.

Neily

I believe abortion should be illegal and I don't believe an unborn baby should be aborted under any circumstances, such as: rape, a mistake, etc. I believe this because I believe abortion is punishing an unborn baby's future just because someone else has been raped or made a mistake which I believe is unfair. Also, there are alternatives to abortion, such as: adoption,interim foster care or asking for support whilst parenting.

Politics

Abortion/329/

I think most people are for abortion because they believe the woman should be able to exercise her right of choice but I believe abortion is taking the right to live from the unborn baby. Also, many women are endangered by abortions, not all abortions are handled in a manner that is both sanitary and done by a professional. Abortions can be very expensive, which causes some women to seek services wherever possible. There has been several cases of women dying, becoming sterile from a botched abortion, or ending up in the hospital with further complications. I don't understand why a women would want to abort her unborn child as well as put herself at risk when adoption can give her what she wants with less risk, by putting up her child for adoption she can abort the baby out of her life with less risk and without aborting the baby from life itself.

Neily

I think most people are for abortion because they believe the woman should be able to exercise her right of choice but I believe abortion is taking the right to live from the unborn baby. Also, many women are endangered by abortions, not all abortions are handled in a manner that is both sanitary and done by a professional. Abortions can be very expensive, which causes some women to seek services wherever possible. There has been several cases of women dying, becoming sterile from a botched abortion, or ending up in the hospital with further complications. I don't understand why a women would want to abort her unborn child as well as put herself at risk when adoption can give her what she wants with less risk, by putting up her child for adoption she can abort the baby out of her life with less risk and without aborting the baby from life itself.

Politics

Abortion/329/

In my opinion I believe abortion should be illegal. It shouldn't even be allowed today, but it is.

DarkDarling

In my opinion I believe abortion should be illegal. It shouldn't even be allowed today, but it is.

People

Abortion/388/

Lets be honest. Your body is your own body. It belongs to you, but what you choose to do with your body, put in your body. Sometimes it up to the government. As long as they keep in some areas abortion illegal. You can't. Your not allowed. This is a really complicated topic cause the girl chose to be stupid for pleasure. She chose. Then she's pregnant. Either she things the baby in her body is just some animal she can kill over and over again, or she believes there a human with a living soul. Not only is it her body now, but its the baby's body in her. Once the body is being formed. There shouldn be a choice whether I should kill it or not. There are probably many women in certain areas where they werent allowed to kill there baby, and guess what. Now there living breathing humans who are making a difference in this world. Do you realize how many human beings who have a mother who thought of getting an abortion before they were born. My mom honestly wanted to get an abortion, but she didn't and I am thankful. What if she did? I wouldn't be here. Sometimes makes me a little bit sad, but I should't. She gave me a chance.

DarkDarling

Lets be honest. Your body is your own body. It belongs to you, but what you choose to do with your body, put in your body. Sometimes it up to the government. As long as they keep in some areas abortion illegal. You can't. Your not allowed. This is a really complicated topic cause the girl chose to be stupid for pleasure. She chose. Then she's pregnant. Either she things the baby in her body is just some animal she can kill over and over again, or she believes there a human with a living soul. Not only is it her body now, but its the baby's body in her. Once the body is being formed. There shouldn be a choice whether I should kill it or not. There are probably many women in certain areas where they werent allowed to kill there baby, and guess what. Now there living breathing humans who are making a difference in this world. Do you realize how many human beings who have a mother who thought of getting an abortion before they were born. My mom honestly wanted to get an abortion, but she didn't and I am thankful. What if she did? I wouldn't be here. Sometimes makes me a little bit sad, but I should't. She gave me a chance.

People

Abortion/388/

I did not say only in the us I meant everywhere. Its not an individual right because theres another body inside her. When you create something by accident, doesn't mean you can kill it by purpose. Your being selfish. Abortion is wrong. Sometimes it even effects the woman who does it. Stress, trauma, and even guilt. The only reason they did it was because they were scared, they didn't have time. If they did had time, werent scared of the pain or what people think. They would have no problem. Conjoined twins. If one wanted to be seperated, but they said that theres a chance the other one might die, the other would have a say in it. A baby doesn't. Thats the unfair part about it. Something you did not mean to create doesn't have a say on whether it wants to live or not. This is not a violation of there rights because theres another person in you, and you are violating theres.

DarkDarling

I did not say only in the us I meant everywhere. Its not an individual right because theres another body inside her. When you create something by accident, doesn't mean you can kill it by purpose. Your being selfish. Abortion is wrong. Sometimes it even effects the woman who does it. Stress, trauma, and even guilt. The only reason they did it was because they were scared, they didn't have time. If they did had time, werent scared of the pain or what people think. They would have no problem. Conjoined twins. If one wanted to be seperated, but they said that theres a chance the other one might die, the other would have a say in it. A baby doesn't. Thats the unfair part about it. Something you did not mean to create doesn't have a say on whether it wants to live or not. This is not a violation of there rights because theres another person in you, and you are violating theres.

People

Abortion/388/

Dont be dependment on the amendments cause i mean for all woman. not woman only in america. You ignored everything i said, and stated that the amendment lets this blablablabla. Give me evidence for all woman, give me the reason why all woman should be allowed to have an abortion. What you said meant nothing. cause it only affects america. americas only 1.8% of the population in the world. tell me why abortion is right. who cares if the amendment protects even less than 1,8% of woman. Who cares. Why do girls do it. Why should they have the right. Who will this help overall? Who cares about there choice when in the end instead of two people there will be one. Not even that one person is probably making a difference because there out making babies by accident. stop talking about 'choice' and start talking about lives. who cares if the amendment doesnt consider a unborn a person. who cares. tell me why. dont go all on facts on tell all the wya. tell me the reason why it should be allowed. oh cause ur a girl who didnt mean to have a bay. didnt mean to stupid. your angry cause you dont have time for this. give me the best reason and you win. dont send me articles. gives me your words completly. idc about the amendment or anything like that cause its only 1.8% of the population. if the girls gonna die then its understandable why she cant have the baby. but if shes in a good enviroment and just doesnt want. dont tell me its her right. dont tell the baby aint a person. tell me why she can, and she should, tell me why abortion is RIGHT.

DarkDarling

Dont be dependment on the amendments cause i mean for all woman. not woman only in america. You ignored everything i said, and stated that the amendment lets this blablablabla. Give me evidence for all woman, give me the reason why all woman should be allowed to have an abortion. What you said meant nothing. cause it only affects america. americas only 1.8% of the population in the world. tell me why abortion is right. who cares if the amendment protects even less than 1,8% of woman. Who cares. Why do girls do it. Why should they have the right. Who will this help overall? Who cares about there choice when in the end instead of two people there will be one. Not even that one person is probably making a difference because there out making babies by accident. stop talking about 'choice' and start talking about lives. who cares if the amendment doesnt consider a unborn a person. who cares. tell me why. dont go all on facts on tell all the wya. tell me the reason why it should be allowed. oh cause ur a girl who didnt mean to have a bay. didnt mean to stupid. your angry cause you dont have time for this. give me the best reason and you win. dont send me articles. gives me your words completly. idc about the amendment or anything like that cause its only 1.8% of the population. if the girls gonna die then its understandable why she cant have the baby. but if shes in a good enviroment and just doesnt want. dont tell me its her right. dont tell the baby aint a person. tell me why she can, and she should, tell me why abortion is RIGHT.

People

Abortion/388/

I disagree with abortion

TheUnicornOfTheEarth

I disagree with abortion

People

Abortion/446/

why does a mental illness mean that child should or shouldn't live? I agree, in instances like sexual abuse or if that mothers life is at risk and she has other children to care for BUT what about the women who cant have children but want them? how must that affect them? its like saying to a homeless person "I have food, but I don't want it, so you cant have it" how is that right?

TheUnicornOfTheEarth

why does a mental illness mean that child should or shouldn't live? I agree, in instances like sexual abuse or if that mothers life is at risk and she has other children to care for BUT what about the women who cant have children but want them? how must that affect them? its like saying to a homeless person "I have food, but I don't want it, so you cant have it" how is that right?

People

Abortion/446/

many people who cant have babies do look to IVF and adoption but what I'm saying is it must hurt to look at the statistics and think that over 3000 people a year have abortions, okay some have reasons that are acceptable but because it was a 'drunk mistake' or 'the condom split' that is wrong.

TheUnicornOfTheEarth

many people who cant have babies do look to IVF and adoption but what I'm saying is it must hurt to look at the statistics and think that over 3000 people a year have abortions, okay some have reasons that are acceptable but because it was a 'drunk mistake' or 'the condom split' that is wrong.

People

Abortion/446/

I am not completely for abortion however I believe that everyone has the right to a choice. This does not mean that I want everyone to have an abortion for whatever reason they desire however I do believe that people who will be affected mentally or physically should have to choice. It is unfair to say that a woman has no right over her body once there is a lump of cells fused together inside her. A woman that does not want her child should not have to bear child birth and the mental or physical problems giving birth might bring. Advances in science can show us when a developing embryo or foetus is going to suffer massive trauma or disability once it is born. It is unfair to say that a woman must give birth to a child that she didn't intend to have and then suffer the trauma of watching that child die. Personally I wouldn't have an abortion unless it was down to age (20 or younger I would consider it) or if that baby was going to be born with a disability that wouldn't allow that child to live past a certain age.

pandii37

I am not completely for abortion however I believe that everyone has the right to a choice. This does not mean that I want everyone to have an abortion for whatever reason they desire however I do believe that people who will be affected mentally or physically should have to choice. It is unfair to say that a woman has no right over her body once there is a lump of cells fused together inside her. A woman that does not want her child should not have to bear child birth and the mental or physical problems giving birth might bring. Advances in science can show us when a developing embryo or foetus is going to suffer massive trauma or disability once it is born. It is unfair to say that a woman must give birth to a child that she didn't intend to have and then suffer the trauma of watching that child die. Personally I wouldn't have an abortion unless it was down to age (20 or younger I would consider it) or if that baby was going to be born with a disability that wouldn't allow that child to live past a certain age.

People

Abortion/446/

There are lots of options for women who cannot have children but want them. Adoption, IVF etc . It doesn't directly affect that infertile woman's life, does it? If an infertile woman wants a child and doesn't look into adoption or any other method of obtaining a child then that is down to that woman and that woman only. Think about all those children without parents who long to have someone to care for them, to help them learn to be a child again. Think about them. I'm not saying that abortion is the only answer and that if a woman wants an abortion for any reason then she can have one. But what I am saying is that if there is no other reasonable option or choice then what's one child to another? Another child into care, another child that will become an adult at the age of eleven and another child that doesn't feel the love of a parent.

pandii37

There are lots of options for women who cannot have children but want them. Adoption, IVF etc . It doesn't directly affect that infertile woman's life, does it? If an infertile woman wants a child and doesn't look into adoption or any other method of obtaining a child then that is down to that woman and that woman only. Think about all those children without parents who long to have someone to care for them, to help them learn to be a child again. Think about them. I'm not saying that abortion is the only answer and that if a woman wants an abortion for any reason then she can have one. But what I am saying is that if there is no other reasonable option or choice then what's one child to another? Another child into care, another child that will become an adult at the age of eleven and another child that doesn't feel the love of a parent.

People

Abortion/446/

Yes people have abortions for stupid reasons but most people don't. Most people spend a lot time considering an abortion before actually having one. People spend weeks and sometimes months thinking about their options and that 'child's' options but come to the conclusion that abortion is the best one. It's not a choice easily made but it is a choice that has to be. Again, I'm not saying that women should have an abortion at will and without reason but there are laws that have been put in place to prevent abortions at any time during the pregnancy and TWO doctors must agree. From a religious perspective, abortions are wrong. But most people have developed their own ideas and morals about what's right and what's wrong and this is just one of those things that come down to your opinion. I'm completely pro-choice as, although I wouldn't have an abortion (unless under certain circumstances)myself, I believe that everyone has the right to do with their body as they please. Just because abortion in legal doesn't make you have to have one.

pandii37

Yes people have abortions for stupid reasons but most people don't. Most people spend a lot time considering an abortion before actually having one. People spend weeks and sometimes months thinking about their options and that 'child's' options but come to the conclusion that abortion is the best one. It's not a choice easily made but it is a choice that has to be. Again, I'm not saying that women should have an abortion at will and without reason but there are laws that have been put in place to prevent abortions at any time during the pregnancy and TWO doctors must agree. From a religious perspective, abortions are wrong. But most people have developed their own ideas and morals about what's right and what's wrong and this is just one of those things that come down to your opinion. I'm completely pro-choice as, although I wouldn't have an abortion (unless under certain circumstances)myself, I believe that everyone has the right to do with their body as they please. Just because abortion in legal doesn't make you have to have one.

People

Abortion/446/

"A peer-reviewed study published by Obstetrics & Gynecology in Jan. 2015 reported that less than one quarter of one percent of abortions lead to major health complications. [159] [160] A 2012 study in Obstetrics & Gynecology found a woman's risk of dying from having an abortion is 0.6 in 100,000, while the risk of dying from giving birth is around 14 times higher (8.8 in 100,000). The study also found that "pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion." [3] The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated "Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States." They also said the mortality rate of a colonoscopy is more than 40 times greater than that of an abortion. [122] The National Cancer Institute (NCI), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all refuted the claim that abortion can lead to a higher probability of developing breast cancer. [22] A 1993 fertility investigation of 10,767 women by the Joint Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found that women who had at least two abortions experienced the same future fertility as those who had at least two natural pregnancies. According to Daniel R. Mishell, Jr., MD, Chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, before abortion was legalized women would frequently try to induce abortions by using coat hangers, knitting needles, or radiator flush, or by going to unsafe "back-alley" abortionists. [150] In 1972, there were 39 maternal deaths from illegal abortions. By 1976, after Roe v. Wade had legalized abortion nationwide, this number dropped to two. [7] The World Health Organization estimated in 2004 that unsafe abortions cause 68,000 maternal deaths worldwide each year, many of those in developing countries where safe and legal abortion services are difficult to access. According to a 2010 review by Britain's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, "most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception." The cortex does not become functional until at least the 26th week of a fetus' development, long after most abortions are performed. This finding was endorsed in 2012 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, [1] which stated that that there is "no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain." [142] A 2005 University of California at San Francisco study said fetuses probably can't feel pain until the 29th or 30th week of gestation. [166] Abortions that late into a pregnancy are extremely rare and are often restricted by state laws. [164] According to Stuart W. G. Derbyshire, PhD, Senior Lecturer at the University of Birmingham (England), "...fetuses cannot be held to experience pain. Not only has the biological development not yet occurred to support pain experience, but the environment after birth, so necessary to the development of pain experience, is also yet to occur." [10] The "flinching" and other reactions seen in fetuses when they detect pain stimuli are mere reflexes, not an indication that the fetus is perceiving or "feeling" anything. The choice over when and whether to have children is central to a woman's independence and ability to determine her future. [134] Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, "The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives." [8] Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) that undue restrictions on abortion infringe upon "a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature." [59] CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, JD, stated that Roe v. Wade was "a landmark of what is, in the truest sense, women"s liberation."

KyrinAnderson

"A peer-reviewed study published by Obstetrics & Gynecology in Jan. 2015 reported that less than one quarter of one percent of abortions lead to major health complications. [159] [160] A 2012 study in Obstetrics & Gynecology found a woman's risk of dying from having an abortion is 0.6 in 100,000, while the risk of dying from giving birth is around 14 times higher (8.8 in 100,000). The study also found that "pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion." [3] The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated "Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States." They also said the mortality rate of a colonoscopy is more than 40 times greater than that of an abortion. [122] The National Cancer Institute (NCI), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all refuted the claim that abortion can lead to a higher probability of developing breast cancer. [22] A 1993 fertility investigation of 10,767 women by the Joint Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found that women who had at least two abortions experienced the same future fertility as those who had at least two natural pregnancies. According to Daniel R. Mishell, Jr., MD, Chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, before abortion was legalized women would frequently try to induce abortions by using coat hangers, knitting needles, or radiator flush, or by going to unsafe "back-alley" abortionists. [150] In 1972, there were 39 maternal deaths from illegal abortions. By 1976, after Roe v. Wade had legalized abortion nationwide, this number dropped to two. [7] The World Health Organization estimated in 2004 that unsafe abortions cause 68,000 maternal deaths worldwide each year, many of those in developing countries where safe and legal abortion services are difficult to access. According to a 2010 review by Britain's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, "most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception." The cortex does not become functional until at least the 26th week of a fetus' development, long after most abortions are performed. This finding was endorsed in 2012 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, [1] which stated that that there is "no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain." [142] A 2005 University of California at San Francisco study said fetuses probably can't feel pain until the 29th or 30th week of gestation. [166] Abortions that late into a pregnancy are extremely rare and are often restricted by state laws. [164] According to Stuart W. G. Derbyshire, PhD, Senior Lecturer at the University of Birmingham (England), "...fetuses cannot be held to experience pain. Not only has the biological development not yet occurred to support pain experience, but the environment after birth, so necessary to the development of pain experience, is also yet to occur." [10] The "flinching" and other reactions seen in fetuses when they detect pain stimuli are mere reflexes, not an indication that the fetus is perceiving or "feeling" anything. The choice over when and whether to have children is central to a woman's independence and ability to determine her future. [134] Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, "The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives." [8] Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) that undue restrictions on abortion infringe upon "a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature." [59] CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, JD, stated that Roe v. Wade was "a landmark of what is, in the truest sense, women"s liberation."

Health

Abortion/450/

Yes but abortion isn't decided by the government is it decided by the parent. And most moms don't have enough money to take care of children so they have to give them up or have no baby in the beginning. My argument is that a lot of parents with new born kids or coming they can't take care of. If u have a poor mother and a child coming what will you do. You can't do anything except abortion to keep you from having. My argument is weak but it is what I believe.

KyrinAnderson

Yes but abortion isn't decided by the government is it decided by the parent. And most moms don't have enough money to take care of children so they have to give them up or have no baby in the beginning. My argument is that a lot of parents with new born kids or coming they can't take care of. If u have a poor mother and a child coming what will you do. You can't do anything except abortion to keep you from having. My argument is weak but it is what I believe.

Health

Abortion/450/

Having Abortion is pretty much the same thing as killing. Why do either? We have rights and yes from the comments maybe if she is raped but that doesn't mean she needs abortion. She could simply give the child up or give everything she owns just to take care of the child. Mother's everywhere in the world have sayed they wanted abortion but never did it. That doesn't mean we should give up. Abortion is not fair and you lose a child in the matter doesn't matter how it came.

KyrinAnderson

Having Abortion is pretty much the same thing as killing. Why do either? We have rights and yes from the comments maybe if she is raped but that doesn't mean she needs abortion. She could simply give the child up or give everything she owns just to take care of the child. Mother's everywhere in the world have sayed they wanted abortion but never did it. That doesn't mean we should give up. Abortion is not fair and you lose a child in the matter doesn't matter how it came.

Health

Abortion/450/

Abortion is not safe for the fetus. The fetus has the right to live. In a surgical abortion, the fetus is torn to pieces without medication for pain. The sum of my argument is this: An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure. Emphasis should be on contraception, not abortion. The right to life is the most basic right we have. The baby has the same genetic code at conception as she does at birth.

LiberalProlifer

Abortion is not safe for the fetus. The fetus has the right to live. In a surgical abortion, the fetus is torn to pieces without medication for pain. The sum of my argument is this: An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure. Emphasis should be on contraception, not abortion. The right to life is the most basic right we have. The baby has the same genetic code at conception as she does at birth.

Health

Abortion/450/

There are so many contraceptives available that it negates the alleged need for abortion. I understand if the mother has an ectopic pregnancy she can have an abortion, but otherise no because abortion kills a living child.

LiberalProlifer

There are so many contraceptives available that it negates the alleged need for abortion. I understand if the mother has an ectopic pregnancy she can have an abortion, but otherise no because abortion kills a living child.

Health

Abortion/450/

Are you arguing for or against abortion? I am prolife.

LiberalProlifer

Are you arguing for or against abortion? I am prolife.

Health

Abortion/450/

My opponent's entire argument is directly copied from here: <URL>... Since he claims that unborn babies have a right to life, I'll expect him to explain how a being that: 1) Can't think for itself 2) Can't live by itself constitutes a human.

Nails

My opponent's entire argument is directly copied from here: http://www.idebate.org... Since he claims that unborn babies have a right to life, I'll expect him to explain how a being that: 1) Can't think for itself 2) Can't live by itself constitutes a human.

Health

Abortion/51/

My opponent has seemingly aborted this debate. Please vote PRO.

Nails

My opponent has seemingly aborted this debate. Please vote PRO.

Health

Abortion/51/

Well this sucks...

Nails

Well this sucks...

Health

Abortion/51/

I thank my opponent for this debate. I am presuming that he as CON, must prove that abortion in every circumstance, once conception has occurred, should not be permitted, and I the opposite. == CON Arguments == "It doesn't matter if the embryo isn't fully formed, once he/she starts forming, it has a soul, along with the rights of a human being. He/she is a child of God, like you and me, and deserves to [b]e treated so." --> My opponent must back up these statements. He must prove that a soul exists and is in every human being and foetus. == PRO Arguments == I will present 3 arguments, the Life argument and the Viability argument. === Life ==== The Foetus is not truly life until it has brain and heart activity. Until then it lacks vital organs which makes it technically alive as a human. You cannot kill what is not alive. The heart does not form until the 6th week of pregnancy "The heart bulges, further develops, and begins to beat in a regular rhythm." -- <URL>... The brain doesn't form until the 5theek -- "A neural groove (future spinal cord) forms over the notochord with a brain bulge at one end. Neuromeres appear." -- <URL>... Therefore, until the 6th week of pregnancy, abortion is acceptable. === Viability Argument === If the Foetus is not viable, then it is a parasite. If the foetus cannot survive outside of the womb on its own, then it is reliant on the mother, and not human until it can do so. "It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500 gm to survive" -- <URL>... This graph should be a good guide as to what we are dealing with - <URL>... "According to data years 2003-2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive." -- <URL>... It is then feasible to say that a baby below 20 weeks of gestation is not viable, and therefore a parasite. I await my opponents response.

I-am-a-panda

I thank my opponent for this debate. I am presuming that he as CON, must prove that abortion in every circumstance, once conception has occurred, should not be permitted, and I the opposite. == CON Arguments == "It doesn't matter if the embryo isn't fully formed, once he/she starts forming, it has a soul, along with the rights of a human being. He/she is a child of God, like you and me, and deserves to [b]e treated so." --> My opponent must back up these statements. He must prove that a soul exists and is in every human being and foetus. == PRO Arguments == I will present 3 arguments, the Life argument and the Viability argument. === Life ==== The Foetus is not truly life until it has brain and heart activity. Until then it lacks vital organs which makes it technically alive as a human. You cannot kill what is not alive. The heart does not form until the 6th week of pregnancy "The heart bulges, further develops, and begins to beat in a regular rhythm." -- http://en.wikipedia.org... The brain doesn't form until the 5theek -- "A neural groove (future spinal cord) forms over the notochord with a brain bulge at one end. Neuromeres appear." -- http://en.wikipedia.org... Therefore, until the 6th week of pregnancy, abortion is acceptable. === Viability Argument === If the Foetus is not viable, then it is a parasite. If the foetus cannot survive outside of the womb on its own, then it is reliant on the mother, and not human until it can do so. "It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500 gm to survive" -- http://en.wikipedia.org... This graph should be a good guide as to what we are dealing with - http://en.wikipedia.org... "According to data years 2003-2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive." -- http://en.wikipedia.org... It is then feasible to say that a baby below 20 weeks of gestation is not viable, and therefore a parasite. I await my opponents response.

Health

Abortion/54/

I thank my opponent for his response. "If you ever went to confession, which I assume you never did, you will feel something come over you (if you have a good relationship with God) when the priest says the forgiving prayer. It makes you feel like you have been carrying a lot of weight for a long time, and had just been free of your burden. The burden you have been feeling are your sins. They have been weighing you down for a long time. You feel great, that would be your soul getting freed of the weight of your sins my friend. This is some proof of the human soul" == REBUTTAL == My opponent has not shown any evidence of a soul. Personal experience is subjective. If I didn't feel such an experience, would it be proof a soul doesn't exist? At any rate the "weight of he shoulder" effect is guilt. Humans feel guilty if they do something perceive to be morally wrong. Talking to another human being, and one you know is guaranteed not to say anything to authorities, makes people lose this feeling of guilt. It's a mental effect. "Some evolutionary psychologists theorize that guilt and shame helped maintain beneficial relationships, such as reciprocal altruism. If a person feels guilty when he harms another, or even fails to reciprocate kindness, he is more likely not to harm others or become too selfish. In this way, he reduces the chances of retaliation by members of his tribe, and thereby increases his survival prospects, and those of the tribe or group..... As a highly social animal living in large groups that are relatively stable, we need ways to deal with conflicts and events in which we inadvertently or purposefully harm others. If someone causes harm to another, and then feels guilt and demonstrates regret and sorrow, the person harmed is likely to forgive. Thus, guilt makes it possible to forgive, and helps hold the social group together." -- <URL>... My opponent has not refuted my arguments, so they stand. I await my opponents response.

I-am-a-panda

I thank my opponent for his response. "If you ever went to confession, which I assume you never did, you will feel something come over you (if you have a good relationship with God) when the priest says the forgiving prayer. It makes you feel like you have been carrying a lot of weight for a long time, and had just been free of your burden. The burden you have been feeling are your sins. They have been weighing you down for a long time. You feel great, that would be your soul getting freed of the weight of your sins my friend. This is some proof of the human soul" == REBUTTAL == My opponent has not shown any evidence of a soul. Personal experience is subjective. If I didn't feel such an experience, would it be proof a soul doesn't exist? At any rate the "weight of he shoulder" effect is guilt. Humans feel guilty if they do something perceive to be morally wrong. Talking to another human being, and one you know is guaranteed not to say anything to authorities, makes people lose this feeling of guilt. It's a mental effect. "Some evolutionary psychologists theorize that guilt and shame helped maintain beneficial relationships, such as reciprocal altruism. If a person feels guilty when he harms another, or even fails to reciprocate kindness, he is more likely not to harm others or become too selfish. In this way, he reduces the chances of retaliation by members of his tribe, and thereby increases his survival prospects, and those of the tribe or group..... As a highly social animal living in large groups that are relatively stable, we need ways to deal with conflicts and events in which we inadvertently or purposefully harm others. If someone causes harm to another, and then feels guilt and demonstrates regret and sorrow, the person harmed is likely to forgive. Thus, guilt makes it possible to forgive, and helps hold the social group together." -- http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent has not refuted my arguments, so they stand. I await my opponents response.

Health

Abortion/54/

I thank CON for his response. == CON == "It is quite hard to show you proof that the human soul exists, along with God. You get this knowledge by personal experience, not simply books or articles on wikipedia. The soul is a fragile thing, and once the embryo becomes even the tiniest little cell, it has a soul. Yes, the brain and the heart are very crucial, but what matters the most i the SOUL, my friend, and if you do not take car of it, cleanse it of its sins, you will LOSE it, and lose all hope." == REBUTTAL == My opponent is contradicting himself. on one hand, he is saying an upkeep of a soul is required for it to be kept. He also claims all foetus have souls, even though they lack the ability to upkeep them. Also, appeal to emotion. He has also not proved a soul exists either. == CON == "Why don't you prove that the soul DOESN'T exist?" == REBUTTAL == I needn't affirm a negative. me or hypothesis has yet been shown that could predict or validate the theory of a soul existing. The burden lies on you to affirm a soul exists. I await my opponents response.

I-am-a-panda

I thank CON for his response. == CON == "It is quite hard to show you proof that the human soul exists, along with God. You get this knowledge by personal experience, not simply books or articles on wikipedia. The soul is a fragile thing, and once the embryo becomes even the tiniest little cell, it has a soul. Yes, the brain and the heart are very crucial, but what matters the most i the SOUL, my friend, and if you do not take car of it, cleanse it of its sins, you will LOSE it, and lose all hope." == REBUTTAL == My opponent is contradicting himself. on one hand, he is saying an upkeep of a soul is required for it to be kept. He also claims all foetus have souls, even though they lack the ability to upkeep them. Also, appeal to emotion. He has also not proved a soul exists either. == CON == "Why don't you prove that the soul DOESN'T exist?" == REBUTTAL == I needn't affirm a negative. me or hypothesis has yet been shown that could predict or validate the theory of a soul existing. The burden lies on you to affirm a soul exists. I await my opponents response.

Health

Abortion/54/

I extend my arguments and await my opponents response.

I-am-a-panda

I extend my arguments and await my opponents response.

Health

Abortion/54/

Unfortunatley my opponent has forfeited the last 2 rounds of this debate. My Round 1 and Round 3 arguments still stand without refutation. For this reason, I strongly urge a PRO vote.

I-am-a-panda

Unfortunatley my opponent has forfeited the last 2 rounds of this debate. My Round 1 and Round 3 arguments still stand without refutation. For this reason, I strongly urge a PRO vote.

Health

Abortion/54/

Women should have the choice to terminate their pregnancy if, for some reason, they can't take care of a child at that point in their life. The US Supreme Court declared that abortion in considered a fundamental right that is guaranteed by the constitution. A woman is guaranteed certain areas and zones of privacy by the constitution, which is broad enough so that a woman can make the decision to terminate her pregnancy. abortion.procon.org

Nour_Elmekki

Women should have the choice to terminate their pregnancy if, for some reason, they can't take care of a child at that point in their life. The US Supreme Court declared that abortion in considered a fundamental right that is guaranteed by the constitution. A woman is guaranteed certain areas and zones of privacy by the constitution, which is broad enough so that a woman can make the decision to terminate her pregnancy. abortion.procon.org

Politics

Abortion/543/

Raising a child isn't something that comes easy and requires emotional commitment and social commitment, followed by financial resources. If a person isn't ready to raise a child, letting the child grow into a fetus and giving birth to the child would be worse since the child would grow in a destructive and non-conductive environment without the love and care that every child needs. Abortion is allowing a person the right to choose when they are ready to raise a child and if they are too young or have some sort of problem, then they won't be able to take care of the baby. The government isn't in the place to legislate women's choices. <URL>...

Nour_Elmekki

Raising a child isn't something that comes easy and requires emotional commitment and social commitment, followed by financial resources. If a person isn't ready to raise a child, letting the child grow into a fetus and giving birth to the child would be worse since the child would grow in a destructive and non-conductive environment without the love and care that every child needs. Abortion is allowing a person the right to choose when they are ready to raise a child and if they are too young or have some sort of problem, then they won't be able to take care of the baby. The government isn't in the place to legislate women's choices. http://www.academia.edu...

Politics

Abortion/543/

Abortion has a big impact on how much crime has been reduced. After abortion was legalized, the crime dropped by 50% and it also has a social benefit of $30 billion. Research indicates that unwanted babies are more likely to become criminals than wanted babies. Abortion cuts down on the amount of unwanted babies, which eliminates those who are more likely to commit crime. <URL>...

Nour_Elmekki

Abortion has a big impact on how much crime has been reduced. After abortion was legalized, the crime dropped by 50% and it also has a social benefit of $30 billion. Research indicates that unwanted babies are more likely to become criminals than wanted babies. Abortion cuts down on the amount of unwanted babies, which eliminates those who are more likely to commit crime. http://www.stopp.org...

Politics

Abortion/543/

Abortion is needed to control the population so that the population doesn't get too excess. By the 22 century, the population estimated to be 11.2 billion people and if abortion were illegal, the population would be so much higher. If our country stops the use of abortion, we will end like china, forcing women that don't want to have an abortion to have an abortion to control the population. When women are forced to get abortions, a lot of women commit suicide. Women have a higher rate of suicide in China because of this reason and in almost every other country, men have a higher rate of suicide. If abortion were illegal, the population would grow tremendously, causing abortion to be forced onto women later in life, which will increase the suicide rate of women. <URL>...

Nour_Elmekki

Abortion is needed to control the population so that the population doesn't get too excess. By the 22 century, the population estimated to be 11.2 billion people and if abortion were illegal, the population would be so much higher. If our country stops the use of abortion, we will end like china, forcing women that don't want to have an abortion to have an abortion to control the population. When women are forced to get abortions, a lot of women commit suicide. Women have a higher rate of suicide in China because of this reason and in almost every other country, men have a higher rate of suicide. If abortion were illegal, the population would grow tremendously, causing abortion to be forced onto women later in life, which will increase the suicide rate of women. http://www.allgirlsallowed.org...

Politics

Abortion/543/

Abortion is something that should be kept open as in option to the cases in which it is the best option in the opinion of the mother. The abortion of a fetus is the best choice for some mothers who have been the victim of rape, have no resources to care for a child or for births that were unintended. These three reasons are all enough for a mother to decide what to do with her own body. There is no legal or medical reason not to allow a mother to abort. Nor is there a religious one that could govern all women such as those those who have no religious preference. The control over what happens to ones body is something that one but that person has the right to call the shots. To make a law over this would be a law is no constitutional.

Juarez3rd

Abortion is something that should be kept open as in option to the cases in which it is the best option in the opinion of the mother. The abortion of a fetus is the best choice for some mothers who have been the victim of rape, have no resources to care for a child or for births that were unintended. These three reasons are all enough for a mother to decide what to do with her own body. There is no legal or medical reason not to allow a mother to abort. Nor is there a religious one that could govern all women such as those those who have no religious preference. The control over what happens to ones body is something that one but that person has the right to call the shots. To make a law over this would be a law is no constitutional.

Health

Abortion/59/

Responding to Pro C1 : The harm that is caused from the abortion is what's supposed to be done as to perform the abortion. This can not be considered a Medical reason because the risks of an abortion are explained well before hand, and the choice to perform the abortion is completely optional. Responding to Pro C2 : agreed Responding to Pro C3 : While the Fetus is still inside the womb and is apart of its Mothers life. All rights concerning rather it is allowed to be born belongs to its Mother. While from a biological point of view it may be considered alive. Between the two lives obviously only the Mother is capable of making decisions concerning both their health and lives.

Juarez3rd

Responding to Pro C1 : The harm that is caused from the abortion is what's supposed to be done as to perform the abortion. This can not be considered a Medical reason because the risks of an abortion are explained well before hand, and the choice to perform the abortion is completely optional. Responding to Pro C2 : agreed Responding to Pro C3 : While the Fetus is still inside the womb and is apart of its Mothers life. All rights concerning rather it is allowed to be born belongs to its Mother. While from a biological point of view it may be considered alive. Between the two lives obviously only the Mother is capable of making decisions concerning both their health and lives.

Health

Abortion/59/

C3: The fact is that there is no laws in existence that state the unborn fetus has any rights at all obviously because it has no ability to act upon any rights if it had any. Hence if the fetus has no ability to act then the mother would be the only one to do so. After the child is brought into the world it is protected by law, because after the child is born then it against the law to destroy its life. Birth is the fine line because it changes things a baby outside the mother alive on its own accord versus the unborn growing child inside the mother are not the same. Murder is as the unlawful killing of a human being by the act of another. Before the fetus is born it can not be murdered because its not a human being and not protected.

Juarez3rd

C3: The fact is that there is no laws in existence that state the unborn fetus has any rights at all obviously because it has no ability to act upon any rights if it had any. Hence if the fetus has no ability to act then the mother would be the only one to do so. After the child is brought into the world it is protected by law, because after the child is born then it against the law to destroy its life. Birth is the fine line because it changes things a baby outside the mother alive on its own accord versus the unborn growing child inside the mother are not the same. Murder is as the unlawful killing of a human being by the act of another. Before the fetus is born it can not be murdered because its not a human being and not protected.

Health

Abortion/59/

Resolution: If the mother wants it, abortion should be allowed. Pro C1: No legal/medical reason. Legal =/= moral, which is what's important in answering "should". Abortion causes severe harm to the growing human inside it's mother's womb. This is a medical reason. Pro C2: Not all women are religious. Strawman; I'm not using religion to argue this. Pro C3: One should have the right to control one's own body. The fetus has unique DNA and is its own growing entity. When "controlling" one's own body destroys an innocent life, something terrible has happened. Con Argument: Any competent biologist will tell you that fetuses are human. We shouldn't devalue human life by allowing its destruction to be carried out on the whim of one i

Procrastarian

Resolution: If the mother wants it, abortion should be allowed. Pro C1: No legal/medical reason. Legal =/= moral, which is what's important in answering "should". Abortion causes severe harm to the growing human inside it's mother's womb. This is a medical reason. Pro C2: Not all women are religious. Strawman; I'm not using religion to argue this. Pro C3: One should have the right to control one's own body. The fetus has unique DNA and is its own growing entity. When "controlling" one's own body destroys an innocent life, something terrible has happened. Con Argument: Any competent biologist will tell you that fetuses are human. We shouldn't devalue human life by allowing its destruction to be carried out on the whim of one i

Health

Abortion/59/

Pro C1: Medical =/= moral. This contention is irrelevant. Pro C3: Pro does little to support his assumption that the unborn baby deserves no rights. Pro does nothing to support his claim that the mother deserves all rights over the child's life. If she's allowed to kill the baby before it's born, why shouldn't she be allowed to kill it shortly after it's born? Why not a week after? Abortion can include killing the baby seconds before it's born. For pro to win he must show why a child should go from being worthless one moment to being legally protected seconds later. I support my side by appealing to the value of human life and the scientific fact that fetuses are growing humans. My opponent has simply stated his unsupported opinion.

Procrastarian

Pro C1: Medical =/= moral. This contention is irrelevant. Pro C3: Pro does little to support his assumption that the unborn baby deserves no rights. Pro does nothing to support his claim that the mother deserves all rights over the child's life. If she's allowed to kill the baby before it's born, why shouldn't she be allowed to kill it shortly after it's born? Why not a week after? Abortion can include killing the baby seconds before it's born. For pro to win he must show why a child should go from being worthless one moment to being legally protected seconds later. I support my side by appealing to the value of human life and the scientific fact that fetuses are growing humans. My opponent has simply stated his unsupported opinion.

Health

Abortion/59/

Throughout this short debate, my opponent has made the error of thinking that because something is legal it is morally correct. The resolution isn't about whether abortion is legal - it's about whether it /should/ be "left open as an option." For this reason no arguments about current laws apply. Pro has not responded to my value of human life. I have indicated that human life should be protected and all he has done is state that fetuses aren't human beings. He has given no criteria for what constitutes a human being (I argue that all humans are human beings). Finally, pro's argument about the baby's inability to "act on its rights" makes no sense. How does anyone act on a right to live? By living? Fetuses are alive and actively growing

Procrastarian

Throughout this short debate, my opponent has made the error of thinking that because something is legal it is morally correct. The resolution isn't about whether abortion is legal - it's about whether it /should/ be "left open as an option." For this reason no arguments about current laws apply. Pro has not responded to my value of human life. I have indicated that human life should be protected and all he has done is state that fetuses aren't human beings. He has given no criteria for what constitutes a human being (I argue that all humans are human beings). Finally, pro's argument about the baby's inability to "act on its rights" makes no sense. How does anyone act on a right to live? By living? Fetuses are alive and actively growing

Health

Abortion/59/

Con. In against it I think if girls can have sex then the can deal with the consequences that comes with having sex..... Theres protection out there and lots of people that can't have kids so they would be glad to have them. I think no matter what age you get pregnant you had sex so deal with it.

Hvillian12

Con. In against it I think if girls can have sex then the can deal with the consequences that comes with having sex..... Theres protection out there and lots of people that can't have kids so they would be glad to have them. I think no matter what age you get pregnant you had sex so deal with it.

Society

Abortion/78/

But if she knew she couldn't handle it why would she have sex.... Exactly you have to think about your actions before you make the action. There have been over 23deaths a year from abortion and that was in <PHONE> (abortion facts.com). I just think that if you have sex you have to deal with good old mother nature and also some people are forced to have babies because they can afford abortion it costs At least $400.00& up ( yahoo answers.com)

Hvillian12

But if she knew she couldn't handle it why would she have sex.... Exactly you have to think about your actions before you make the action. There have been over 23deaths a year from abortion and that was in 1992-1993 (abortion facts.com). I just think that if you have sex you have to deal with good old mother nature and also some people are forced to have babies because they can afford abortion it costs At least $400.00& up ( yahoo answers.com)

Society

Abortion/78/

I will argue that abortion is not wrong morally or from a health perspective. Con will argue against abortion from either or both perspectives. Definitions: Abortion: the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. <URL>... I will reserve the first round for acceptance and definitions. And please no arguments from emotion.

socialpinko

I will argue that abortion is not wrong morally or from a health perspective. Con will argue against abortion from either or both perspectives. Definitions: Abortion: the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. http://dictionary.reference.com... I will reserve the first round for acceptance and definitions. And please no arguments from emotion.

Health

Abortion/90/

I accept your definitions of person but would like to extend your definition of murder to "df intentional killing of a LIVING innocent human being." I will argue that one is not yet living until they are born. Alive: brought forth by birth. <URL>... In the womb a fetus or embryo is not yet functioning on it's own. It is still relying on the mother to breathe and to receive nourishment. Birth is the miracle of life. It is when a fetus turns into a baby.

socialpinko

I accept your definitions of person but would like to extend your definition of murder to "df intentional killing of a LIVING innocent human being." I will argue that one is not yet living until they are born. Alive: brought forth by birth. http://dictionary.reference.com... In the womb a fetus or embryo is not yet functioning on it's own. It is still relying on the mother to breathe and to receive nourishment. Birth is the miracle of life. It is when a fetus turns into a baby.

Health

Abortion/90/

"I'm worried about what we fundamentally understand alive things to be. If I'm understanding correctly you understand the class of "alive" things to be co-extensive with the class of "born" things. But there are so many counter-examples to this. Cells which reproduce by splitting from other cells don't fit into the class of "born" things. Yet they are certainly alive. Trees aren't "born" and yet they are certainly alive." We are not having a debate about cells or trees. The definition is not supposed to apply to those things as we are talking about human abortion. I am not saying that a cell is not alive until it is born, I am saying that a human fetus is not alive until it is born. As to the fetus relying on the mother for breathing, I meant to post this link: <URL>... It says that to be alive isbeing in a state in which the organs perform their functions. Not to say that an alcoholic who's liver shuts down is not alive but that one cannot be alive until the organs are fully formed. And the fetus is relying on it's mother to breathe until it is born so you can follow my line of reasoning from there. "I'm assuming that you mean because the fetus is dependent upon its mother that it doesn't have any rights." This is not my point. My point is that a human is not alive until it is born, therefore a termination of a pregnancy is not murder or killing in that you cannot kill something that is not yet alive. To voters, my opponent never gave a definition of what it means to be alive and could not properly refute my line of reasoning. Vote Pro

socialpinko

"I'm worried about what we fundamentally understand alive things to be. If I'm understanding correctly you understand the class of "alive" things to be co-extensive with the class of "born" things. But there are so many counter-examples to this. Cells which reproduce by splitting from other cells don't fit into the class of "born" things. Yet they are certainly alive. Trees aren't "born" and yet they are certainly alive." We are not having a debate about cells or trees. The definition is not supposed to apply to those things as we are talking about human abortion. I am not saying that a cell is not alive until it is born, I am saying that a human fetus is not alive until it is born. As to the fetus relying on the mother for breathing, I meant to post this link: http://www.biology-online.org... It says that to be alive isbeing in a state in which the organs perform their functions. Not to say that an alcoholic who's liver shuts down is not alive but that one cannot be alive until the organs are fully formed. And the fetus is relying on it's mother to breathe until it is born so you can follow my line of reasoning from there. "I'm assuming that you mean because the fetus is dependent upon its mother that it doesn't have any rights." This is not my point. My point is that a human is not alive until it is born, therefore a termination of a pregnancy is not murder or killing in that you cannot kill something that is not yet alive. To voters, my opponent never gave a definition of what it means to be alive and could not properly refute my line of reasoning. Vote Pro

Health

Abortion/90/

I will be negating the resolution that abortions are morally wrong, and since most abortions occur in the first trimester this debate will only focus on abortions that take place during that time period. Moral philosophers, theologians, and medical practitioners have argued about the ethics behind abortion for quite some time. And many deeply ethical people have come to view abortion as being morally reprehensible. However, most of the arguments against abortion can be shown to be fallacious on their own merits. They are all either structurally invalid or contain premises which are unsound. For now, I will evaluate one of the central arguments against abortion. ============================================== The Biological Version of the Central Anti Abortion Argument ============================================== Throughout the years there have been many arguments put forth against abortion. However, most of them are derived from some version of the following syllogism: {1} It is wrong to kill an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens. {2} A human fetus is an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens. {3} Therefore, it is wrong to kill a human fetus. This argument is structurally valid. However, not all of the premises are sound. [1] It fails to demonstrate why membership inside of a species represents a significant moral boundary. Furthermore, if the argument were valid it would also have to be valid in the case of someone that has experienced upper brain death since they can also be innocent members of the species Homo sapiens. [2] Like a fetus, a human with upper brain death can also have a beating heart and many of the basic biological functions that we associate with being "alive". And once we take this scenario into consideration we can rewrite the syllogism so that it reads as follows: {1} It is wrong to kill an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens. {2} A human with upper brain death is an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens. {3} Therefore, it is wrong to kill a human with upper brain death. After we have put this alternative into the syllogism we are left with a reductio ad absurdum argument. If the biological version of the anti abortion argument were valid then this derivative would also be valid. However, it is simply nonsensical to speak of the "murder" of someone who has already experienced a permanent loss of consciousness. [3] Clearly, the first premise of the central anti abortion argument is deeply flawed. In order for us to formulate a syllogism regarding murder that is sensible we must first identify what moral principle distinguishes a normal adult human from one that has experienced upper brain death. And given the obvious differences in cognition between our two subjects the search for this principle should not be too difficult. Consequentially, this moral principle must involve some kind of reference to the mental abilities of a normal human that are not present in someone with upper brain death. From this standpoint it then becomes easy to realize that the right to life any entity can hold rests within its respective capacity for cognition. [4] Once it becomes established that cognition is the relevant moral distinction between normal humans and those without functional upper brains many things follow, both ethically and logically. With this in mind I will introduce the proper criterion for judging the ethics of abortion later. But, for now, it will be sufficient to recognize that something can't seriously have a right to life if it lacks certain kinds of mental capacities. This recognition will then pave the way for me to create my first argument. ========== Contention 1: A fetus doesn't have a right to life. ========== A fetus is a member of the biological species Homo sapiens, but it is not a person. [5] It is not a rational and self-conscious being and therefore it cannot be granted the same rights that we would grant to a person. Moreover, a fetus is not capable of holding a conscious desire to continue living. Therefore, it is meaningless to speak about the "murder" of a fetus. Murder implies the unlawful killing of a person that has a conscious desire to continue living. ========= Conclusion ========= People have a serious right to life because they are self-conscious and are able to hold a desire to continue living. On the other hand, a fetus is not a self-conscious being nor is it capable of holding preferences one-way or the other with respect to its existence. Therefore, it is not morally wrong to kill a fetus. The fetus may be "innocent" in some sense, but this is irrelevant since it doesn't have a right to life. I will expand upon this argument later, but for now I will leave it up to Pro to present their case. Definitions: morality- 1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. <URL>... abortion- a. Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus. <URL>... 1st Trimester Abortions- More than 90% of all abortions are performed in the 1st trimester - up through 12 weeks. <URL>... Self-consciousness is an acute sense of self-awareness. It is a preoccupation with oneself, as opposed to the philosophical state of self-awareness, which is the awareness that one exists as an individual being; although some writers use both terms interchangeably or synonymously. <URL>... Sources: [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>... Semantics will not be allowed. If it can be shown that either my opponent or I is taking this debate way off course by playing word games then that will count as an automatic forfeit. Good luck to whoever accepts. :)

Freeman

I will be negating the resolution that abortions are morally wrong, and since most abortions occur in the first trimester this debate will only focus on abortions that take place during that time period. Moral philosophers, theologians, and medical practitioners have argued about the ethics behind abortion for quite some time. And many deeply ethical people have come to view abortion as being morally reprehensible. However, most of the arguments against abortion can be shown to be fallacious on their own merits. They are all either structurally invalid or contain premises which are unsound. For now, I will evaluate one of the central arguments against abortion. ============================================== The Biological Version of the Central Anti Abortion Argument ============================================== Throughout the years there have been many arguments put forth against abortion. However, most of them are derived from some version of the following syllogism: {1} It is wrong to kill an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens. {2} A human fetus is an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens. {3} Therefore, it is wrong to kill a human fetus. This argument is structurally valid. However, not all of the premises are sound. [1] It fails to demonstrate why membership inside of a species represents a significant moral boundary. Furthermore, if the argument were valid it would also have to be valid in the case of someone that has experienced upper brain death since they can also be innocent members of the species Homo sapiens. [2] Like a fetus, a human with upper brain death can also have a beating heart and many of the basic biological functions that we associate with being "alive". And once we take this scenario into consideration we can rewrite the syllogism so that it reads as follows: {1} It is wrong to kill an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens. {2} A human with upper brain death is an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens. {3} Therefore, it is wrong to kill a human with upper brain death. After we have put this alternative into the syllogism we are left with a reductio ad absurdum argument. If the biological version of the anti abortion argument were valid then this derivative would also be valid. However, it is simply nonsensical to speak of the "murder" of someone who has already experienced a permanent loss of consciousness. [3] Clearly, the first premise of the central anti abortion argument is deeply flawed. In order for us to formulate a syllogism regarding murder that is sensible we must first identify what moral principle distinguishes a normal adult human from one that has experienced upper brain death. And given the obvious differences in cognition between our two subjects the search for this principle should not be too difficult. Consequentially, this moral principle must involve some kind of reference to the mental abilities of a normal human that are not present in someone with upper brain death. From this standpoint it then becomes easy to realize that the right to life any entity can hold rests within its respective capacity for cognition. [4] Once it becomes established that cognition is the relevant moral distinction between normal humans and those without functional upper brains many things follow, both ethically and logically. With this in mind I will introduce the proper criterion for judging the ethics of abortion later. But, for now, it will be sufficient to recognize that something can't seriously have a right to life if it lacks certain kinds of mental capacities. This recognition will then pave the way for me to create my first argument. ========== Contention 1: A fetus doesn't have a right to life. ========== A fetus is a member of the biological species Homo sapiens, but it is not a person. [5] It is not a rational and self-conscious being and therefore it cannot be granted the same rights that we would grant to a person. Moreover, a fetus is not capable of holding a conscious desire to continue living. Therefore, it is meaningless to speak about the "murder" of a fetus. Murder implies the unlawful killing of a person that has a conscious desire to continue living. ========= Conclusion ========= People have a serious right to life because they are self-conscious and are able to hold a desire to continue living. On the other hand, a fetus is not a self-conscious being nor is it capable of holding preferences one-way or the other with respect to its existence. Therefore, it is not morally wrong to kill a fetus. The fetus may be "innocent" in some sense, but this is irrelevant since it doesn't have a right to life. I will expand upon this argument later, but for now I will leave it up to Pro to present their case. Definitions: morality- 1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... abortion- a. Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 1st Trimester Abortions- More than 90% of all abortions are performed in the 1st trimester - up through 12 weeks. http://www.abortion.com... Self-consciousness is an acute sense of self-awareness. It is a preoccupation with oneself, as opposed to the philosophical state of self-awareness, which is the awareness that one exists as an individual being; although some writers use both terms interchangeably or synonymously. http://en.wikipedia.org... Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://health.howstuffworks.com... [3] http://books.google.com... [4] http://spot.colorado.edu... [5] http://www.utilitarian.net... Semantics will not be allowed. If it can be shown that either my opponent or I is taking this debate way off course by playing word games then that will count as an automatic forfeit. Good luck to whoever accepts. :)

Politics

Abortions-are-morally-wrong./1/

Thank you, Mongeese, for accepting my challenge. I really do appreciate your time. My opponent's arguments are fairly straightforward, so this debate will likely be productive. However, despite what Mongeese may imagine we both have a burden of sorts in this resolution. *Case Con- Rebuttals* ========== A.The Biological Version of the Central Anti Abortion Argument ========== Subpoint 1: A Potentialities Derivation "The right to life any entity can hold rests within its potentiality for future cognition."- Mongeese In order to expand the biological argument against abortion Mongeese has decided to put forth a potentiality derivation of the central anti abortion argument. Though this argument may look compelling it fails upon close scrutiny. Rights simply can't be derived from potentialities. For example, a nine year old is a potential voter that has the potential right to vote in an election. This does not mean that they have the actual right to vote. They won't have the actual right to vote until they are eighteen. [1] And this same line of critique would also apply to any being that has the potential to acquire consciousness. Potential beings simply don't have the same rights as actual beings. There are, of course, other problems that occur if you seek to advance arguments about the importance of potentials. Given what we know about genetics every cell in the body with a nucleus has the potential to become another person with the right genetic manipulation. [2] Literally, every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a holocaust of potential human beings. [3] So, arguments from a fetus' potential aren't going to get you anywhere. Subpoint 2: What about people that are sleeping, in a comma, or those that have fainted? Your comparison is inapplicable. Humans are capable of self consciously considering the future. And by murdering someone that is sleeping or in a comma you are violating their preference to continue living. Therefore, people in a comma have a right to life because they have a desire to continue living even if it isn't present while they are in a comma. Moreover, a conscious adult has already acquired the capacity for cognition, and since I have shown that potentialities are irrelevant a fetus can't have a right to life because it has never been conscious. ========== B. Contention -1: A fetus doesn't have a right to life. ========== Subpoint 1: What about people that are sleeping, in a comma, or those that have fainted? Mongeese makes the same mistakes here that he has made before. Allow my previous argument to carry over. Subpoint 2: Self consciousness and rights "It is not a rational and self-conscious being and therefore it cannot be granted the same rights that we would grant to a person." -Freeman This would be rather similar to saying, "He is not white, and therefore he cannot be granted the same rights that we would grant to a white person." -Mongeese The basis of this comparison stems from a false analogy because it essentially equates a fully conscious adult human with an unconscious fetus. [4] Moreover, your reasoning is also circular since it presupposes that there is no significant moral distinction between those who have a mental life and those who are incapable of having one. [5] Every normal adult human being is a person regardless of his or her skin color because they are all rational and self-conscious. This is why all different ethnicities have a right to life. A fetus, on the other hand, is not self-conscious and thus cannot have a serious right to life. Therefore, any comparison of a fetus to an adult human is bound to be invidious. Subpoint 3: Does a fetus have a desire to live? "Moreover, a fetus is not capable of holding a conscious desire to continue living."- Freeman "Although the desire is not conscious, it is still there." - Mongeese No, a fetus does not have a desire to live because it is incapable of holding any desires since it isn't conscious. Its neurology is not advanced enough for it to hold those kinds of preferences. You're mistaking a biological directive for preferences and desires. This would be like me saying that a corpse, with muscle spasms due to their Brainstem, is actually still alive. [6] Brainstems can still cause a dead body to have spasms of movement. This doesn't mean that a corpse has a desire to move. Subpoint 4: What constitutes murder? "Murder merely implies the unlawful killing a person that has a desire to continue living." - Mongeese Exactly, murder can only occur with an entity that has a desire to continue living. A fetus does not have a desire to continue living and therefore it cannot have a right to life. Their neurological development prevents them from being capable of holding this desire. For once we agree. "Why must this desire be conscious?" - Mongeese Your right, it doesn't have to be consciously held. However, it must have been consciously held at some point. This is what distinguishes a fetus from a person. Unlike a person, a fetus has never had a conscious desire to continue living. =========== C. Contention +1: This syllogism affirms abortion to be morally wrong. =========== Mongeese begins his syllogism with the following premise. 1."All religions are standards of good conduct." Not only is this premise unsupported; it is logically impossible for it to be correct. All religions cannot simultaneously give good standards for morality because they give contradictory accounts of what constitutes good conduct. For example, some Incan religions have actively supported infanticide. [7] Therefore, my opponent's argument has logically incompatible properties, which makes it self-contradictory. [8] It is logically impossible for all religions to promote good standards of conduct because they flat out contradict each other in their claims about moral behavior. And with the destruction of the first premise the rest of the syllogism falls with it. ============== D. Conclusion Analysis ============== "Most humans have a serious right to life because they have the potential to be self-conscious in the future, and hold a desire to continue living." No, humans have a right to life because they can self-consciously consider the future. They want to still be alive even if they temporarily go to sleep. This is why your analogy with the "Coma Guy, Fainting Guy, and Snoring Guy" is fallacious. ======= Conclusion ======= A fetus is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree. Consequently, eating a bag of acorns is not the same as destroying a forest of trees even if these acorns had all just been planted in the ground. It is therefore obvious that things don't derive rights from what they can potentially become; they derive rights from what they currently are. Mongeese denies the importance of self-consciousness in determining whether or not an entity has rights and fails to grasp the absurd implications of this denial. If my opponent's argument were valid we would have to treat blastocysts, literally undifferentiated clumps of cells, with the same kind of moral concern we give to a full grown person. [9] And because of these objections the resolution remains negated. Sources: [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>... [6] <URL>... [7] <URL>... [8] <URL>... [9] <URL>... Good luck :)

Freeman

Thank you, Mongeese, for accepting my challenge. I really do appreciate your time. My opponent's arguments are fairly straightforward, so this debate will likely be productive. However, despite what Mongeese may imagine we both have a burden of sorts in this resolution. *Case Con- Rebuttals* ========== A.The Biological Version of the Central Anti Abortion Argument ========== Subpoint 1: A Potentialities Derivation "The right to life any entity can hold rests within its potentiality for future cognition."- Mongeese In order to expand the biological argument against abortion Mongeese has decided to put forth a potentiality derivation of the central anti abortion argument. Though this argument may look compelling it fails upon close scrutiny. Rights simply can't be derived from potentialities. For example, a nine year old is a potential voter that has the potential right to vote in an election. This does not mean that they have the actual right to vote. They won't have the actual right to vote until they are eighteen. [1] And this same line of critique would also apply to any being that has the potential to acquire consciousness. Potential beings simply don't have the same rights as actual beings. There are, of course, other problems that occur if you seek to advance arguments about the importance of potentials. Given what we know about genetics every cell in the body with a nucleus has the potential to become another person with the right genetic manipulation. [2] Literally, every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a holocaust of potential human beings. [3] So, arguments from a fetus' potential aren't going to get you anywhere. Subpoint 2: What about people that are sleeping, in a comma, or those that have fainted? Your comparison is inapplicable. Humans are capable of self consciously considering the future. And by murdering someone that is sleeping or in a comma you are violating their preference to continue living. Therefore, people in a comma have a right to life because they have a desire to continue living even if it isn't present while they are in a comma. Moreover, a conscious adult has already acquired the capacity for cognition, and since I have shown that potentialities are irrelevant a fetus can't have a right to life because it has never been conscious. ========== B. Contention -1: A fetus doesn't have a right to life. ========== Subpoint 1: What about people that are sleeping, in a comma, or those that have fainted? Mongeese makes the same mistakes here that he has made before. Allow my previous argument to carry over. Subpoint 2: Self consciousness and rights "It is not a rational and self-conscious being and therefore it cannot be granted the same rights that we would grant to a person." -Freeman This would be rather similar to saying, "He is not white, and therefore he cannot be granted the same rights that we would grant to a white person." -Mongeese The basis of this comparison stems from a false analogy because it essentially equates a fully conscious adult human with an unconscious fetus. [4] Moreover, your reasoning is also circular since it presupposes that there is no significant moral distinction between those who have a mental life and those who are incapable of having one. [5] Every normal adult human being is a person regardless of his or her skin color because they are all rational and self-conscious. This is why all different ethnicities have a right to life. A fetus, on the other hand, is not self-conscious and thus cannot have a serious right to life. Therefore, any comparison of a fetus to an adult human is bound to be invidious. Subpoint 3: Does a fetus have a desire to live? "Moreover, a fetus is not capable of holding a conscious desire to continue living."- Freeman "Although the desire is not conscious, it is still there." - Mongeese No, a fetus does not have a desire to live because it is incapable of holding any desires since it isn't conscious. Its neurology is not advanced enough for it to hold those kinds of preferences. You're mistaking a biological directive for preferences and desires. This would be like me saying that a corpse, with muscle spasms due to their Brainstem, is actually still alive. [6] Brainstems can still cause a dead body to have spasms of movement. This doesn't mean that a corpse has a desire to move. Subpoint 4: What constitutes murder? "Murder merely implies the unlawful killing a person that has a desire to continue living." – Mongeese Exactly, murder can only occur with an entity that has a desire to continue living. A fetus does not have a desire to continue living and therefore it cannot have a right to life. Their neurological development prevents them from being capable of holding this desire. For once we agree. "Why must this desire be conscious?" - Mongeese Your right, it doesn't have to be consciously held. However, it must have been consciously held at some point. This is what distinguishes a fetus from a person. Unlike a person, a fetus has never had a conscious desire to continue living. =========== C. Contention +1: This syllogism affirms abortion to be morally wrong. =========== Mongeese begins his syllogism with the following premise. 1."All religions are standards of good conduct." Not only is this premise unsupported; it is logically impossible for it to be correct. All religions cannot simultaneously give good standards for morality because they give contradictory accounts of what constitutes good conduct. For example, some Incan religions have actively supported infanticide. [7] Therefore, my opponent's argument has logically incompatible properties, which makes it self-contradictory. [8] It is logically impossible for all religions to promote good standards of conduct because they flat out contradict each other in their claims about moral behavior. And with the destruction of the first premise the rest of the syllogism falls with it. ============== D. Conclusion Analysis ============== "Most humans have a serious right to life because they have the potential to be self-conscious in the future, and hold a desire to continue living." No, humans have a right to life because they can self-consciously consider the future. They want to still be alive even if they temporarily go to sleep. This is why your analogy with the "Coma Guy, Fainting Guy, and Snoring Guy" is fallacious. ======= Conclusion ======= A fetus is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree. Consequently, eating a bag of acorns is not the same as destroying a forest of trees even if these acorns had all just been planted in the ground. It is therefore obvious that things don't derive rights from what they can potentially become; they derive rights from what they currently are. Mongeese denies the importance of self-consciousness in determining whether or not an entity has rights and fails to grasp the absurd implications of this denial. If my opponent's argument were valid we would have to treat blastocysts, literally undifferentiated clumps of cells, with the same kind of moral concern we give to a full grown person. [9] And because of these objections the resolution remains negated. Sources: [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://machineslikeus.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org... [9] http://www.advancedfertility.com... Good luck :)

Politics

Abortions-are-morally-wrong./1/

Let me begin by thanking Mongeese for agreeing to debate with me. =========== A. The Biological Version of the Central Anti Abortion Argument =========== 1. A Potentialities Derivation "My opponent's argument is that because we deny a nine-year-old the right to vote, that nine-year-old does not deserve the right to vote." I argue no such thing. The point of the analogy isn't to demonstrate that nine year olds should or should not be allowed to vote. The point is to demonstrate that potential beings don't have the same rights as actual beings. The nine-year old will gain the right to vote when they turn 18. Likewise, the fetus will gain a right to life when it becomes a person. You've simply misunderstood the analogy. Given their respective conditions the nine-year old doesn't have a right to vote and a fetus doesn't have a right to life. If your reasoning were valid then infants should be given the right to vote since a beings potential distinguishes its claim to rights. If you agree that infants should not be given the right to vote then you concede the basis of my argument. A creatures potential is not what determines its rights. 2. Coma Guy, Fainting Guy, and Snoring Guy "Coma Guy has no preferences."- Mongeese This is false. Comma guy was once conscious and had the desire to keep living. Like all humans, comma guy had the capacity to envision the future and his preference to continue living in that future is what establishes his right to life when he is temporarily unconscious. Your entire argument in this area is fallacious. 3. Genetic manipulation My source wasn't just from some "random guy's blog". It was a typed excerpt of a lecture given by Sam Harris, a neuroscientist. [1]-[2] He has just as much authority to speak on matters concerning cognition and genetics as Stephen Hawking does to speak about cosmology. I know you love using false analogies, but they don't work. [3] Sam is an academic; he's not some crackpot that's predicting the end of the world. Besides, It's common knowledge that the genetic manipulation of a cell can create a human. Different cells develop into the different organisms that give rise to a human. [4] We all start off as one cell and those cells multiply until they eventually become a blastocyst. [5] =========== B.Contention -1: A fetus doesn't have a right to life. =========== "My opponent claims that I use a false analogy."- Mongeese Comparing a conscious adult to an unconscious fetus is a false analogy. My assertion remains standing. 3. Does a fetus have a desire to live? A body cannot hold a desire unless it contains consciousness. I've already told you that unconscious bodies can spasm. This doesn't mean they have a desire to move. Furthermore, it's common knowledge that brainstems can cause dead bodies to spasm. But, if you want more information here it is. [6] 4. What constitutes murder? A desire to continue living must be consciously held at some point because potentialities are irrelevant. Once a human acquires a conscious desire to live it attains a right to life, because it can desire to continue living. =========== C.Contention +1: This syllogism affirms abortion to be morally wrong. =========== As a result of my previous criticism my opponent abandons his first syllogism and decides to rework it. However, it fails for the exact same reasons that the first one failed. "1. Christianity is a standard of good conduct." For the moment, let us set aside the fact that this assertion goes unsupported and is therefore unsound. Like its predecessor, it is logically impossible for this premise to be correct. Christianity cannot give a universal standard of good conduct because different branches of Christianity give contradictory accounts of what constitutes good conduct. For example, some branches of Christianity are actually pro choice. [7] Therefore, my opponent's argument has logically incompatible properties, which makes it self-contradictory. [8] And, just as before, this criticism renders the entire syllogism invalid. =========== D.Conclusion Analysis - Round 1 =========== "No, humans have a right to life because they can self-consciously consider the future."-Freeman Oh, really? And the ability to self-consciously consider the future is the dividing line for the right to life because...?- Mongeese It's a significant dividing line because people don't want to be murdered when they faint or go to sleep. Humans are capable of envisioning themselves as existing over time and they can plan for the future. Therefore, by murdering someone that is sleeping you are denying them their right continue living and disregarding their future desires. "A fetus wants to be alive even when it hasn't reached consciousness." Mongeese, a fetus doesn't want anything, because it can't want anything. Their neurological makeup prevents them from being able to desire anything. It's very important that you understand this. Consciousness is a prerequisite for holding any actual desires, and since a fetus doesn't have consciousness it can't hold any preferences. Therefore, it cannot hold a right to life. =========== E.Conclusion Analysis - Round 2 =========== --> "My opponent makes an analogy with oak trees, although we feel no moral duty towards oak trees in the slightest. I don't know what he's trying to get at here." You've really misunderstood the analogy. I'm not arguing that we have moral responsibilities to oak trees. Even though an acorn is a potential oak tree it does not have the same properties as an actual oak tree. And even though a fetus is a potential person it doesn't have the same properties as an actual person. If I were to go into a wildlife reserve and cut down 1000 oak trees that would be a serious crime. However, eating 1000 acorns is not the equivalent to destroying oak trees even though an acorn is a potential tree. Do you get where I'm going with this? -->"My opponent wishes to discriminate against blastocysts because they don't have as many cells as we do." Now, this is getting a bit silly. You can't "discriminate" against something that doesn't have any rights. A blastocyst is comprised of a cluster of cells arranged in a sphere. [9]-[10] They are utterly incapable of having any conscious thoughts whatsoever. As I have shown earlier, if we disregard consciousness as an important factor in determining who gets a right to life we would have to give brain dead humans a right to life. And this is simply an absurd outcome of my opponent's position. Consciousness establishes a right to life. ======= Conclusion ======= Throughout the course of this debate Mongeese has continuously confused biological directives with conscious desires and has failed to deliver any compelling argument of his own. Consciousness is necessary to hold a desire to live and without it an entity can't have a right to life. Furthermore, the arguments he has put forward can be shown to be fallacious. Potentials can't establish someone's right to vote any more than they can establish an unconscious being's right to life. Therefore, the outcome of this debate should be clear. (Vote Con) Sources: [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... (author) [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... (biology) [5] <URL>... [6] <URL>... [7] <URL>... [8] <URL>... [9] <URL>... [10] <URL>... Side note: Follow the first link for sources [2] and [4]. They're acting strange. Good luck, Mongeese. :)

Freeman

Let me begin by thanking Mongeese for agreeing to debate with me. =========== A. The Biological Version of the Central Anti Abortion Argument =========== 1. A Potentialities Derivation "My opponent's argument is that because we deny a nine-year-old the right to vote, that nine-year-old does not deserve the right to vote." I argue no such thing. The point of the analogy isn't to demonstrate that nine year olds should or should not be allowed to vote. The point is to demonstrate that potential beings don't have the same rights as actual beings. The nine-year old will gain the right to vote when they turn 18. Likewise, the fetus will gain a right to life when it becomes a person. You've simply misunderstood the analogy. Given their respective conditions the nine-year old doesn't have a right to vote and a fetus doesn't have a right to life. If your reasoning were valid then infants should be given the right to vote since a beings potential distinguishes its claim to rights. If you agree that infants should not be given the right to vote then you concede the basis of my argument. A creatures potential is not what determines its rights. 2. Coma Guy, Fainting Guy, and Snoring Guy "Coma Guy has no preferences."- Mongeese This is false. Comma guy was once conscious and had the desire to keep living. Like all humans, comma guy had the capacity to envision the future and his preference to continue living in that future is what establishes his right to life when he is temporarily unconscious. Your entire argument in this area is fallacious. 3. Genetic manipulation My source wasn't just from some "random guy's blog". It was a typed excerpt of a lecture given by Sam Harris, a neuroscientist. [1]-[2] He has just as much authority to speak on matters concerning cognition and genetics as Stephen Hawking does to speak about cosmology. I know you love using false analogies, but they don't work. [3] Sam is an academic; he's not some crackpot that's predicting the end of the world. Besides, It's common knowledge that the genetic manipulation of a cell can create a human. Different cells develop into the different organisms that give rise to a human. [4] We all start off as one cell and those cells multiply until they eventually become a blastocyst. [5] =========== B.Contention -1: A fetus doesn't have a right to life. =========== "My opponent claims that I use a false analogy."- Mongeese Comparing a conscious adult to an unconscious fetus is a false analogy. My assertion remains standing. 3. Does a fetus have a desire to live? A body cannot hold a desire unless it contains consciousness. I've already told you that unconscious bodies can spasm. This doesn't mean they have a desire to move. Furthermore, it's common knowledge that brainstems can cause dead bodies to spasm. But, if you want more information here it is. [6] 4. What constitutes murder? A desire to continue living must be consciously held at some point because potentialities are irrelevant. Once a human acquires a conscious desire to live it attains a right to life, because it can desire to continue living. =========== C.Contention +1: This syllogism affirms abortion to be morally wrong. =========== As a result of my previous criticism my opponent abandons his first syllogism and decides to rework it. However, it fails for the exact same reasons that the first one failed. "1. Christianity is a standard of good conduct." For the moment, let us set aside the fact that this assertion goes unsupported and is therefore unsound. Like its predecessor, it is logically impossible for this premise to be correct. Christianity cannot give a universal standard of good conduct because different branches of Christianity give contradictory accounts of what constitutes good conduct. For example, some branches of Christianity are actually pro choice. [7] Therefore, my opponent's argument has logically incompatible properties, which makes it self-contradictory. [8] And, just as before, this criticism renders the entire syllogism invalid. =========== D.Conclusion Analysis - Round 1 =========== "No, humans have a right to life because they can self-consciously consider the future."-Freeman Oh, really? And the ability to self-consciously consider the future is the dividing line for the right to life because...?- Mongeese It's a significant dividing line because people don't want to be murdered when they faint or go to sleep. Humans are capable of envisioning themselves as existing over time and they can plan for the future. Therefore, by murdering someone that is sleeping you are denying them their right continue living and disregarding their future desires. "A fetus wants to be alive even when it hasn't reached consciousness." Mongeese, a fetus doesn't want anything, because it can't want anything. Their neurological makeup prevents them from being able to desire anything. It's very important that you understand this. Consciousness is a prerequisite for holding any actual desires, and since a fetus doesn't have consciousness it can't hold any preferences. Therefore, it cannot hold a right to life. =========== E.Conclusion Analysis - Round 2 =========== --> "My opponent makes an analogy with oak trees, although we feel no moral duty towards oak trees in the slightest. I don't know what he's trying to get at here." You've really misunderstood the analogy. I'm not arguing that we have moral responsibilities to oak trees. Even though an acorn is a potential oak tree it does not have the same properties as an actual oak tree. And even though a fetus is a potential person it doesn't have the same properties as an actual person. If I were to go into a wildlife reserve and cut down 1000 oak trees that would be a serious crime. However, eating 1000 acorns is not the equivalent to destroying oak trees even though an acorn is a potential tree. Do you get where I'm going with this? -->"My opponent wishes to discriminate against blastocysts because they don't have as many cells as we do." Now, this is getting a bit silly. You can't "discriminate" against something that doesn't have any rights. A blastocyst is comprised of a cluster of cells arranged in a sphere. [9]-[10] They are utterly incapable of having any conscious thoughts whatsoever. As I have shown earlier, if we disregard consciousness as an important factor in determining who gets a right to life we would have to give brain dead humans a right to life. And this is simply an absurd outcome of my opponent's position. Consciousness establishes a right to life. ======= Conclusion ======= Throughout the course of this debate Mongeese has continuously confused biological directives with conscious desires and has failed to deliver any compelling argument of his own. Consciousness is necessary to hold a desire to live and without it an entity can't have a right to life. Furthermore, the arguments he has put forward can be shown to be fallacious. Potentials can't establish someone's right to vote any more than they can establish an unconscious being's right to life. Therefore, the outcome of this debate should be clear. (Vote Con) Sources: [1] http://www.reasonproject.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... (author) [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... (biology) [5] http://departments.weber.edu... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org... [9] http://forums.timesdaily.com... [10] http://www.medterms.com... Side note: Follow the first link for sources [2] and [4]. They're acting strange. Good luck, Mongeese. :)

Politics

Abortions-are-morally-wrong./1/

Thank you, Freeman, for starting this debate. "I will be negating the resolution that abortions are morally wrong..." This statement implies that my opponent will be accepting the burden to negate as the Instigator [1]. A. The Biological Version of the Central Anti Abortion Argument Through this argument, my opponent comes to the conclusion that we must use a criterion to distinguish people who suffer from upper brain death from other people to justify killing people who suffer from upper brain death. His conclusion: "The right to life any entity can hold rests within its respective capacity for cognition." I disagree. I think the following would be more appropriate: "The right to life any entity can hold rests within its potentiality for future cognition." One large counterexample to my opponent's criteria is Coma Guy [2]. People in comas lack capacity for cognition, but they have the potential for future cognition. Therefore, my opponent's criteria would make killing people who are in temporary comas morally right. This disagrees with current standards of proper conduct. Unplugging a comatose person's feeding tube is considered to be horrible, horrible conduct. Additionally, one might lose consciousness for a matter of minutes or hours by fainting [3] or being hit on the back of the head by a large, heavy object. If a person faints, is it morally right to kill that person before he or she wakes up? Didn't think so. I wouldn't want anybody getting away with killing me while I'm unconscious like that. Additionally, cognitive abilities are lost upon going to sleep [4]. Does this justify killing people when they're asleep? No, of course not. We'd end up with people pulling all-nighters, worrying whether or not somebody will kill them when they're least prepared to defend themselves, fearing no legal prosecutions. And then murderers would say, "Well, he was asleep, so I was allowed to kill him!" B. Contention -1: A fetus doesn't have a right to life. This contention relies on "person" being defined as "a rational and self-conscious being." However, as this dismisses Coma Guy, Fainting Guy, and Snoring Guy, it should be dismissed as any moral guideline. "It is not a rational and self-conscious being and therefore it cannot be granted the same rights that we would grant to a person." This would be rather similar to saying, "He is not white, and therefore he cannot be granted the same rights that we would grant to a white person." "Moreover, a fetus is not capable of holding a conscious desire to continue living." Although the desire is not conscious, it is still there. "Implantation is an event that occurs early in pregnancy in which the embryo adheres to the wall of uterus. At this stage of prenatal development, the embryo is a blastocyst" [5]. The blastocyst obviously has some natural desire to attach itself to the uterus. "At eight weeks, the baby sometimes tries to take a breath when removed from the mother. At twelve weeks, the child will often struggle for life two or three hours when removed from the mother" [6]. Again, it's trying to live. "Murder implies the unlawful killing of a person that has a conscious desire to continue living." Why does my opponent throw the word "conscious" in there? Murder merely implies the unlawful killing a person that has a desire to continue living. Why must this desire be conscious? C. Contention +1: This syllogism affirms abortion to be morally wrong. 1. All religions are standards of good conduct [8]. 2. Catholicism and Southern Baptism are Pro-Life [9][10]. 3. Pro-Life means being in opposition to abortion [11]. 4. Catholicism and Southern Baptism are in opposition to abortion. (2,3) 5. Abortion is not in accord with Catholicism and Southern Baptism. (4) 6. Abortion is not in accord with standards of good conduct. 7. Abortion is morally wrong. (6, definition of "morality") 8. The resolution is "Abortions are morally wrong." (See above) 9. The resolution is stated positively. (7,8) 10. To be affirmed means "to [be] state[d] positively." [12] 11. The resolution is affirmed. (10,11) 12. When the resolution is affirmed, the voters should vote PRO. [13] 13. The voters should vote PRO. (12,13) D. Conclusion Analysis "People have a serious right to life because they are self-conscious and are able to hold a desire to continue living." Most humans have a serious right to life because they have the potential to be self-conscious in the future, and hold a desire to continue living. "On the other hand, a fetus is not a self-conscious being nor is it capable of holding preferences one-way or the other with respect to its existence." Nor is Coma Guy, or Fainting Guy, or Snoring Guy. "Therefore, it is not morally wrong to kill a fetus." This could be true only if my opponent would agree to the idea that it is not morally wrong to massacre Coma Guy, Fainting Guy, and Snoring Guy. Seeing as my opponent is quite often Snoring Guy, he probably won't. E. Sources 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>... 3. <URL>... 4. <URL>... 5. <URL>... 6. <URL>... 7. <URL>... 8. <URL>... 9. <URL>... 10. <URL>... 11. <URL>... 12. <URL>... 13. <URL>...

mongeese

Thank you, Freeman, for starting this debate. "I will be negating the resolution that abortions are morally wrong..." This statement implies that my opponent will be accepting the burden to negate as the Instigator [1]. A. The Biological Version of the Central Anti Abortion Argument Through this argument, my opponent comes to the conclusion that we must use a criterion to distinguish people who suffer from upper brain death from other people to justify killing people who suffer from upper brain death. His conclusion: "The right to life any entity can hold rests within its respective capacity for cognition." I disagree. I think the following would be more appropriate: "The right to life any entity can hold rests within its potentiality for future cognition." One large counterexample to my opponent's criteria is Coma Guy [2]. People in comas lack capacity for cognition, but they have the potential for future cognition. Therefore, my opponent's criteria would make killing people who are in temporary comas morally right. This disagrees with current standards of proper conduct. Unplugging a comatose person's feeding tube is considered to be horrible, horrible conduct. Additionally, one might lose consciousness for a matter of minutes or hours by fainting [3] or being hit on the back of the head by a large, heavy object. If a person faints, is it morally right to kill that person before he or she wakes up? Didn't think so. I wouldn't want anybody getting away with killing me while I'm unconscious like that. Additionally, cognitive abilities are lost upon going to sleep [4]. Does this justify killing people when they're asleep? No, of course not. We'd end up with people pulling all-nighters, worrying whether or not somebody will kill them when they're least prepared to defend themselves, fearing no legal prosecutions. And then murderers would say, "Well, he was asleep, so I was allowed to kill him!" B. Contention -1: A fetus doesn't have a right to life. This contention relies on "person" being defined as "a rational and self-conscious being." However, as this dismisses Coma Guy, Fainting Guy, and Snoring Guy, it should be dismissed as any moral guideline. "It is not a rational and self-conscious being and therefore it cannot be granted the same rights that we would grant to a person." This would be rather similar to saying, "He is not white, and therefore he cannot be granted the same rights that we would grant to a white person." "Moreover, a fetus is not capable of holding a conscious desire to continue living." Although the desire is not conscious, it is still there. "Implantation is an event that occurs early in pregnancy in which the embryo adheres to the wall of uterus. At this stage of prenatal development, the embryo is a blastocyst" [5]. The blastocyst obviously has some natural desire to attach itself to the uterus. "At eight weeks, the baby sometimes tries to take a breath when removed from the mother. At twelve weeks, the child will often struggle for life two or three hours when removed from the mother" [6]. Again, it's trying to live. "Murder implies the unlawful killing of a person that has a conscious desire to continue living." Why does my opponent throw the word "conscious" in there? Murder merely implies the unlawful killing a person that has a desire to continue living. Why must this desire be conscious? C. Contention +1: This syllogism affirms abortion to be morally wrong. 1. All religions are standards of good conduct [8]. 2. Catholicism and Southern Baptism are Pro-Life [9][10]. 3. Pro-Life means being in opposition to abortion [11]. 4. Catholicism and Southern Baptism are in opposition to abortion. (2,3) 5. Abortion is not in accord with Catholicism and Southern Baptism. (4) 6. Abortion is not in accord with standards of good conduct. 7. Abortion is morally wrong. (6, definition of "morality") 8. The resolution is "Abortions are morally wrong." (See above) 9. The resolution is stated positively. (7,8) 10. To be affirmed means "to [be] state[d] positively." [12] 11. The resolution is affirmed. (10,11) 12. When the resolution is affirmed, the voters should vote PRO. [13] 13. The voters should vote PRO. (12,13) D. Conclusion Analysis "People have a serious right to life because they are self-conscious and are able to hold a desire to continue living." Most humans have a serious right to life because they have the potential to be self-conscious in the future, and hold a desire to continue living. "On the other hand, a fetus is not a self-conscious being nor is it capable of holding preferences one-way or the other with respect to its existence." Nor is Coma Guy, or Fainting Guy, or Snoring Guy. "Therefore, it is not morally wrong to kill a fetus." This could be true only if my opponent would agree to the idea that it is not morally wrong to massacre Coma Guy, Fainting Guy, and Snoring Guy. Seeing as my opponent is quite often Snoring Guy, he probably won't. E. Sources 1. http://ddofans.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://www.av1611.org... 7. http://www.gargaro.com... 8. http://en.wikipedia.org... 9. http://www.prolifedallas.org... 10. http://www.nrlc.org... 11. http://en.wikipedia.org... 12. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 13. http://www.debate.org...

Politics

Abortions-are-morally-wrong./1/

A. The Biological Version of the Central Anti Abortion Argument 1. A Potentialities Derivation "Rights simply can't be derived from potentialities...." My opponent's argument is that because we deny a nine-year-old the right to vote, that nine-year-old does not deserve the right to vote. Well, it just doesn't follow. We refuse to acknowledge any claim he has to vote, but he might still deserve it. However, the nine-year-old has the right to vote in the future, as does a fetus. Therefore, according to my opponent, because fetuses are not yet conscious, they do not have the right to eventually become conscious. There isn't even a real analogy here. "Potential beings simply don't have the same rights as actual beings." And why not? Why must a dividing line be made? "Given what we know about genetics every cell in the body with a nucleus has the potential to become another person with the right genetic manipulation...." My opponent's first source is just the bottom of a Wiki page, giving no information whatsoever about anything. If there's anything there, it's in another link, and I'm not searching through them. My opponent's source actually says exactly what my opponent is saying. However, the source gives no further insight into this statement. My opponent's source is just a random guy's blog, which gives no sources. Blogs are not proper sources for science. It's about as reliable as this site [1], claiming that the world will end on 2012. Yeah, right. 2. Coma Guy, Fainting Guy, and Snoring Guy "Your comparison is inapplicable. Humans are capable of self consciously considering the future." Not the above three. "And by murdering someone that is sleeping or in a comma you are violating their preference to continue living." Coma Guy has no preferences. "Therefore, people in a comma have a right to life because they have a desire to continue living even if it isn't present while they are in a comma." They have a desire, even if they don't? What? That doesn't make any sense. "Moreover, a conscious adult has already acquired the capacity for cognition..." Expound on that. This statement alone gets you nowhere. "...and since I have shown that potentialities are irrelevant..." With a blog? No. "...a fetus can't have a right to life because it has never been conscious. So now a fetus CAN'T have a right to life? My opponent has never connected consciousness with the right to life. At all. B. Contention -1: A fetus doesn't have a right to life. 1. Refutations above. 2. My opponent claims that I use a false analogy. "In false analogies, though A and B may be similar in one respect (such as color) they may not share property X (e.g. size)." [2] My opponent connects my analogy to false analogies by saying, "it essentially equates a fully conscious adult human with an unconscious fetus." That doesn't have anything to do with anything. It does not make my analogy false. "Moreover, your reasoning is also circular since it presupposes that there is no significant moral distinction between those who have a mental life and those who are incapable of having one." There is none, until you can establish it. "A fetus, on the other hand, is not self-conscious and thus cannot have a serious right to life." My opponent again falsely assumes that self-consciousness is the requirement for a serious right to life. 3. Does a fetus have a desire to live? "You're mistaking a biological directive for preferences and desires." Can you give a reason as to why a biological directive is not a biological desire by the body to live? "This would be like me saying that a corpse, with muscle spasms due to their Brainstem, is actually still alive." My opponent's only source for this statement is a Wikipedia article on the brainstem. However, "muscle spasm" appears nowhere on the entire page. This is nothing short of hilarious. Disregard all statements made by my opponent concerning muscle spasms until he can actually source them properly. 4. What constitutes murder? "A fetus does not have a desire to continue living and therefore it cannot have a right to life." Its biological directive gives it a desire to continue living. It is similar to Snoring Guy. Snoring Guy has no conscious desire to continue living, but the body is still keeping itself alive [3]. "Your right, it doesn't have to be consciously held. However, it must have been consciously held at some point." And why must it have been consciously upheld at some point? C. Contention +1: This syllogism affirms abortion to be morally wrong. First, I must apologize that I need to edit my syllogism. Edits will be in asterisks. Sources from Round 1 will be marked by #. *1. Christianity is a standard of good conduct. [4]* *2. Catholicism and Southern Baptism are branches of Christianity. [5][6]* *3. Catholicism and Southern Baptism are standards of good conduct. (Substitution,1,2)* 4. Catholicism and Southern Baptism are Pro-Life. [#9][#10] 5. Pro-Life means being in opposition to abortion [#11]. 6. Catholicism and Southern Baptism are in opposition to abortion. (4,5) 7. Abortion is not in accord with Catholicism and Southern Baptism. (6) 8. Abortion is not in accord with standards of good conduct. *(Substitution,3,7)* 9. Abortion is morally wrong. (8, definition of "morality") The rest is essentially the same, with different numbers. My opponent has dropped all statements in this syllogism besides those noted by asterisks and the only one he contends, although it has been removed: "Not only is this premise unsupported..." From the Wikipedia page I sourced: "Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief..." Moral code, according to Wikipedia [7], is "a code of conduct or belief concerning matters of what is moral or immoral." Because I know that my opponent is going to leap on the "often" part, I used a new source. "...it is logically impossible for it to be correct." Wrong. "All religions cannot simultaneously give good standards for morality..." My opponent misplaces the word "good." "All religions are standards of good conduct." "All religions are good standards of conduct." See the difference? This difference is what makes my opponent's entire argument after it invalid. Of course, I've already replaced it with a more easily sourced "Christianity is a standard of conduct." D. Conclusion Analysis - Round 1 "No, humans have a right to life because they can self-consciously consider the future." Oh, really? And the ability to self-consciously consider the future is the dividing line for the right to life because...? "They want to still be alive even if they temporarily go to sleep." A fetus wants to be alive even when it hasn't reached consciousness. E. Conclusion Analysis - Round 2 My opponent makes an analogy with oak trees, although we feel no moral duty towards oak trees in the slightest. I don't know what he's trying to get at here. "It is therefore obvious that things don't derive rights from what they can potentially become; they derive rights from what they currently are." Actually, I would treat the acorns as I would the oak trees. "If my opponent's argument were valid we would have to treat blastocysts, literally undifferentiated clumps of cells, with the same kind of moral concern we give to a full grown person." My opponent wishes to discriminate against blastocysts because they don't have as many cells as we do. Good luck in your final round, Freeman. 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>... 3. <URL>... 4. <URL>... 5. <URL>... 6. <URL>... 7. <URL>...

mongeese

A. The Biological Version of the Central Anti Abortion Argument 1. A Potentialities Derivation "Rights simply can't be derived from potentialities...." My opponent's argument is that because we deny a nine-year-old the right to vote, that nine-year-old does not deserve the right to vote. Well, it just doesn't follow. We refuse to acknowledge any claim he has to vote, but he might still deserve it. However, the nine-year-old has the right to vote in the future, as does a fetus. Therefore, according to my opponent, because fetuses are not yet conscious, they do not have the right to eventually become conscious. There isn't even a real analogy here. "Potential beings simply don't have the same rights as actual beings." And why not? Why must a dividing line be made? "Given what we know about genetics every cell in the body with a nucleus has the potential to become another person with the right genetic manipulation...." My opponent's first source is just the bottom of a Wiki page, giving no information whatsoever about anything. If there's anything there, it's in another link, and I'm not searching through them. My opponent's source actually says exactly what my opponent is saying. However, the source gives no further insight into this statement. My opponent's source is just a random guy's blog, which gives no sources. Blogs are not proper sources for science. It's about as reliable as this site [1], claiming that the world will end on 2012. Yeah, right. 2. Coma Guy, Fainting Guy, and Snoring Guy "Your comparison is inapplicable. Humans are capable of self consciously considering the future." Not the above three. "And by murdering someone that is sleeping or in a comma you are violating their preference to continue living." Coma Guy has no preferences. "Therefore, people in a comma have a right to life because they have a desire to continue living even if it isn't present while they are in a comma." They have a desire, even if they don't? What? That doesn't make any sense. "Moreover, a conscious adult has already acquired the capacity for cognition..." Expound on that. This statement alone gets you nowhere. "...and since I have shown that potentialities are irrelevant..." With a blog? No. "...a fetus can't have a right to life because it has never been conscious. So now a fetus CAN'T have a right to life? My opponent has never connected consciousness with the right to life. At all. B. Contention -1: A fetus doesn't have a right to life. 1. Refutations above. 2. My opponent claims that I use a false analogy. "In false analogies, though A and B may be similar in one respect (such as color) they may not share property X (e.g. size)." [2] My opponent connects my analogy to false analogies by saying, "it essentially equates a fully conscious adult human with an unconscious fetus." That doesn't have anything to do with anything. It does not make my analogy false. "Moreover, your reasoning is also circular since it presupposes that there is no significant moral distinction between those who have a mental life and those who are incapable of having one." There is none, until you can establish it. "A fetus, on the other hand, is not self-conscious and thus cannot have a serious right to life." My opponent again falsely assumes that self-consciousness is the requirement for a serious right to life. 3. Does a fetus have a desire to live? "You're mistaking a biological directive for preferences and desires." Can you give a reason as to why a biological directive is not a biological desire by the body to live? "This would be like me saying that a corpse, with muscle spasms due to their Brainstem, is actually still alive." My opponent's only source for this statement is a Wikipedia article on the brainstem. However, "muscle spasm" appears nowhere on the entire page. This is nothing short of hilarious. Disregard all statements made by my opponent concerning muscle spasms until he can actually source them properly. 4. What constitutes murder? "A fetus does not have a desire to continue living and therefore it cannot have a right to life." Its biological directive gives it a desire to continue living. It is similar to Snoring Guy. Snoring Guy has no conscious desire to continue living, but the body is still keeping itself alive [3]. "Your right, it doesn't have to be consciously held. However, it must have been consciously held at some point." And why must it have been consciously upheld at some point? C. Contention +1: This syllogism affirms abortion to be morally wrong. First, I must apologize that I need to edit my syllogism. Edits will be in asterisks. Sources from Round 1 will be marked by #. *1. Christianity is a standard of good conduct. [4]* *2. Catholicism and Southern Baptism are branches of Christianity. [5][6]* *3. Catholicism and Southern Baptism are standards of good conduct. (Substitution,1,2)* 4. Catholicism and Southern Baptism are Pro-Life. [#9][#10] 5. Pro-Life means being in opposition to abortion [#11]. 6. Catholicism and Southern Baptism are in opposition to abortion. (4,5) 7. Abortion is not in accord with Catholicism and Southern Baptism. (6) 8. Abortion is not in accord with standards of good conduct. *(Substitution,3,7)* 9. Abortion is morally wrong. (8, definition of "morality") The rest is essentially the same, with different numbers. My opponent has dropped all statements in this syllogism besides those noted by asterisks and the only one he contends, although it has been removed: "Not only is this premise unsupported..." From the Wikipedia page I sourced: "Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief..." Moral code, according to Wikipedia [7], is "a code of conduct or belief concerning matters of what is moral or immoral." Because I know that my opponent is going to leap on the "often" part, I used a new source. "...it is logically impossible for it to be correct." Wrong. "All religions cannot simultaneously give good standards for morality..." My opponent misplaces the word "good." "All religions are standards of good conduct." "All religions are good standards of conduct." See the difference? This difference is what makes my opponent's entire argument after it invalid. Of course, I've already replaced it with a more easily sourced "Christianity is a standard of conduct." D. Conclusion Analysis - Round 1 "No, humans have a right to life because they can self-consciously consider the future." Oh, really? And the ability to self-consciously consider the future is the dividing line for the right to life because...? "They want to still be alive even if they temporarily go to sleep." A fetus wants to be alive even when it hasn't reached consciousness. E. Conclusion Analysis - Round 2 My opponent makes an analogy with oak trees, although we feel no moral duty towards oak trees in the slightest. I don't know what he's trying to get at here. "It is therefore obvious that things don't derive rights from what they can potentially become; they derive rights from what they currently are." Actually, I would treat the acorns as I would the oak trees. "If my opponent's argument were valid we would have to treat blastocysts, literally undifferentiated clumps of cells, with the same kind of moral concern we give to a full grown person." My opponent wishes to discriminate against blastocysts because they don't have as many cells as we do. Good luck in your final round, Freeman. 1. http://www.december212012.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://library.timelesstruths.org... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Politics

Abortions-are-morally-wrong./1/

Thank you for this debate, Freeman. A. The Biological Version of the Central Anti Abortion Argument 1. A Potentialities Derivation My opponent assumes that if some rights are based on potentiality, then all rights must be based on potentiality. This is an unsupported assumption. My opponent also assumes that a potential being must have every right that what it will become would have if my logic is correct. However, the only right we're discussing is the right to life, which I say belong to fetuses, being human and potential people. The right to vote is a right that is earned over time. My opponent fails to differentiate the two. 2. Coma Guy, Fainting Guy, and Snoring Guy "This is false. Comma guy was once conscious and had the desire to keep living.... his preference to continue living in that future is what establishes his right to life when he is temporarily unconscious." Notice how everything Freeman said was in the past tense except the sudden claim that he has preferences. Well, just because he had preferences doesn't mean he has them anymore. Big difference. "Your entire argument in this area is fallacious." You're going to need to support that claim a bit better than this. 3. Genetic Manipulation It's nice and all that Sam Harris is a neuroscientist, but even he should cite his sources. We can't take anything said by a scientist as fact, because scientists often disagree. For example, they currently disagree over global warming [1]. If one tells you it's caused by humans, and the other disagrees, they can't both be right. We'd go with whoever gave reason for his argument. In the case of Sam Harris, there is no evidence or reason, but just statement. My opponent again claims I use false analogies, but I already explained why false analogies are not what he thinks they are. He then claims that we are disputing over "common knowledge." Well, thanks for poisoning the well. However, this "common knowledge" still doesn't seem to be very well sourced. "Different cells develop into the different organisms that give rise to a human." Sure. "We all start off as one cell and those cells multiply until they eventually become a blastocyst." However, that is one specific type of cell, a zygote. Your argument originally was that "every cell in the body with a nucleus has the potential to become another person with the right genetic manipulation." This has not been supported in the slightest. B. Contention -1: A fetus doesn't have a right to life. My opponent claims that comparing two different things (conscious adult, unconscious fetus) is a false analogy. Well, all analogies compare two different things. My opponent's accusation is ridiculous. 3. Desire to Live "A body cannot hold a desire unless it contains consciousness." This statement is not backed by anything. As for the rigor mortis, this is just a side effect of death caused by complete accident in the body with no intentions. It can be compared to a panic attack. In a panic attack, one does things without desiring to. However, a blastocyst's actions are deliberate attempts to grow. 4. What constitutes murder? I've already explained why potentialities are relevant, and why a desire need not be conscious. C. Contention +1: This syllogism affirms abortion to be morally wrong. "For the moment, let us set aside the fact that this assertion goes unsupported and is therefore unsound." My source explained the standard of good conduct for Christianity. It is supported, and therefore sound. "Like its predecessor, it is logically impossible for this premise to be correct." My opponent makes the same error as he does with the original syllogism. He fails to make a distinction between "standard of good conduct" and "good standard of conduct." "Christianity cannot give a universal standard of good conduct..." Suddenly, the word "universal" is thrown in, with no relevance and no purpose. "...different branches of Christianity give contradictory accounts of what constitutes good conduct." This is completely irrelevant to attempting to disprove Christianity having standards of good conduct. In fact, it only supports it. My opponent has already conceded the rest of my syllogism to be logically sound, so according to the syllogism, because Christianity is a standard of good conduct, the voters should vote PRO. D. Conclusion Analysis - Round 1 "It's a significant dividing line because people don't want to be murdered when they faint or go to sleep." Nor do fetuses. "By murdering someone that is sleeping you are denying them their right continue living and disregarding their future desires." By murdering a fetus that is developing you are denying it its right to continue living and disregarding its future desires. That actually mirrored better than I thought it would. "Consciousness is a prerequisite for holding any actual desires..." Then why does the blastocyst try to survive? This is an assumption, and only an assumption. E. Conclusion Analysis - Round 2 "And even though a fetus is a potential person it doesn't have the same properties as an actual person." That doesn't even help your case. "If I were to go into a wildlife reserve and cut down 1000 oak trees that would be a serious crime." This is not because cutting down 1000 oak trees is immoral, but because the wildlife reserve and the environment own those oak trees, and you would be committing property damage [2]. "However, eating 1000 acorns is not the equivalent to destroying oak trees even though an acorn is a potential tree." That is only because you bought the acorns to eat. If you didn't, you'd be under arrest anyway. And the reason people are more concerned about their oak trees is because they are investments for the lumber industry, and killing an oak tree would result in all of the nutrients and water than went into growing it for the lumber industry being wasted. An acorn still has value. And this entire thing doesn't even apply to humans, as they are not private property. "You can't 'discriminate' against something that doesn't have any rights." Circular reasoning [3]. The only reason you don't recognize the rights of blastocysts is because you're discriminating against them when considering what can have rights. "...if we disregard consciousness as an important factor in determining who gets a right to life we would have to give brain dead humans a right to life." Brain-dead humans don't have the potential to recover consciousness, which is the reason why they are killed. Otherwise, we'd keep them alive. My opponent is trying to thrust unnecessary burdens upon my position. F. Conclusion Analysis - Round 3 "Mongeese has continuously confused biological directives with conscious desires..." No, I said that biological directives are unconscious desires, not conscious desires. I never said directives were conscious. Get your facts straight. "...and has failed to deliver any compelling argument of his own." My syllogism and my criterion for determining the right to life still stand. "Consciousness is necessary to hold a desire to live..." No, it is only necessary for a conscious desire, not an unconscious one. "...and without it an entity can't have a right to life." Doesn't even follow. "Furthermore, the arguments he has put forward can be shown to be fallacious." Then show them to be fallacious. It's not the voter's job. "Potentials can't establish someone's right to vote any more than they can establish an unconscious being's right to life." Exactly. The right to life is the only one established by potentials. In conclusion, fetuses have the right to life as potential humans, and my soundproof syllogism says that you should vote PRO. 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>... 3. <URL>... Thanks.

mongeese

Thank you for this debate, Freeman. A. The Biological Version of the Central Anti Abortion Argument 1. A Potentialities Derivation My opponent assumes that if some rights are based on potentiality, then all rights must be based on potentiality. This is an unsupported assumption. My opponent also assumes that a potential being must have every right that what it will become would have if my logic is correct. However, the only right we're discussing is the right to life, which I say belong to fetuses, being human and potential people. The right to vote is a right that is earned over time. My opponent fails to differentiate the two. 2. Coma Guy, Fainting Guy, and Snoring Guy "This is false. Comma guy was once conscious and had the desire to keep living.... his preference to continue living in that future is what establishes his right to life when he is temporarily unconscious." Notice how everything Freeman said was in the past tense except the sudden claim that he has preferences. Well, just because he had preferences doesn't mean he has them anymore. Big difference. "Your entire argument in this area is fallacious." You're going to need to support that claim a bit better than this. 3. Genetic Manipulation It's nice and all that Sam Harris is a neuroscientist, but even he should cite his sources. We can't take anything said by a scientist as fact, because scientists often disagree. For example, they currently disagree over global warming [1]. If one tells you it's caused by humans, and the other disagrees, they can't both be right. We'd go with whoever gave reason for his argument. In the case of Sam Harris, there is no evidence or reason, but just statement. My opponent again claims I use false analogies, but I already explained why false analogies are not what he thinks they are. He then claims that we are disputing over "common knowledge." Well, thanks for poisoning the well. However, this "common knowledge" still doesn't seem to be very well sourced. "Different cells develop into the different organisms that give rise to a human." Sure. "We all start off as one cell and those cells multiply until they eventually become a blastocyst." However, that is one specific type of cell, a zygote. Your argument originally was that "every cell in the body with a nucleus has the potential to become another person with the right genetic manipulation." This has not been supported in the slightest. B. Contention -1: A fetus doesn't have a right to life. My opponent claims that comparing two different things (conscious adult, unconscious fetus) is a false analogy. Well, all analogies compare two different things. My opponent's accusation is ridiculous. 3. Desire to Live "A body cannot hold a desire unless it contains consciousness." This statement is not backed by anything. As for the rigor mortis, this is just a side effect of death caused by complete accident in the body with no intentions. It can be compared to a panic attack. In a panic attack, one does things without desiring to. However, a blastocyst's actions are deliberate attempts to grow. 4. What constitutes murder? I've already explained why potentialities are relevant, and why a desire need not be conscious. C. Contention +1: This syllogism affirms abortion to be morally wrong. "For the moment, let us set aside the fact that this assertion goes unsupported and is therefore unsound." My source explained the standard of good conduct for Christianity. It is supported, and therefore sound. "Like its predecessor, it is logically impossible for this premise to be correct." My opponent makes the same error as he does with the original syllogism. He fails to make a distinction between "standard of good conduct" and "good standard of conduct." "Christianity cannot give a universal standard of good conduct..." Suddenly, the word "universal" is thrown in, with no relevance and no purpose. "...different branches of Christianity give contradictory accounts of what constitutes good conduct." This is completely irrelevant to attempting to disprove Christianity having standards of good conduct. In fact, it only supports it. My opponent has already conceded the rest of my syllogism to be logically sound, so according to the syllogism, because Christianity is a standard of good conduct, the voters should vote PRO. D. Conclusion Analysis - Round 1 "It's a significant dividing line because people don't want to be murdered when they faint or go to sleep." Nor do fetuses. "By murdering someone that is sleeping you are denying them their right continue living and disregarding their future desires." By murdering a fetus that is developing you are denying it its right to continue living and disregarding its future desires. That actually mirrored better than I thought it would. "Consciousness is a prerequisite for holding any actual desires..." Then why does the blastocyst try to survive? This is an assumption, and only an assumption. E. Conclusion Analysis - Round 2 "And even though a fetus is a potential person it doesn't have the same properties as an actual person." That doesn't even help your case. "If I were to go into a wildlife reserve and cut down 1000 oak trees that would be a serious crime." This is not because cutting down 1000 oak trees is immoral, but because the wildlife reserve and the environment own those oak trees, and you would be committing property damage [2]. "However, eating 1000 acorns is not the equivalent to destroying oak trees even though an acorn is a potential tree." That is only because you bought the acorns to eat. If you didn't, you'd be under arrest anyway. And the reason people are more concerned about their oak trees is because they are investments for the lumber industry, and killing an oak tree would result in all of the nutrients and water than went into growing it for the lumber industry being wasted. An acorn still has value. And this entire thing doesn't even apply to humans, as they are not private property. "You can't 'discriminate' against something that doesn't have any rights." Circular reasoning [3]. The only reason you don't recognize the rights of blastocysts is because you're discriminating against them when considering what can have rights. "...if we disregard consciousness as an important factor in determining who gets a right to life we would have to give brain dead humans a right to life." Brain-dead humans don't have the potential to recover consciousness, which is the reason why they are killed. Otherwise, we'd keep them alive. My opponent is trying to thrust unnecessary burdens upon my position. F. Conclusion Analysis - Round 3 "Mongeese has continuously confused biological directives with conscious desires..." No, I said that biological directives are unconscious desires, not conscious desires. I never said directives were conscious. Get your facts straight. "...and has failed to deliver any compelling argument of his own." My syllogism and my criterion for determining the right to life still stand. "Consciousness is necessary to hold a desire to live..." No, it is only necessary for a conscious desire, not an unconscious one. "...and without it an entity can't have a right to life." Doesn't even follow. "Furthermore, the arguments he has put forward can be shown to be fallacious." Then show them to be fallacious. It's not the voter's job. "Potentials can't establish someone's right to vote any more than they can establish an unconscious being's right to life." Exactly. The right to life is the only one established by potentials. In conclusion, fetuses have the right to life as potential humans, and my soundproof syllogism says that you should vote PRO. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... Thanks.

Politics

Abortions-are-morally-wrong./1/

I accept. Begin your argument.

The_Chaos_Heart

I accept. Begin your argument.

Religion

Abrahams-Attempt-To-Kill-His-Son-Was-Morally-Justified/1/

"God had already guaranteed that Isaac would father children. To allow Isaac to die would mean God lied" These statements have no relation to one another. Yes, God promised that he would allow Abraham to father a child. And he got that. Isaac was born, and lived with him for a few years. In no way would his death break God's promise. "God doesn't lie" The only evidence you provide for this is that God says so? On what basis does this prove he never lies? How can we be certain that his claim to truthfulness isn't, itself, a lie? All you have provided here is circular logic. "Just before Abraham left with Isaac, he told his servants that both of them would return" Or perhaps he told them this because he was about to murder his own son. Honestly, what do you expect him to say? "Oh, hey, I'm going to go off and slaughter my first born now, brb"? Or course not. He probably told them that so he would not seems suspicious. Then when he returned without his son, he would just make up a lie about how they had been attacked, and his son killed. "The first time God told Abraham to go somewhere, it turned out great; he became wealthy and came into possession of large amounts of land" And? Just because good things happened once, does not guarantee they will happen again. For instance, I could tell you "Go look under that rock, there's $50,000" and then turn around and say "Kill yourself". That does not in any way guarantee that killing yourself would bring about some form of goodness, and in fact, it would more likely than not result in something bad. Past deeds do not validate future goodness. "Why should Abraham not obey God's second request to go somewhere, since the first time had turned out so well?" Because the second request was to murder someone. It doesn't matter how much "good" God had brought him in the past, murder is still murder. Nothing validates murder. Not even God. "It should be understood that not only did Abraham trust God enough to know that generally good things would happen as a result of his faith, he knew that Isaac would live! Thus, Abraham's attempt to kill Isaac was moral." And here is the problem. Just because something good would happen, does not make murder moral. I could go and murder a bank teller, and yeah, that would probably land me a fair amount of cash. Something good. But that has no bearing on whether or not that act of murder was moral. In the same way, being rewarded for slaughtering your own son, with no justification other than "I was told to do it", sure, may bring you some kind of reward. But that has no logic bearing on whether or not what you did was moral .

The_Chaos_Heart

"God had already guaranteed that Isaac would father children. To allow Isaac to die would mean God lied" These statements have no relation to one another. Yes, God promised that he would allow Abraham to father a child. And he got that. Isaac was born, and lived with him for a few years. In no way would his death break God's promise. "God doesn't lie" The only evidence you provide for this is that God says so? On what basis does this prove he never lies? How can we be certain that his claim to truthfulness isn't, itself, a lie? All you have provided here is circular logic. "Just before Abraham left with Isaac, he told his servants that both of them would return" Or perhaps he told them this because he was about to murder his own son. Honestly, what do you expect him to say? "Oh, hey, I'm going to go off and slaughter my first born now, brb"? Or course not. He probably told them that so he would not seems suspicious. Then when he returned without his son, he would just make up a lie about how they had been attacked, and his son killed. "The first time God told Abraham to go somewhere, it turned out great; he became wealthy and came into possession of large amounts of land" And? Just because good things happened once, does not guarantee they will happen again. For instance, I could tell you "Go look under that rock, there's $50,000" and then turn around and say "Kill yourself". That does not in any way guarantee that killing yourself would bring about some form of goodness, and in fact, it would more likely than not result in something bad. Past deeds do not validate future goodness. "Why should Abraham not obey God's second request to go somewhere, since the first time had turned out so well?" Because the second request was to murder someone. It doesn't matter how much "good" God had brought him in the past, murder is still murder. Nothing validates murder. Not even God. "It should be understood that not only did Abraham trust God enough to know that generally good things would happen as a result of his faith, he knew that Isaac would live! Thus, Abraham's attempt to kill Isaac was moral." And here is the problem. Just because something good would happen, does not make murder moral. I could go and murder a bank teller, and yeah, that would probably land me a fair amount of cash. Something good. But that has no bearing on whether or not that act of murder was moral. In the same way, being rewarded for slaughtering your own son, with no justification other than "I was told to do it", sure, may bring you some kind of reward. But that has no logic bearing on whether or not what you did was moral .

Religion

Abrahams-Attempt-To-Kill-His-Son-Was-Morally-Justified/1/

"Yes, they do have relation to another: God promised Abraham would father a child, but he also promised that Isaac would have 'descendants.' Isaac's death would break God's promise; he didn't have descendants yet when Abraham tried to sacrifice him, so if Isaac was actually killed, he couldn't have children!" Indeed, you are correct. As I stated, I misread this portion of your argument. However, it is still flawed. 1) There is no reason to think that God may not lie. 2) God may also have changed his mind. This has occurred several times in the Bible. Hell, according to the Bible, in this very situation, either God (1) lied to Abraham about wanting him to kill his son, or (2) changed his mind at the last second. Clearly God is either apt to changing his mind, or lying, so why should we trust what he says? You have given no reason. " No, it's not God saying he doesn't lie. It's Paul saying that God doesn't lie." Paul saying God doesn't lie, by citing God saying he doesn't lie. Ergo, the only justification is that "God said he won't lie." The only evidence is that "God says so". "This proves that God never lies because for the purposes of this debate, the Bible story is assumed true. This was a stipulation we made when this debate began." This is false. What you said was, quote, "For the purposes of this debate, the story happened as the Bible tells it." Ergo, the only thing we are assuming is that this event actually occurred. We did not agree that the entire Bible is true. You are either mistaken about your own posts, or you are intentionally lying. Neither one bodes well for you. "This isn't circular logic." This is indeed circular logic. The logic is as follows: 1) God does not lie. 2) We know this, because he said he does not lie. 3) Therefore, that was not a lie. Why? 4) Because he said it was not a lie. It just goes in circles. You have not provided valid justification for why God 'never lies', or at the very least, did not lie in this situation. " Perhaps, but you have not shown Abraham to be dishonest in any way in any situation in the entire Bible, so we have to give him the benefit of the doubt." Why? On what grounds do we have to give him the benefit of the doubt? Simply because he hasn't lied in the past? Perhaps I would be willing to grant such a thing if the crime were minor, but we are discussing murder . If someone is going to murder someone, they are, most likely, going to lie about it. Regardless of their past. " Until you can provide one example of Abraham being dishonest, your assumption bears no weight." My assumption bears weight on the grounds that murder is a serious crime, and one nearly anyone would lie about, if they intended to commit it, regardless of how "honest" of a person they were. Either way, whether he truly believed Isaac would come back or not, it does not matter. He fully intended to slaughter his son for his god. That's completely immoral. To kill someone simply upon the orders of a higher up, especially someone who trusts you so much and is so close to you, is horrible. "That's just more baseless assertion and speculation. Abraham was an honest man." Again, not baseless, but also, either way, not relevant to the question at hand: Would the murder have been moral? No. It would not have been, regardless of whether or not Abraham knew his son would return eventually. Murder is murder, and attempted murder is attempted murder. Nothing justifies it. It is a near universally-considered wrong. Even by God's own law. Which brings me back to my point earlier, about either God being okay with lying, or changing his mind frequently, making him untrustworthy. " This comparison cannot be made; you are not God, who never lies." God never promised anything good would come of it. Neither did I. The comparison is entirely accurate, because in both situations, the only reason you are assuming something good will follow, is because something good happened prior. You make an exception for 'God', but not for anyone else. There is no logical reason to. " I don't think 'validate' means what you think it means." Validate: T o make valid ; substantiate; confirm [1] Yes, I entirely understand what validate means. Perhaps it is you who does not understand. Just because someone does something good in the past, does not guarantee they will do something good in the future. That is an assumption. Which is fine, if you admit it is an assumption. But you are claiming absolute knowledge . Knowledge that you cannot possibly have , because, as I put it, past deeds do not validate future goodness . " Murder is defined as unlawful killing. What law was Abraham commanded to break?" The 6th Commandment actually. 'Thou shall not kill'. ...Except when God tells us to. Whoopsie. Guess God just forgot to tell Moses to write that part down, right? Once again, either (1) God lies, or (2) God changes his mind frequently. " You could go and try to murder a bank teller, but that is different than doing it at the request of God" It is absolutely NO different. You are killing someone. Stealing their life away from them, against their will, and spreading much pain and misery to their immediate friends and family. You devalue society as a whole when you allow people to start killing one another, and all they have to say to get out of it is "durrrr...welp, gawd told mei ta du it." What a ridiculous assertion. " a trust-worthy God that had already promised you that the bank teller would live." God never promised Isaac would live. God promised Isaac would father children. But once again, as we've seen God do, he could have either (1) lied, or (2) changed his mind. And in either case, it does not bode well for him, nor does it morally justify the slaughter of another human being. "That's a strawman argument. Abraham was not rewarded for killing his son. " It is not a strawman argument. You are claiming his attempted killing was morally justified, on the grounds that "god told him so." That must also mean you necessarily would have found it morally justifiable if he had indeed gone through with it and killed his son, at the request of his God. Therefore, you think the promise of reward is moral justification for killing people. But that is a horrifying perspective, because by that logic, the reward of not having to put up with your ridiculous arguments is enough of a moral reason for me to kill you, and be let off. Reward does not determine whether or not something is moral; And we should not be so quick to embrace something that causes so much pain and misery. So, no, Abraham's attempted murder of his son was NOT justifiable, and under any other circumstances, that child would have been considered subject to abuse . But suddenly it's not abuse when God does it? No. That is not okay. That is not moral. And throwing up God haphazardly to defend this atrocity is, itself, immoral behavior . I rest my case. Sources 1. <URL>...

The_Chaos_Heart

"Yes, they do have relation to another: God promised Abraham would father a child, but he also promised that Isaac would have 'descendants.' Isaac's death would break God's promise; he didn't have descendants yet when Abraham tried to sacrifice him, so if Isaac was actually killed, he couldn't have children!" Indeed, you are correct. As I stated, I misread this portion of your argument. However, it is still flawed. 1) There is no reason to think that God may not lie. 2) God may also have changed his mind. This has occurred several times in the Bible. Hell, according to the Bible, in this very situation, either God (1) lied to Abraham about wanting him to kill his son, or (2) changed his mind at the last second. Clearly God is either apt to changing his mind, or lying, so why should we trust what he says? You have given no reason. " No, it's not God saying he doesn't lie. It's Paul saying that God doesn't lie." Paul saying God doesn't lie, by citing God saying he doesn't lie. Ergo, the only justification is that "God said he won't lie." The only evidence is that "God says so". "This proves that God never lies because for the purposes of this debate, the Bible story is assumed true. This was a stipulation we made when this debate began." This is false. What you said was, quote, "For the purposes of this debate, the story happened as the Bible tells it." Ergo, the only thing we are assuming is that this event actually occurred. We did not agree that the entire Bible is true. You are either mistaken about your own posts, or you are intentionally lying. Neither one bodes well for you. "This isn't circular logic." This is indeed circular logic. The logic is as follows: 1) God does not lie. 2) We know this, because he said he does not lie. 3) Therefore, that was not a lie. Why? 4) Because he said it was not a lie. It just goes in circles. You have not provided valid justification for why God 'never lies', or at the very least, did not lie in this situation. " Perhaps, but you have not shown Abraham to be dishonest in any way in any situation in the entire Bible, so we have to give him the benefit of the doubt." Why? On what grounds do we have to give him the benefit of the doubt? Simply because he hasn't lied in the past? Perhaps I would be willing to grant such a thing if the crime were minor, but we are discussing murder . If someone is going to murder someone, they are, most likely, going to lie about it. Regardless of their past. " Until you can provide one example of Abraham being dishonest, your assumption bears no weight." My assumption bears weight on the grounds that murder is a serious crime, and one nearly anyone would lie about, if they intended to commit it, regardless of how "honest" of a person they were. Either way, whether he truly believed Isaac would come back or not, it does not matter. He fully intended to slaughter his son for his god. That's completely immoral. To kill someone simply upon the orders of a higher up, especially someone who trusts you so much and is so close to you, is horrible. "That's just more baseless assertion and speculation. Abraham was an honest man." Again, not baseless, but also, either way, not relevant to the question at hand: Would the murder have been moral? No. It would not have been, regardless of whether or not Abraham knew his son would return eventually. Murder is murder, and attempted murder is attempted murder. Nothing justifies it. It is a near universally-considered wrong. Even by God's own law. Which brings me back to my point earlier, about either God being okay with lying, or changing his mind frequently, making him untrustworthy. " This comparison cannot be made; you are not God, who never lies." God never promised anything good would come of it. Neither did I. The comparison is entirely accurate, because in both situations, the only reason you are assuming something good will follow, is because something good happened prior. You make an exception for 'God', but not for anyone else. There is no logical reason to. " I don't think 'validate' means what you think it means." Validate: T o make valid ; substantiate; confirm [1] Yes, I entirely understand what validate means. Perhaps it is you who does not understand. Just because someone does something good in the past, does not guarantee they will do something good in the future. That is an assumption. Which is fine, if you admit it is an assumption. But you are claiming absolute knowledge . Knowledge that you cannot possibly have , because, as I put it, past deeds do not validate future goodness . " Murder is defined as unlawful killing. What law was Abraham commanded to break?" The 6th Commandment actually. 'Thou shall not kill'. ...Except when God tells us to. Whoopsie. Guess God just forgot to tell Moses to write that part down, right? Once again, either (1) God lies, or (2) God changes his mind frequently. " You could go and try to murder a bank teller, but that is different than doing it at the request of God" It is absolutely NO different. You are killing someone. Stealing their life away from them, against their will, and spreading much pain and misery to their immediate friends and family. You devalue society as a whole when you allow people to start killing one another, and all they have to say to get out of it is "durrrr...welp, gawd told mei ta du it." What a ridiculous assertion. " a trust-worthy God that had already promised you that the bank teller would live." God never promised Isaac would live. God promised Isaac would father children. But once again, as we've seen God do, he could have either (1) lied, or (2) changed his mind. And in either case, it does not bode well for him, nor does it morally justify the slaughter of another human being. "That's a strawman argument. Abraham was not rewarded for killing his son. " It is not a strawman argument. You are claiming his attempted killing was morally justified, on the grounds that "god told him so." That must also mean you necessarily would have found it morally justifiable if he had indeed gone through with it and killed his son, at the request of his God. Therefore, you think the promise of reward is moral justification for killing people. But that is a horrifying perspective, because by that logic, the reward of not having to put up with your ridiculous arguments is enough of a moral reason for me to kill you, and be let off. Reward does not determine whether or not something is moral; And we should not be so quick to embrace something that causes so much pain and misery. So, no, Abraham's attempted murder of his son was NOT justifiable, and under any other circumstances, that child would have been considered subject to abuse . But suddenly it's not abuse when God does it? No. That is not okay. That is not moral. And throwing up God haphazardly to defend this atrocity is, itself, immoral behavior . I rest my case. Sources 1. http://dictionary.reference.com...

Religion

Abrahams-Attempt-To-Kill-His-Son-Was-Morally-Justified/1/

I thank Pro for the challenge and admire his confidence in putting his R1 argument up front. Before I begin my arguments, I would like to clarify definitions and goals. As confirmed in the comments section, Pro is using absolute truth synonymously with objective statements as described in his third argument, and throughout his R1 he uses the 'statement' construction in his description of truth. Pro needs to show there is such a thing as an "objective truth" which is always true regardless of subjective considerations. I need to show either that it does not exist, or that Pro has not shown it to exist. There is no such thing as "objective truth" using this definition, and I will demonstrate this with two independent arguments. First I will argue for inherent and unavoidable subjectivity, and second for the limitations of perceptions as described by the philosophy of fallibilism. As I will not be making the statement "there is no truth" argument one does not apply. Arguments two and three will be addressed. Subjectivity: Pro says, "An objective statement is one that is true regardless of who believes it. ... Water is H2O regardless of who believes it. This is an objective truth." However, this can easily be shown to be false. Leaving aside the formatting of "2", consider a community of people using a different periodic table of elements where H corresponds to Helium rather than Hydrogen. For this community, water is not H2O. Pro's example is proven false and "Water is H2O" is not an objective truth, as it would not be accurate if this community believed it. This same argument applies to his argument two, and is more compelling because the subjectivity is not hypothetical. Pro argues that "Everyone dies, it's just a natural process of living beings." However, in many cultures, such as Teutonic Tribes (1) or ancient Egypt (2), there was no word for death. It would not be truthful to say that "everyone dies" there, because "dies" would have no meaning. It would be meaningless rather than truthful. Taking that example a step further, imagine a culture that shares Dr. McCoy's view in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, "He's not really dead. As long as we remember him." Saying that "everyone dies" is a false statement in that context. The sample principle applies to all examples. All truth statements are by necessity composed of some form of language. All language, even mathematics, is a socially constructed set of subjective symbolic meanings. A statement cannot be true regardless of who believes it. Such statements are always placed within the subjective semantic structure of the person or group making the statement and thus it is trivial to create a hypothetical or find a culture where a different viewpoint would consider the statement false or meaningless. Fallibilism: Even if it were possible to create a statement that somehow escaped its inherent subjective status, it's possible to definitive know if that statement is true or false. This is the thesis of Fallibilism (4), that no matter how convincing our evidence or solid our logic seems, there is always the possibility that we are wrong. This means that Pro cannot know that an absolute truth exists because no one has ever known a fact that is 100% certain to be true. As Carlo Rovelli, a physicist at the University of Aix-Marseille put it, "certainty is not only something of no use, but is in fact damaging. (5)" The only possible exceptions are tautological statements which rely exclusively on the subjective language in which they exist. For examples, if we were to use the convention that the second number in an equation is always one greater than depicted, 2 +2 = 4 is no longer a correct statement. Even in these cases, while it is certainly unlikely that usual convention would be used, it is not absolutely unlikely and Pro can never be sure it isn't the case. Conclusion: Pro has tied absolute truth to objective statements, and in doing so, ensured that he will never find it. Statements are always subjective. Even if he found a way around that, he cannot show that absolute truth exists because there is always the possibility of error and thus he is left with an unsupportable hypothesis. (1) <URL>... (2) <URL>... ; Page 93 (3) <URL>... (4) <URL>... (5) <URL>...

XimenBao

I thank Pro for the challenge and admire his confidence in putting his R1 argument up front. Before I begin my arguments, I would like to clarify definitions and goals. As confirmed in the comments section, Pro is using absolute truth synonymously with objective statements as described in his third argument, and throughout his R1 he uses the ‘statement’ construction in his description of truth. Pro needs to show there is such a thing as an “objective truth” which is always true regardless of subjective considerations. I need to show either that it does not exist, or that Pro has not shown it to exist. There is no such thing as “objective truth” using this definition, and I will demonstrate this with two independent arguments. First I will argue for inherent and unavoidable subjectivity, and second for the limitations of perceptions as described by the philosophy of fallibilism. As I will not be making the statement “there is no truth” argument one does not apply. Arguments two and three will be addressed. Subjectivity: Pro says, “An objective statement is one that is true regardless of who believes it. … Water is H2O regardless of who believes it. This is an objective truth.” However, this can easily be shown to be false. Leaving aside the formatting of “2”, consider a community of people using a different periodic table of elements where H corresponds to Helium rather than Hydrogen. For this community, water is not H2O. Pro’s example is proven false and “Water is H2O” is not an objective truth, as it would not be accurate if this community believed it. This same argument applies to his argument two, and is more compelling because the subjectivity is not hypothetical. Pro argues that “Everyone dies, it's just a natural process of living beings.” However, in many cultures, such as Teutonic Tribes (1) or ancient Egypt (2), there was no word for death. It would not be truthful to say that “everyone dies” there, because “dies” would have no meaning. It would be meaningless rather than truthful. Taking that example a step further, imagine a culture that shares Dr. McCoy’s view in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, “He's not really dead. As long as we remember him.” Saying that “everyone dies” is a false statement in that context. The sample principle applies to all examples. All truth statements are by necessity composed of some form of language. All language, even mathematics, is a socially constructed set of subjective symbolic meanings. A statement cannot be true regardless of who believes it. Such statements are always placed within the subjective semantic structure of the person or group making the statement and thus it is trivial to create a hypothetical or find a culture where a different viewpoint would consider the statement false or meaningless. Fallibilism: Even if it were possible to create a statement that somehow escaped its inherent subjective status, it’s possible to definitive know if that statement is true or false. This is the thesis of Fallibilism (4), that no matter how convincing our evidence or solid our logic seems, there is always the possibility that we are wrong. This means that Pro cannot know that an absolute truth exists because no one has ever known a fact that is 100% certain to be true. As Carlo Rovelli, a physicist at the University of Aix-Marseille put it, “certainty is not only something of no use, but is in fact damaging. (5)” The only possible exceptions are tautological statements which rely exclusively on the subjective language in which they exist. For examples, if we were to use the convention that the second number in an equation is always one greater than depicted, 2 +2 = 4 is no longer a correct statement. Even in these cases, while it is certainly unlikely that usual convention would be used, it is not absolutely unlikely and Pro can never be sure it isn’t the case. Conclusion: Pro has tied absolute truth to objective statements, and in doing so, ensured that he will never find it. Statements are always subjective. Even if he found a way around that, he cannot show that absolute truth exists because there is always the possibility of error and thus he is left with an unsupportable hypothesis. (1) http://tinyurl.com... (2) http://tinyurl.com... ; Page 93 (3) http://tinyurl.com... (4) http://tinyurl.com... (5) http://tinyurl.com...

Philosophy

Absolute-Truth-Exists/3/

I thank Pro for continuing an engaging debate. Subjectivity: Pro and I agreed to talk truths as statements about the factual nature of reality. Reality is reality, but reality is not truth. Truth is a human construct. Aliens aside, if humans disappeared from the Earth tomorrow, truth would disappear with them. This concept forms the basis of the debate, and Pro's arguments haven't addressed the distinction. What humans call true, what humans call factual, all of this is expressed in language. All these expressions are symbolic. All these symbols are subjective. These two paragraphs summarize the subjectivity argument and the following examples attempt to illustrate this. In whatever way water exists in reality, for humans to express a truth about it requires language. It is not an absolute objective truth that water is H 2 O, because the meaning of "H," " 2 ," and "O" are subjective to shared meaning. Pro acknowledges this but states that whatever those meanings are, "It is still true that water is made up of those molecules." Given the context I assume Pro is referring to absolute truth, but he doesn't gain any ground here, as "water," "molecules," and the rest of the words in his restated truth claim are subject to the same subjectivity considerations he conceded regarding "H," " 2 ," and "O." Just because we share a common definition of "water" doesn't make the statement objective, merely intersubjective. Pro argues that "whether or not we can label everything the same is irrelevant," but it is precisely this point that he must engage and overcome. Since truths can only be born of language, and language is essentially nothing but labels, Pro can only claim objective truth if there is such a thing as objective labeling. Since Pro appears aware that labeling is subjective, it follows that truths about life, death, or anything else are also subjective as they rely on subjective labels. Pro could not have picked a better example to illustrate my point than the rotation of the Earth around the Sun. Pro says that "the Earth revolves around the sun," and it's certainly an easy an intuitive way to label our perceptions of reality. However, it's also a subjective way to look at it, relying on an Earth-Sun frame of reference. One could also say that the Earth and the Sun obit around a common center of gravity called the solar system barycenter (1). This instance of a common-sense statement turning out to be completely relative segues nicely into the discussion of fallibilism. Fallibilism: Once again, Pro and I agreed to talk about truths as statements made about the factual nature of reality. In the previous argument I said that Pro was wrong. In this argument I say that Pro cannot show he is right. Pro cannot honestly make a statement he knows with 100% certainty to be correct. There is always some outrageously unlikely far-fetched possibility I could come up with to inject a tiny margin of uncertainty. Since he cannot do this, he cannot show that absolute truth statements are possible. Pro unintentionally concedes this when he addresses my math example. Pro asserts that he can be absolutely sure that 2 + 2 will always equal four because he's never know anyone who uses the math conventions I suggested that would provide a different result. He then says, "unless Con can find a case in which it would be different, I think the argument is pretty well moot." I provided that case in my R1, and I'll restate it here. In my rounds, the second number in any equation is one greater than depicted. Therefore, in this case, 2 + 2 = 5, and pro was unable to state with anything close to 100% certainty that 2 + 2 will always equal 4. This illustrates the point of fallibilism. You can never be sure. Even when you think you have an ironclad case that every person in the world will use conventions that result in 2 + 2 equaling 4, you might walk into a debate round where your opponent intentionally uses idiosyncratic conventions to prove a point. Pro's main defense against my fallibilism argument is to misrepresent the statements of proponents of evolution and try to use their confidence in the theory of evolution to show that most people believe in objective truth, and that this is somehow evidence in its favor. Even in Pro's rephrasing of their statements, evolution proponents are stating, "there is nothing we know with greater certainty than that Evolution happened." This is not a statement that there is no possibility of them being wrong. Even if it were, it would not be generalizable to most people. Even if most people do believe in objective truth, it does not mean it is correct. And, if most people believing in objective truth did make a difference, it would prove that not ony truth, but reality is entirely subjective. Conclusion: Reality exists independently of humanity. Truth does not. Truths are created by humans with their subjective thoughts, language and symbols and must always be subjective. Further, we cannot access reality directly, as we are limited creatures and can always be wrong, and thus even if humans were capable of being objective, we could not show that we were saying objective truths rather than objective falsehoods. (1) <URL>...

XimenBao

I thank Pro for continuing an engaging debate. Subjectivity: Pro and I agreed to talk truths as statements about the factual nature of reality. Reality is reality, but reality is not truth. Truth is a human construct. Aliens aside, if humans disappeared from the Earth tomorrow, truth would disappear with them. This concept forms the basis of the debate, and Pro’s arguments haven’t addressed the distinction. What humans call true, what humans call factual, all of this is expressed in language. All these expressions are symbolic. All these symbols are subjective. These two paragraphs summarize the subjectivity argument and the following examples attempt to illustrate this. In whatever way water exists in reality, for humans to express a truth about it requires language. It is not an absolute objective truth that water is H 2 O, because the meaning of "H," " 2 ," and "O" are subjective to shared meaning. Pro acknowledges this but states that whatever those meanings are, “It is still true that water is made up of those molecules.” Given the context I assume Pro is referring to absolute truth, but he doesn’t gain any ground here, as “water,” “molecules,” and the rest of the words in his restated truth claim are subject to the same subjectivity considerations he conceded regarding "H," " 2 ," and "O." Just because we share a common definition of “water” doesn’t make the statement objective, merely intersubjective. Pro argues that “whether or not we can label everything the same is irrelevant,“ but it is precisely this point that he must engage and overcome. Since truths can only be born of language, and language is essentially nothing but labels, Pro can only claim objective truth if there is such a thing as objective labeling. Since Pro appears aware that labeling is subjective, it follows that truths about life, death, or anything else are also subjective as they rely on subjective labels. Pro could not have picked a better example to illustrate my point than the rotation of the Earth around the Sun. Pro says that “the Earth revolves around the sun,“ and it’s certainly an easy an intuitive way to label our perceptions of reality. However, it’s also a subjective way to look at it, relying on an Earth-Sun frame of reference. One could also say that the Earth and the Sun obit around a common center of gravity called the solar system barycenter (1). This instance of a common-sense statement turning out to be completely relative segues nicely into the discussion of fallibilism. Fallibilism: Once again, Pro and I agreed to talk about truths as statements made about the factual nature of reality. In the previous argument I said that Pro was wrong. In this argument I say that Pro cannot show he is right. Pro cannot honestly make a statement he knows with 100% certainty to be correct. There is always some outrageously unlikely far-fetched possibility I could come up with to inject a tiny margin of uncertainty. Since he cannot do this, he cannot show that absolute truth statements are possible. Pro unintentionally concedes this when he addresses my math example. Pro asserts that he can be absolutely sure that 2 + 2 will always equal four because he’s never know anyone who uses the math conventions I suggested that would provide a different result. He then says, “unless Con can find a case in which it would be different, I think the argument is pretty well moot.” I provided that case in my R1, and I’ll restate it here. In my rounds, the second number in any equation is one greater than depicted. Therefore, in this case, 2 + 2 = 5, and pro was unable to state with anything close to 100% certainty that 2 + 2 will always equal 4. This illustrates the point of fallibilism. You can never be sure. Even when you think you have an ironclad case that every person in the world will use conventions that result in 2 + 2 equaling 4, you might walk into a debate round where your opponent intentionally uses idiosyncratic conventions to prove a point. Pro’s main defense against my fallibilism argument is to misrepresent the statements of proponents of evolution and try to use their confidence in the theory of evolution to show that most people believe in objective truth, and that this is somehow evidence in its favor. Even in Pro’s rephrasing of their statements, evolution proponents are stating, “there is nothing we know with greater certainty than that Evolution happened.” This is not a statement that there is no possibility of them being wrong. Even if it were, it would not be generalizable to most people. Even if most people do believe in objective truth, it does not mean it is correct. And, if most people believing in objective truth did make a difference, it would prove that not ony truth, but reality is entirely subjective. Conclusion: Reality exists independently of humanity. Truth does not. Truths are created by humans with their subjective thoughts, language and symbols and must always be subjective. Further, we cannot access reality directly, as we are limited creatures and can always be wrong, and thus even if humans were capable of being objective, we could not show that we were saying objective truths rather than objective falsehoods. (1) http://books.google.com...

Philosophy

Absolute-Truth-Exists/3/

I would like to thank pro for finishing this debate with me and also feel it was a rigorous challenge. Subjectivity: Pro has attempted to win the subjectivity fallibilism argument by using a single tactic: redefinition. The redefinition argument is the only argument used on this subject in R3, with the arguments about the subjective nature of all statements going unchallenged. If you reject his attempts at redefinition, extend my arguments and let them stand uncontested. The last round of the debate is not the time to start attacking definitions. In R1, Pro did not give an explicit definition of objective/absolute truth, but constructed his argument there around statements, saying: "There are subjective truths, and objective truths. A subjective statement.... An objective statement...." After clarifying that he was using "absolute" and "objective" synonymously, I defined "absolute truth" in my R1 saying "Pro is using absolute truth synonymously with objective statements" making explicit what Pro constructed argumentatively. If Pro objected to this or wanted to challenge it, the proper time was during his R2 argument. After he declined to do so, the definition used by Pro and clarified by Con in R1 of absolute truth as "objective statement" should stand. Allowing Con to spend the entire R2 argument arguing against the definitions used in R1 and unchallenged in Pro's R2, then shifting the goalpost to a new definition in R3 is an unfair tactic by Pro as it moves the target and thus illegitimately undercuts all of Con's existing argumentation by attempting to effectively change the resolution in the last round. Please reject the new dictionary definition used by Pro in R3 in favor of the definitions established in R1 and not challenged in R2. Language is always subjective, all statements are couched in language, thus objective statements/absolute truths cannot exist. The resolution is negated. Fallibilism: Even if you accept Pro's redefinition, there is still a lack of a significant response to the fallibilism argument. Here, Pro says that if we allow him the constraints of a serious scientific process, he can be 100% sure that the conventions used will mean that 2+2=4. It's simple to argue that the serious scientific process could be using base 3, in which 2+2=11 (1). More importantly, I would like to note that his argument here is entirely to my example and ignores the thrust of the fallibilism argument. He makes no argument that humans can ever know the actual state of reality, and makes no argument as to how he knows that an absolute true state of reality exists if he can never access it to verify. It is intuitively comfortable to assume that there exists some absolute state of reality in existence, but in this debate Pro has a burden of proof to show that it is so, and has not answered my claim that he cannot, meaning that he has not met his burden of proof and thus the vote goes to Con. Conclusion: This debate was about whether an objective statement was possible. This definition was used in R1, not challenged in R2, and then Pro attempted to shift it in R3 without arguing against the positions taken in the previous rounds. Please reject this attempt at redefinition and vote Con on the inherent subjectivity of language making objective statements impossible. Otherwise vote BoP for Con as Pro hasn't shown how he can know an absolute reality can exist given human limitations. Again, I thank Pro for creating this challenge. (1) <URL>...

XimenBao

I would like to thank pro for finishing this debate with me and also feel it was a rigorous challenge. Subjectivity: Pro has attempted to win the subjectivity fallibilism argument by using a single tactic: redefinition. The redefinition argument is the only argument used on this subject in R3, with the arguments about the subjective nature of all statements going unchallenged. If you reject his attempts at redefinition, extend my arguments and let them stand uncontested. The last round of the debate is not the time to start attacking definitions. In R1, Pro did not give an explicit definition of objective/absolute truth, but constructed his argument there around statements, saying: "There are subjective truths, and objective truths. A subjective statement.... An objective statement...." After clarifying that he was using "absolute" and "objective" synonymously, I defined "absolute truth" in my R1 saying "Pro is using absolute truth synonymously with objective statements" making explicit what Pro constructed argumentatively. If Pro objected to this or wanted to challenge it, the proper time was during his R2 argument. After he declined to do so, the definition used by Pro and clarified by Con in R1 of absolute truth as "objective statement" should stand. Allowing Con to spend the entire R2 argument arguing against the definitions used in R1 and unchallenged in Pro's R2, then shifting the goalpost to a new definition in R3 is an unfair tactic by Pro as it moves the target and thus illegitimately undercuts all of Con's existing argumentation by attempting to effectively change the resolution in the last round. Please reject the new dictionary definition used by Pro in R3 in favor of the definitions established in R1 and not challenged in R2. Language is always subjective, all statements are couched in language, thus objective statements/absolute truths cannot exist. The resolution is negated. Fallibilism: Even if you accept Pro's redefinition, there is still a lack of a significant response to the fallibilism argument. Here, Pro says that if we allow him the constraints of a serious scientific process, he can be 100% sure that the conventions used will mean that 2+2=4. It's simple to argue that the serious scientific process could be using base 3, in which 2+2=11 (1). More importantly, I would like to note that his argument here is entirely to my example and ignores the thrust of the fallibilism argument. He makes no argument that humans can ever know the actual state of reality, and makes no argument as to how he knows that an absolute true state of reality exists if he can never access it to verify. It is intuitively comfortable to assume that there exists some absolute state of reality in existence, but in this debate Pro has a burden of proof to show that it is so, and has not answered my claim that he cannot, meaning that he has not met his burden of proof and thus the vote goes to Con. Conclusion: This debate was about whether an objective statement was possible. This definition was used in R1, not challenged in R2, and then Pro attempted to shift it in R3 without arguing against the positions taken in the previous rounds. Please reject this attempt at redefinition and vote Con on the inherent subjectivity of language making objective statements impossible. Otherwise vote BoP for Con as Pro hasn't shown how he can know an absolute reality can exist given human limitations. Again, I thank Pro for creating this challenge. (1) http://www.cut-the-knot.org...

Philosophy

Absolute-Truth-Exists/3/

I find that the abuse of power by popular youtubers is wrong the fact that they can easily destroy new youtubers by overexposure. I have seen plenty of new up and coming youtubers getting ,,recommended,, by popular youtubers then in a matter of days their subscription goes from 20k to over a few hundred thousand causing sudden camera shyness a decrease of video quality and frequency and in less then a month the youtuber looses their original sub base and all their new ones essentially killing the youtubers name Do you agree or disagree that popular youtubers should do this to new youtubers

Emc97

I find that the abuse of power by popular youtubers is wrong the fact that they can easily destroy new youtubers by overexposure. I have seen plenty of new up and coming youtubers getting ,,recommended,, by popular youtubers then in a matter of days their subscription goes from 20k to over a few hundred thousand causing sudden camera shyness a decrease of video quality and frequency and in less then a month the youtuber looses their original sub base and all their new ones essentially killing the youtubers name Do you agree or disagree that popular youtubers should do this to new youtubers

Society

Abuse-of-new-youtubers-by-popular-youtuber-via-over-exposure/1/

Considering you took the Pro position, I will take the Con. I can find several good and bad outcomes of popular YouTubers promoting a new channel, but I'll focus on the bad, considering that's the position I took. I've had a few YouTube channels. One when I was in grade 10 with a friend, doing literally whatever, from making ice cream to reviewing games to just talking about stuff. Another a couple years later, after I graduated, I created music videos with movies or other videos from YouTube (getting upwards of 20,000 views a video), which only lasted a couple months. I then started a gaming channel, trying to do things nobody has done before, and my main game was Sims 3. It took a while to get off the ground, but after a dozen or two videos, the views started rising and I started getting new subscribers more frequently. I then got picked up by a more popular YouTube channel because of my videos, and started playing Minecraft and other things with them. Why do you care? Because the first three channels I made were all my ideas; I didn't ask for anyone to promote me, I didn't ask people what I should do next, I did what I wanted, and if people liked that, great. The channel that picked me up was fun to begin with, but it quickly went downhill when we asked for a much more popular YouTuber to send his subscribers our way. They had a complete different mindset than we wanted, and basically asked us to do what the other guy did. The other two guys in our group were totally cool with that, and I guess I was at first, but I realized (and I'm sure they realized) that we weren't doing anything we liked, we were doing what our subscribers wanted. It got boring quickly and it felt like we were working for someone; not making videos and having fun anymore. I don't really want to make this some super long rant, so let me just sum it up with a few points. -Like you said; too fast of growth can scare young YouTubers, in turn causing them to cave under the pressure and either give up or try way too hard to please everybody, and fail miserably -The popular YouTuber's subs don't want what the unpopular YouTuber is creating, for the most part -It makes it feel like you're making videos to please people instead of making videos for fun and having people enjoy them as a bonus -There is the possibility that the young YouTuber will spend way too much time and money dedicated to YouTube because it seems as though a lot of people like their content, when in reality it's just people subscribing because someone popular told them to. Their money and time is wasted after a while when the new subscribers realize they don't like the content and just revert back to the popular YouTuber -- It looks like you may possibly agree with me. Either way, I hope this helped.

Mister_Man

Considering you took the Pro position, I will take the Con. I can find several good and bad outcomes of popular YouTubers promoting a new channel, but I'll focus on the bad, considering that's the position I took. I've had a few YouTube channels. One when I was in grade 10 with a friend, doing literally whatever, from making ice cream to reviewing games to just talking about stuff. Another a couple years later, after I graduated, I created music videos with movies or other videos from YouTube (getting upwards of 20,000 views a video), which only lasted a couple months. I then started a gaming channel, trying to do things nobody has done before, and my main game was Sims 3. It took a while to get off the ground, but after a dozen or two videos, the views started rising and I started getting new subscribers more frequently. I then got picked up by a more popular YouTube channel because of my videos, and started playing Minecraft and other things with them. Why do you care? Because the first three channels I made were all my ideas; I didn't ask for anyone to promote me, I didn't ask people what I should do next, I did what I wanted, and if people liked that, great. The channel that picked me up was fun to begin with, but it quickly went downhill when we asked for a much more popular YouTuber to send his subscribers our way. They had a complete different mindset than we wanted, and basically asked us to do what the other guy did. The other two guys in our group were totally cool with that, and I guess I was at first, but I realized (and I'm sure they realized) that we weren't doing anything we liked, we were doing what our subscribers wanted. It got boring quickly and it felt like we were working for someone; not making videos and having fun anymore. I don't really want to make this some super long rant, so let me just sum it up with a few points. -Like you said; too fast of growth can scare young YouTubers, in turn causing them to cave under the pressure and either give up or try way too hard to please everybody, and fail miserably -The popular YouTuber's subs don't want what the unpopular YouTuber is creating, for the most part -It makes it feel like you're making videos to please people instead of making videos for fun and having people enjoy them as a bonus -There is the possibility that the young YouTuber will spend way too much time and money dedicated to YouTube because it seems as though a lot of people like their content, when in reality it's just people subscribing because someone popular told them to. Their money and time is wasted after a while when the new subscribers realize they don't like the content and just revert back to the popular YouTuber -- It looks like you may possibly agree with me. Either way, I hope this helped.

Society

Abuse-of-new-youtubers-by-popular-youtuber-via-over-exposure/1/

If you agree with me, for the sake of argument, I could take the opposing side and argue that it's good if new YouTubers are advertised by popular YouTubers?

Mister_Man

If you agree with me, for the sake of argument, I could take the opposing side and argue that it's good if new YouTubers are advertised by popular YouTubers?

Society

Abuse-of-new-youtubers-by-popular-youtuber-via-over-exposure/1/

Well, thanks! Good luck on YouTube if this is what you're getting at.

Mister_Man

Well, thanks! Good luck on YouTube if this is what you're getting at.

Society

Abuse-of-new-youtubers-by-popular-youtuber-via-over-exposure/1/

Wow. This should be interesting.

LiberalHoyaLawya

Wow. This should be interesting.

Politics

Abuses-of-Abu-Ghraib-prisoners-by-Americans-can-be-blamed-on-the-Left/1/

Pro's attempt to blame liberal support for pornography as the primary cause of the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib is absurd. There is zero evidence that pornography has any effect on violent behavior, and, in any event, the militant lawlessness and anti-Muslim bigotry fomented by conservatives in the wake of 9/11 played a far greater role in the torture that occurred at Abu Ghraib. 1. Pornography does not lead to violent behavior To support his contention that "pornography... can lead to actions like what happened at Abu Ghraib," Pro cited an opinion column from one college newspaper, devoid of any empirical data. A comprehensive international study by Milton Diamond, however, demonstrates the fallacy of Pro's argument. After showing that a dramatic increase in the availability of in pornography in Japan and the United States over recent decades was coupled with an equally dramatic decrease in violent sex crimes, the study concluded that "if anything, there is an inverse causal relationship between an increase in pornography and sex crime." [1] Similar studies have arrived at identical conclusions. [2, 3] Without Pro's speculative and pseudo-religious premise that pornography causes violent behavior by "degrading" the sanctity of human sexuality, his entire argument fails. 2. Conservatives are responsible for the factors that actually lead to Abu Ghraib A. The invasion of Iraq If the Bush administration hadn't decided to invade Iraq in the first place, the abuses at Abu Ghraib would have never occurred. Iraq was an unnecessary war initiated under false pretenses, and the torture at Abu Ghraib was only one of its disastrous consequences. B. The mismanaged occupation of Iraq Abu Ghraib was merely one example of the Bush administration's broader mishandling of the occupation of Iraq. From their erroneous pre-war prediction that Americans "would be greeted as liberators" [4], to the premature declaration of "Mission Accomplished" [5], to the inadequate troop levels used for occupation [6], to the disastrous decision to disband the Iraqi military and police in late 2003 [7], the Bush administration's numerous mistakes all contributed to the violent instability in Iraq at the time the abuses in Abu Ghraib began in early 2004. By putting too much stress on too few troops, the Bush administration made something like Abu Ghraib inevitable. C. Hostility toward international laws governing the treatment of POWs In waging the "war on terror," the Bush administration put forth a constant resistance to international human rights laws, especially legal prohibitions on the use of torture. [8] Conservative enthusiasm for so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" contributed to an anything-goes mentality among military interrogators, which ultimately resulted in the torture that occured at Abu Ghraib. My opponent claims that "the Right and the Bush administration disapproved and condemnded of the actions at Abu Ghraib," but this is a stretch at best. Defense Secretary Donald Rumseld refused to acknowledge that "torture" had occurred at Abu Ghraib [9], while Republican Senator James Inhofe said he was "probably not the only [Senator] . . . that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment." [10] Leading conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh dismissed the atrocities committed at Abu Ghraib as no worse than typical fraternity hazing. [11] As evidenced by their reactions after Abu Ghraib, conservative indifference toward the torture of enemy detainees was certainly widespread before it. D. Anti-muslim bigotry in the wake of 9/11 Because much of the torture and humiliation at Abu Ghraib was specifically intended to prey upon the religious convictions of the Iraqi detainees, [12] it is safe to say that anti-Muslim hatred played as big a role in the Abu Ghraib abuses as any other factor. Beginning with President Bush's "crusading" rhetoric in the early stages of the War on Terror, [13], many conservatives today remain under the mistaken impression that the United States is at war with all of Islam. [14] Along with the other factors above, xenophobia also lead to Abu Ghraib. Sources [1] <URL>... ; [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>... [6] ; [7] <URL>... ; [8] <URL>... [9] <URL>... [10] <URL>... [11] <URL>... ; [12] <URL>... [13] <URL>... ; [14] <URL>... ;

LiberalHoyaLawya

Pro's attempt to blame liberal support for pornography as the primary cause of the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib is absurd. There is zero evidence that pornography has any effect on violent behavior, and, in any event, the militant lawlessness and anti-Muslim bigotry fomented by conservatives in the wake of 9/11 played a far greater role in the torture that occurred at Abu Ghraib. 1. Pornography does not lead to violent behavior To support his contention that "pornography... can lead to actions like what happened at Abu Ghraib," Pro cited an opinion column from one college newspaper, devoid of any empirical data. A comprehensive international study by Milton Diamond, however, demonstrates the fallacy of Pro's argument. After showing that a dramatic increase in the availability of in pornography in Japan and the United States over recent decades was coupled with an equally dramatic decrease in violent sex crimes, the study concluded that "if anything, there is an inverse causal relationship between an increase in pornography and sex crime." [1] Similar studies have arrived at identical conclusions. [2, 3] Without Pro's speculative and pseudo-religious premise that pornography causes violent behavior by "degrading" the sanctity of human sexuality, his entire argument fails. 2. Conservatives are responsible for the factors that actually lead to Abu Ghraib A. The invasion of Iraq If the Bush administration hadn’t decided to invade Iraq in the first place, the abuses at Abu Ghraib would have never occurred. Iraq was an unnecessary war initiated under false pretenses, and the torture at Abu Ghraib was only one of its disastrous consequences. B. The mismanaged occupation of Iraq Abu Ghraib was merely one example of the Bush administration’s broader mishandling of the occupation of Iraq. From their erroneous pre-war prediction that Americans “would be greeted as liberators” [4], to the premature declaration of “Mission Accomplished” [5], to the inadequate troop levels used for occupation [6], to the disastrous decision to disband the Iraqi military and police in late 2003 [7], the Bush administration’s numerous mistakes all contributed to the violent instability in Iraq at the time the abuses in Abu Ghraib began in early 2004. By putting too much stress on too few troops, the Bush administration made something like Abu Ghraib inevitable. C. Hostility toward international laws governing the treatment of POWs In waging the "war on terror," the Bush administration put forth a constant resistance to international human rights laws, especially legal prohibitions on the use of torture. [8] Conservative enthusiasm for so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" contributed to an anything-goes mentality among military interrogators, which ultimately resulted in the torture that occured at Abu Ghraib. My opponent claims that "the Right and the Bush administration disapproved and condemnded of the actions at Abu Ghraib," but this is a stretch at best. Defense Secretary Donald Rumseld refused to acknowledge that "torture" had occurred at Abu Ghraib [9], while Republican Senator James Inhofe said he was "probably not the only [Senator] . . . that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment." [10] Leading conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh dismissed the atrocities committed at Abu Ghraib as no worse than typical fraternity hazing. [11] As evidenced by their reactions after Abu Ghraib, conservative indifference toward the torture of enemy detainees was certainly widespread before it. D. Anti-muslim bigotry in the wake of 9/11 Because much of the torture and humiliation at Abu Ghraib was specifically intended to prey upon the religious convictions of the Iraqi detainees, [12] it is safe to say that anti-Muslim hatred played as big a role in the Abu Ghraib abuses as any other factor. Beginning with President Bush's "crusading" rhetoric in the early stages of the War on Terror, [13], many conservatives today remain under the mistaken impression that the United States is at war with all of Islam. [14] Along with the other factors above, xenophobia also lead to Abu Ghraib. Sources [1] http://www.hawaii.edu... ; [2] http://papers.ssrn.com... [3] http://www.slate.com... [4] http://www.washingtonpost.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] ; [7] http://www.guardian.co.uk... ; [8] http://www.nytimes.com... [9] http://nytimes.com... [10] http://www.cbsnews.com... [11] http://mediamatters.org... ; [12] http://www.soundvision.com... [13] http://www.csmonitor.com... ; [14] http://www.time.com... ;

Politics

Abuses-of-Abu-Ghraib-prisoners-by-Americans-can-be-blamed-on-the-Left/1/

Thank you, Skynet. Just out of curiosity, did you really believe what you were arguing, or were you just trying to challenge yourself with a difficult argument?

LiberalHoyaLawya

Thank you, Skynet. Just out of curiosity, did you really believe what you were arguing, or were you just trying to challenge yourself with a difficult argument?

Politics

Abuses-of-Abu-Ghraib-prisoners-by-Americans-can-be-blamed-on-the-Left/1/

While blaming Abu Ghraib on pornography is crazy, it isn't unreasonable to criticize porn in general. I've always been amused that feminists and social conservatives both oppose pornography, but for totally different reasons... talk about "strange bedfellows!"

LiberalHoyaLawya

While blaming Abu Ghraib on pornography is crazy, it isn't unreasonable to criticize porn in general. I've always been amused that feminists and social conservatives both oppose pornography, but for totally different reasons... talk about "strange bedfellows!"

Politics

Abuses-of-Abu-Ghraib-prisoners-by-Americans-can-be-blamed-on-the-Left/1/

Pro conceded this debate; please vote Pro.

LiberalHoyaLawya

Pro conceded this debate; please vote Pro.

Politics

Abuses-of-Abu-Ghraib-prisoners-by-Americans-can-be-blamed-on-the-Left/1/

This is part 4 of my "accept if you dare" series of debates on unorthodox topics. Let's define "brutal:" 1. Savage; cruel; inhuman 5. Irrational (1) Now to define "too:" 2. To an excessive extent or degree; beyond what is desirable or fitting (1) Con may argue first if they wish.

Loveshismom

This is part 4 of my "accept if you dare" series of debates on unorthodox topics. Let's define "brutal:" 1. Savage; cruel; inhuman 5. Irrational (1) Now to define "too:" 2. To an excessive extent or degree; beyond what is desirable or fitting (1) Con may argue first if they wish.

Games

Accept-if-you-Dare-4-Resolved-Mortal-Kombat-Fatalities-are-too-brutal./1/

I give up

Loveshismom

I give up

Games

Accept-if-you-Dare-4-Resolved-Mortal-Kombat-Fatalities-are-too-brutal./1/

Background of controversy: The U.S. Congress is currently working on health care reform legislation. Some of the factors fueling the quest for reform are Americans losing their insurance coverage through loss of employment, the expense of obtaining individual, private health insurance, and pre-existing conditions and rescission used by private, for-profit insurers to deny coverage. Without insurance, health care costs are costly and out of reach for millions of Americans. Controversy exists about the best way to reform American access to health care. The media report daily about the disagreements in Congress and among citizens, opinion polls, and on the demonstrations and protests held by both advocates and opponents of reform. Do U.S. citizens deserve access to affordable health care? This leads to the argument that: PROPOSITION OF FACT: Access to affordable health care is a right, not a privilege Definitions: Right: noun; a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral Privilege: noun; a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most Access: noun; the ability, right, or permission to use Affordable: adjective; that can be afforded; to be within one's financial means Health: noun; soundness of body or mind; freedom from disease or ailment Catastrophic: from the noun catastrophe; a sudden and widespread disaster; a great, often sudden calamity 1)Health is a basic human need, similar to the need for food, water, and shelter. All humans need to nurture and maintain their health in order to achieve their fullest potential. Those with no access to affordable health care will die sooner from preventable ailments. Their quality of life will be diminished. Without their health, people cannot be productive members of society. Without productive citizens, the whole society suffers. If health care is limited to only those privileged enough to obtain it, or in other words, to only those who have unlimited resources to purchase it, then they have advantages beyond most others. Thus, society is split between the haves and the have-nots. As Americans, we can look to our own Declaration of Independence, which affirms the equality of all people and their rights: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men {people} are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men {people} deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." The unalienable right to "life" is futile without one's health. U.S. Declaration of Independence: <URL>... See Article 25: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (U.N.): <URL>... 2)Preventative care, obtained through access to affordable health care programs, is cheaper in the long run and benefits the entire society. In the U.S., those who have no insurance or other form of coverage, or whose insurance company denies them care, must bear the costs of their health care on their own. Obtaining preventative care (wellness) care can become difficult to impossible due to its high cost. People will wait or put off seeing a health provider for the care of simple issues. Left untreated, simple issues can turn into bigger issues, which can lead to higher costs of care and premature death. The cost of treating catastrophic illness/disease is much greater than of taking care of one's health on a regular basis. If citizens go bankrupt due to the costs of catastrophic illnesses, the society absorbs the loss, in both monetary and human terms. See the Modern Hippocratic oath; "prevention is preferable to cure." The Modern Hippocratic Oath: <URL>... Health Insurance and Mortality in US Adults: <URL>... 3) Access to affordable health care is not pure commerce, such as a product or commodity that is bought and sold. Human life is at stake. Do we measure the value of a human life only in dollars and cents? Access to affordable health care promotes the social welfare of a society. Our government has established other programs for protecting and promoting the social welfare of its citizens. Rights to education, police, and fire protection are in this category. The U.S. Bill of Rights also guarantees the rights and liberties of its people that are inalienable. Amendment IX of the Bill of Rights: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The U.S. Constitution: <URL>... Bill of Rights: <URL>...

cahb

Background of controversy: The U.S. Congress is currently working on health care reform legislation. Some of the factors fueling the quest for reform are Americans losing their insurance coverage through loss of employment, the expense of obtaining individual, private health insurance, and pre-existing conditions and rescission used by private, for-profit insurers to deny coverage. Without insurance, health care costs are costly and out of reach for millions of Americans. Controversy exists about the best way to reform American access to health care. The media report daily about the disagreements in Congress and among citizens, opinion polls, and on the demonstrations and protests held by both advocates and opponents of reform. Do U.S. citizens deserve access to affordable health care? This leads to the argument that: PROPOSITION OF FACT: Access to affordable health care is a right, not a privilege Definitions: Right: noun; a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral Privilege: noun; a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most Access: noun; the ability, right, or permission to use Affordable: adjective; that can be afforded; to be within one's financial means Health: noun; soundness of body or mind; freedom from disease or ailment Catastrophic: from the noun catastrophe; a sudden and widespread disaster; a great, often sudden calamity 1)Health is a basic human need, similar to the need for food, water, and shelter. All humans need to nurture and maintain their health in order to achieve their fullest potential. Those with no access to affordable health care will die sooner from preventable ailments. Their quality of life will be diminished. Without their health, people cannot be productive members of society. Without productive citizens, the whole society suffers. If health care is limited to only those privileged enough to obtain it, or in other words, to only those who have unlimited resources to purchase it, then they have advantages beyond most others. Thus, society is split between the haves and the have-nots. As Americans, we can look to our own Declaration of Independence, which affirms the equality of all people and their rights: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men {people} are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men {people} deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…" The unalienable right to "life" is futile without one's health. U.S. Declaration of Independence: http://www.archives.gov... See Article 25: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (U.N.): http://www.un.org... 2)Preventative care, obtained through access to affordable health care programs, is cheaper in the long run and benefits the entire society. In the U.S., those who have no insurance or other form of coverage, or whose insurance company denies them care, must bear the costs of their health care on their own. Obtaining preventative care (wellness) care can become difficult to impossible due to its high cost. People will wait or put off seeing a health provider for the care of simple issues. Left untreated, simple issues can turn into bigger issues, which can lead to higher costs of care and premature death. The cost of treating catastrophic illness/disease is much greater than of taking care of one's health on a regular basis. If citizens go bankrupt due to the costs of catastrophic illnesses, the society absorbs the loss, in both monetary and human terms. See the Modern Hippocratic oath; "prevention is preferable to cure." The Modern Hippocratic Oath: http://www.pbs.org... Health Insurance and Mortality in US Adults: http://pnhp.org... 3) Access to affordable health care is not pure commerce, such as a product or commodity that is bought and sold. Human life is at stake. Do we measure the value of a human life only in dollars and cents? Access to affordable health care promotes the social welfare of a society. Our government has established other programs for protecting and promoting the social welfare of its citizens. Rights to education, police, and fire protection are in this category. The U.S. Bill of Rights also guarantees the rights and liberties of its people that are inalienable. Amendment IX of the Bill of Rights: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The U.S. Constitution: http://www.archives.gov... Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov...

Health

Access-to-affordable-health-care-is-a-right-not-a-privilege./1/

Thank you for your welcome and for taking on this debate. 1. "As it stands your definitions arise to absurdity with your resolution, in essence transforming it into: Access to affordable health care is a right, not a right. As such your definitions fail to properly detail the positions on either side of your argument..." I see we have a problem with what the definitions are for 'privilege' and 'right'. You are saying that these two words mean the exact same thing. I disagree. There is a difference between a privilege and a right, and most people know it, even without written definitions (as were given at the top of the debate). A privilege refers to a benefit enjoyed by a person(s) beyond the advantages of most. It is granted to some and not 'most'. A right is a just claim (whether legal, prescriptive, OR moral) or title, and thus, belongs to all persons. The two words are not interchangeable. If they were, it would be absurd to discuss this proposition with anyone, which would lead me to question why anyone would agree to debate it. Also, the definition of a right includes those other than of a moral nature, thus the "moral" nature of rights is a trivial point and irrelevant. The primary inference of the proposition of fact, "Access to affordable health care is a right, not a privilege" is that access to affordable health care is a right belonging to all, not just to the privileged (some). Your definition of pro-state welfarist (that the government should intervene in regards to health care), and your assumption that this is what I am, are not topical to the proposition as stated. I am not arguing a policy claim. The argument concerns right versus privilege in regard to access to affordable health care. 2. "It inadequately captures the opposing stance of a welfare advocate (it does not adequately detail what rights are), so lets drop that from the discussion... your own definition of a privilege does not detail adequate demarcation of a concept of rights in opposition to your stance and the concept of rights in relation to privilege, is an equivocation if used in the same context as the moral concept of rights." Yes, let's drop that from the discussion because I don't even know what you are talking about. :-) Again, I deny that 1) the definition given for a privilege does not detail adequate demarcation of a concept of rights (see definitions above in 1.) and 2) that the concept of rights in relation to privilege, is an equivocation if used in the same context as the moral concept of a rights. The moral concept of a right is irrelevant to the proposition (see above in 1.). 3 "Since you evoke the founding fathers later (and to shortcut that argument), their concept of rights was based upon this same Aristotelian concept - ...In other words, for a proper concept of rights, their implementation should give rise to no contradictions and this is where your argument fails." Please provide support for these claims, beginning with the founding fathers and the Aristotelian concept. I am aware that our founding fathers were influenced by enlightenment thinking, in particular, by John Locke's ideas. <URL>... Also, please explain, in simple terms, why your definition of a right makes a difference to the proposition and what bearing that and "no contradictions" have on the proposition as stated. Again, I disagree that "a proper concept of rights" is the issue in the proposition. You are avoiding the central issue of the proposition which is about right versus privilege, two different words with two different meanings, and how they relate to access to affordable health care. 4. "A right to life, under your definition, is a positive right, it is a claim on something to someone. A right to this life, under your premises, is a cost to another's life, an automatic claim, that interferes and prohibits some aspect of another's life. Your position, is in contradiction with its implementation." My definition of a right to life is the same as the one given in the Declaration of Independence. Please provide support for your claim that the unalienable right to life, positive or not, as stated in the Declaration is a cost to another's life, an automatic claim, that interferes and prohibits some aspect of another's life and is easily in violation of article 4. 5. "Let's explore what you are really saying. A right to health care, is an admission that force is required to provide health care for others." So you say. Your conclusion that force is required is a hasty generalization, untrue, and not based on the proposition. We are talking about a right of access to affordable health care, not a right to health care. The proposition indicates that people will pay for the health care that they need; that health care is not free. How they will pay for it is the subject for a different argument. 6. "What sort of force? The government of course. ... Should we enforce all those able to maintain this 'right' to life you seek? You have no viable 'cut-off,' no viable premise that maintains this position." Since there is no force required for professionals to provide health care for others (5. above), your argument here is irrelevant. 7. "Such a right exists in your premise, even taking the healthy kidney by force -... See by advocating a positive right to health care you are advocating the enslavement of others to provide it." You are appealing to fear, of trying to arouse concern over a potential, hypothetical consequence which is untrue, particularly since no force is required (5. above). Access to affordable health care is a right rather than a privilege, not a right to health care by any means available and the enslavement of others to provide it. 8. "Right to life means the freedom to pursue ones life as one wishes, not to be alive. A train runs me over it violated my right to life? Nature violates my rights via cell degradation? No. It's an absurd stance on rights to take." If one is not alive, then one is probably not concerned with the freedom to pursue one's life as one wishes. 9. "Fantastic; eat well, exercise properly, wear sunscreen etc. It is not the governments role, nor mine, to dictate how you should look after your body. If you value it, take the steps to maintain it." You've shifted ground here. Have you ever known anyone who has done all the right things to maintain their health and who still has gotten ill? How about someone injured in an accident, through no fault of their own? What about people with hereditary diseases or birth defects? How about pregnant women? Do they value their lives? How do they maintain their health and body? Taking steps to maintain their body and health include having the right of access to affordable health care. 10. "That is precisely what you are asking, you are pricing one life above another, ones freedom above another's, you cost it through the method of how you seek to achieve it, taxes." I do agree with you that the pricing mechanisms of health care is (more than) a bit beyond the scope of this debate because this debate is not about that or achieving it through taxes or that government intervention is precisely what raises this price. "Access to affordable to health care is a right, not a privilege" in no way prices one's life or freedom above another's. On the contrary, it values all life as equal and is a concern for others. The general welfare and common good of our society is the concern. Going Galt won't answer the issue of access to affordable health care.

cahb

Thank you for your welcome and for taking on this debate. 1. "As it stands your definitions arise to absurdity with your resolution, in essence transforming it into: Access to affordable health care is a right, not a right. As such your definitions fail to properly detail the positions on either side of your argument..." I see we have a problem with what the definitions are for ‘privilege' and ‘right'. You are saying that these two words mean the exact same thing. I disagree. There is a difference between a privilege and a right, and most people know it, even without written definitions (as were given at the top of the debate). A privilege refers to a benefit enjoyed by a person(s) beyond the advantages of most. It is granted to some and not 'most'. A right is a just claim (whether legal, prescriptive, OR moral) or title, and thus, belongs to all persons. The two words are not interchangeable. If they were, it would be absurd to discuss this proposition with anyone, which would lead me to question why anyone would agree to debate it. Also, the definition of a right includes those other than of a moral nature, thus the "moral" nature of rights is a trivial point and irrelevant. The primary inference of the proposition of fact, "Access to affordable health care is a right, not a privilege" is that access to affordable health care is a right belonging to all, not just to the privileged (some). Your definition of pro-state welfarist (that the government should intervene in regards to health care), and your assumption that this is what I am, are not topical to the proposition as stated. I am not arguing a policy claim. The argument concerns right versus privilege in regard to access to affordable health care. 2. "It inadequately captures the opposing stance of a welfare advocate (it does not adequately detail what rights are), so lets drop that from the discussion… your own definition of a privilege does not detail adequate demarcation of a concept of rights in opposition to your stance and the concept of rights in relation to privilege, is an equivocation if used in the same context as the moral concept of rights." Yes, let's drop that from the discussion because I don't even know what you are talking about. :-) Again, I deny that 1) the definition given for a privilege does not detail adequate demarcation of a concept of rights (see definitions above in 1.) and 2) that the concept of rights in relation to privilege, is an equivocation if used in the same context as the moral concept of a rights. The moral concept of a right is irrelevant to the proposition (see above in 1.). 3 "Since you evoke the founding fathers later (and to shortcut that argument), their concept of rights was based upon this same Aristotelian concept – …In other words, for a proper concept of rights, their implementation should give rise to no contradictions and this is where your argument fails." Please provide support for these claims, beginning with the founding fathers and the Aristotelian concept. I am aware that our founding fathers were influenced by enlightenment thinking, in particular, by John Locke's ideas. http://plato.stanford.edu... Also, please explain, in simple terms, why your definition of a right makes a difference to the proposition and what bearing that and "no contradictions" have on the proposition as stated. Again, I disagree that "a proper concept of rights" is the issue in the proposition. You are avoiding the central issue of the proposition which is about right versus privilege, two different words with two different meanings, and how they relate to access to affordable health care. 4. "A right to life, under your definition, is a positive right, it is a claim on something to someone. A right to this life, under your premises, is a cost to another's life, an automatic claim, that interferes and prohibits some aspect of another's life. Your position, is in contradiction with its implementation." My definition of a right to life is the same as the one given in the Declaration of Independence. Please provide support for your claim that the unalienable right to life, positive or not, as stated in the Declaration is a cost to another's life, an automatic claim, that interferes and prohibits some aspect of another's life and is easily in violation of article 4. 5. "Let's explore what you are really saying. A right to health care, is an admission that force is required to provide health care for others." So you say. Your conclusion that force is required is a hasty generalization, untrue, and not based on the proposition. We are talking about a right of access to affordable health care, not a right to health care. The proposition indicates that people will pay for the health care that they need; that health care is not free. How they will pay for it is the subject for a different argument. 6. "What sort of force? The government of course. … Should we enforce all those able to maintain this 'right' to life you seek? You have no viable 'cut-off,' no viable premise that maintains this position." Since there is no force required for professionals to provide health care for others (5. above), your argument here is irrelevant. 7. "Such a right exists in your premise, even taking the healthy kidney by force -… See by advocating a positive right to health care you are advocating the enslavement of others to provide it." You are appealing to fear, of trying to arouse concern over a potential, hypothetical consequence which is untrue, particularly since no force is required (5. above). Access to affordable health care is a right rather than a privilege, not a right to health care by any means available and the enslavement of others to provide it. 8. "Right to life means the freedom to pursue ones life as one wishes, not to be alive. A train runs me over it violated my right to life? Nature violates my rights via cell degradation? No. It's an absurd stance on rights to take." If one is not alive, then one is probably not concerned with the freedom to pursue one's life as one wishes. 9. "Fantastic; eat well, exercise properly, wear sunscreen etc. It is not the governments role, nor mine, to dictate how you should look after your body. If you value it, take the steps to maintain it." You've shifted ground here. Have you ever known anyone who has done all the right things to maintain their health and who still has gotten ill? How about someone injured in an accident, through no fault of their own? What about people with hereditary diseases or birth defects? How about pregnant women? Do they value their lives? How do they maintain their health and body? Taking steps to maintain their body and health include having the right of access to affordable health care. 10. "That is precisely what you are asking, you are pricing one life above another, ones freedom above another's, you cost it through the method of how you seek to achieve it, taxes." I do agree with you that the pricing mechanisms of health care is (more than) a bit beyond the scope of this debate because this debate is not about that or achieving it through taxes or that government intervention is precisely what raises this price. "Access to affordable to health care is a right, not a privilege" in no way prices one's life or freedom above another's. On the contrary, it values all life as equal and is a concern for others. The general welfare and common good of our society is the concern. Going Galt won't answer the issue of access to affordable health care.

Health

Access-to-affordable-health-care-is-a-right-not-a-privilege./1/

Summary The issue of access to affordable health care has become a pressing concern in these hard economic times, exacerbated by high unemployment and loss of job-based health insurance, the expense of obtaining individual, private health insurance, denial of care by private, for-profit insurers through pre-existing conditions and rescission, and the increasing costs of health care while wages are stagnating. The change from historically non-profit to for-profit insurance providers in the latter half of the 20th century is probably another factor that has affected the nature of access and delivery of care. As our government is based on the consent of the governed, please note that the U.S. Congress has recently passed one health care reform bill in the House of Representatives; the Senate is working on their version. The primary inference in the given topic of this debate, "Access to affordable health care is a right, not a privilege", is that access to affordable health care is a right belonging to all, not just to the privileged (some). I have based this conclusion on 1) the structural inherency that we possess inalienable, human rights and that our society was established, among other things, to promote the general welfare; 2) health being a primary need that is required for people to become productive citizens; 3) the benefit to individuals and society as a whole; and 4) this right being in the same category as the rights to education, police, and fire protection (none of whom are forced or enslaved to deliver their services), which all citizens currently have access to. My opponent's reasoning rests primarily on the fallacies of avoiding the issue and shifting the ground. From the beginning, he and I were arguing about different topics. His first sentence in his first round was an ad hominem argument, shifting the attention from the argument to my ability to reason and know the difference between the definitions of a privilege and a right. Challenging the definition is the opponent's prerogative; however, at that time, he neglected to provide another definition with a more reasonable interpretation of the proposition and thus, avoided the issue through simple evasion. Instead, he deliberately distorted the definition by truncating the one I provided and used the fallacy of composition in arguing that this was my definition. He chose to alter the topic of the debate, not once, but twice, by 1) changing my argument to one of a policy claim ("the government should intervene in regards to health care") and later, in his own words, 2) he "took the debate to challenge 'health care is a right' which is your stance." Both of these are major shifts in ground, neither are topical to the debate that he accepted (see proposition of fact above), and thus, avoid the given issue. In other words, my opponent accepted the given debate and then argued against other topics of his choosing, without regard to my stated claim.

cahb

Summary The issue of access to affordable health care has become a pressing concern in these hard economic times, exacerbated by high unemployment and loss of job-based health insurance, the expense of obtaining individual, private health insurance, denial of care by private, for-profit insurers through pre-existing conditions and rescission, and the increasing costs of health care while wages are stagnating. The change from historically non-profit to for-profit insurance providers in the latter half of the 20th century is probably another factor that has affected the nature of access and delivery of care. As our government is based on the consent of the governed, please note that the U.S. Congress has recently passed one health care reform bill in the House of Representatives; the Senate is working on their version. The primary inference in the given topic of this debate, "Access to affordable health care is a right, not a privilege", is that access to affordable health care is a right belonging to all, not just to the privileged (some). I have based this conclusion on 1) the structural inherency that we possess inalienable, human rights and that our society was established, among other things, to promote the general welfare; 2) health being a primary need that is required for people to become productive citizens; 3) the benefit to individuals and society as a whole; and 4) this right being in the same category as the rights to education, police, and fire protection (none of whom are forced or enslaved to deliver their services), which all citizens currently have access to. My opponent's reasoning rests primarily on the fallacies of avoiding the issue and shifting the ground. From the beginning, he and I were arguing about different topics. His first sentence in his first round was an ad hominem argument, shifting the attention from the argument to my ability to reason and know the difference between the definitions of a privilege and a right. Challenging the definition is the opponent's prerogative; however, at that time, he neglected to provide another definition with a more reasonable interpretation of the proposition and thus, avoided the issue through simple evasion. Instead, he deliberately distorted the definition by truncating the one I provided and used the fallacy of composition in arguing that this was my definition. He chose to alter the topic of the debate, not once, but twice, by 1) changing my argument to one of a policy claim ("the government should intervene in regards to health care") and later, in his own words, 2) he "took the debate to challenge 'health care is a right' which is your stance." Both of these are major shifts in ground, neither are topical to the debate that he accepted (see proposition of fact above), and thus, avoid the given issue. In other words, my opponent accepted the given debate and then argued against other topics of his choosing, without regard to my stated claim.

Health

Access-to-affordable-health-care-is-a-right-not-a-privilege./1/