Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

debateorg_w_effect_for_liberal

like 0

Thanks for the opposition. E = Explanation O = Observation Neg Rebuttal: "I would agree. But what if she was having consensual sex but she found out that she was pregnant, even though she was taking contraceptives. She then found out that her husband had replaced them with placebos since he wanted a child. In this case, she did not plan to have a child even though the sex was consensual - would she be allowed to have an abortion?" E1) This is one of the few times I cop out with a tautology: if you managed to get pregnant, you didn't do enough to guard against it, regardless of what you did or didn't do. I use this from a policy perspective because it is literally impossible to prove that you used a condom and/or birth control and used them properly. On top of that, both have a published failure rate. If both parties agree to have sex, everything else is mere details. "Many teenagers become pregnant all over the world. Not only do 70,000 girls ages 15-19 die each year from pregnancy and childbirth, but the babies that do survive have a 60% higher chance of dying as well. [1] By having this type of policy, thousands of teenagers are put at risk for death." E2) In the case of life of the mother, the woman has the right to kill in self defense. The child is considered the aggressor against the actors life or death circumstance. ""Do no harm" is for the protection of human life. However, the definition of human under the Bouvier's Law dictionary is: "Person : An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity" E3) I disagree with "Bouvie's Law" on the aspect of defining human life. According to the Appalachian Journal of Law life begins at the point of conception[1, Pg. 17]. Furthermore, under normal circumstances the fetus will become a human. Excerpt: "So which is it? Does life begin at the beginning point of this nine- month continuum or at the end of it? We take the former position. We maintain that the fetus is an alive human being from day one onward, with all the rights pertaining to any other member of the species" O1) Double Standards a. If both people are equally responsible for the conception, why does the woman have the right to compel the man against his will (pay child support) but the man doesn't have the right to compel the woman against her will (carry the child)? b. If a woman is murdered while pregnant the murderer is charged with a double homicide. I will go on to further my argument in the next round. I went over the character limit and already cut a lot out. [1] <URL>...

Tidin

Thanks for the opposition. E = Explanation O = Observation Neg Rebuttal: "I would agree. But what if she was having consensual sex but she found out that she was pregnant, even though she was taking contraceptives. She then found out that her husband had replaced them with placebos since he wanted a child. In this case, she did not plan to have a child even though the sex was consensual - would she be allowed to have an abortion?" E1) This is one of the few times I cop out with a tautology: if you managed to get pregnant, you didn't do enough to guard against it, regardless of what you did or didn't do. I use this from a policy perspective because it is literally impossible to prove that you used a condom and/or birth control and used them properly. On top of that, both have a published failure rate. If both parties agree to have sex, everything else is mere details. "Many teenagers become pregnant all over the world. Not only do 70,000 girls ages 15-19 die each year from pregnancy and childbirth, but the babies that do survive have a 60% higher chance of dying as well. [1] By having this type of policy, thousands of teenagers are put at risk for death." E2) In the case of life of the mother, the woman has the right to kill in self defense. The child is considered the aggressor against the actors life or death circumstance. ""Do no harm" is for the protection of human life. However, the definition of human under the Bouvier's Law dictionary is: "Person : An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity" E3) I disagree with "Bouvie's Law" on the aspect of defining human life. According to the Appalachian Journal of Law life begins at the point of conception[1, Pg. 17]. Furthermore, under normal circumstances the fetus will become a human. Excerpt: "So which is it? Does life begin at the beginning point of this nine- month continuum or at the end of it? We take the former position. We maintain that the fetus is an alive human being from day one onward, with all the rights pertaining to any other member of the species" O1) Double Standards a. If both people are equally responsible for the conception, why does the woman have the right to compel the man against his will (pay child support) but the man doesn't have the right to compel the woman against her will (carry the child)? b. If a woman is murdered while pregnant the murderer is charged with a double homicide. I will go on to further my argument in the next round. I went over the character limit and already cut a lot out. [1] http://www.walterblock.com...

Politics

Abortion-Ought-to-be-Illegal-Except-Under-the-Circumstances-of-Forced-Sex/1/

Thanks, Annhasle Neg Rebuttals: "Is that a fair policy to implement? Regardless of if you actually took the appropriate measures to not being impregnated, you get your right taken away as though you had not planned ahead?" E4) Yes it is a fair policy, as shown in my H1. Consequences don't hinge on what you did to get there. If someone engages in a sexual act, they take the burden of everything that it entails under the original contract in P1. In other words, It has nothing to do with taking "rights" away and everything to do with breaking the contract of the action. "The concept of personhood is different than where life begins. Also, the eggs that aren't implanted in in vitro fertilization are routinely thrown away -- should that be illegal since technically life has started then?" O2) I see the difference but at the same time I find it irrelevant. My arguments come from a property rights perspective. Adding on to my E3, I argue that the "entity" has legal rights and exists. Besides, using that definition goes against your original argument ("except late term"). "Also, since the fetus cannot exist independently and is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord -- it is not granted legal protection under "do no harm" since it's part of the mother's body and ultimately her choice." P3) This is different than abortion, it is evicting. We agree that a woman's right to her property is held higher, in value, than the life of the fetus. If the mother evicts the fetus and, in turn, is unable to live on it's own, then so be it. Just because it cannot live independently from host doesn't mean it can never. Nothing is stopping anyone to uncover technology to keep the fetus alive absent the host. Also, I would also like to emphasize again, the legal protection originates from two parties, accepting a contract, by engaging in sexual intercourse. "Regardless, at the present it is a clump of cells. If we put forward a policy that makes abortion illegal since it's the killing of cells that *could* become a human -- then each time a man masturbates, he's committing murder." E5) Once the egg is fertilized, and in not interfered or further effort, the fetus is now on its way to being a human. "Her body -- simple as that. To make her carry the child would be going against her right to choose what is best for her body. Child support is for the best of the child and purely in it's interests. As a parent, this is their responsibility." P4) I argue that the loss of a lifetime with a mans child is on par, or outweighs the 9 months of pregnancy the woman has to endure. Therefor, a man should then be able to sue the woman claiming 'loss of consortium' [1]. "Simply because it is currently in..." O3) Should it be legally acceptable for a woman not to seek justice, by her standards, if a person murdered a woman's unborn child? what if she intended to keep it? Love the debate, =) [1] <URL>...

Tidin

Thanks, Annhasle Neg Rebuttals: "Is that a fair policy to implement? Regardless of if you actually took the appropriate measures to not being impregnated, you get your right taken away as though you had not planned ahead?" E4) Yes it is a fair policy, as shown in my H1. Consequences don't hinge on what you did to get there. If someone engages in a sexual act, they take the burden of everything that it entails under the original contract in P1. In other words, It has nothing to do with taking "rights" away and everything to do with breaking the contract of the action. "The concept of personhood is different than where life begins. Also, the eggs that aren't implanted in in vitro fertilization are routinely thrown away -- should that be illegal since technically life has started then?" O2) I see the difference but at the same time I find it irrelevant. My arguments come from a property rights perspective. Adding on to my E3, I argue that the "entity" has legal rights and exists. Besides, using that definition goes against your original argument ("except late term"). "Also, since the fetus cannot exist independently and is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord -- it is not granted legal protection under "do no harm" since it's part of the mother's body and ultimately her choice." P3) This is different than abortion, it is evicting. We agree that a woman's right to her property is held higher, in value, than the life of the fetus. If the mother evicts the fetus and, in turn, is unable to live on it's own, then so be it. Just because it cannot live independently from host doesn't mean it can never. Nothing is stopping anyone to uncover technology to keep the fetus alive absent the host. Also, I would also like to emphasize again, the legal protection originates from two parties, accepting a contract, by engaging in sexual intercourse. "Regardless, at the present it is a clump of cells. If we put forward a policy that makes abortion illegal since it's the killing of cells that *could* become a human -- then each time a man masturbates, he's committing murder." E5) Once the egg is fertilized, and in not interfered or further effort, the fetus is now on its way to being a human. "Her body -- simple as that. To make her carry the child would be going against her right to choose what is best for her body. Child support is for the best of the child and purely in it's interests. As a parent, this is their responsibility." P4) I argue that the loss of a lifetime with a mans child is on par, or outweighs the 9 months of pregnancy the woman has to endure. Therefor, a man should then be able to sue the woman claiming 'loss of consortium' [1]. "Simply because it is currently in..." O3) Should it be legally acceptable for a woman not to seek justice, by her standards, if a person murdered a woman's unborn child? what if she intended to keep it? Love the debate, =) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Politics

Abortion-Ought-to-be-Illegal-Except-Under-the-Circumstances-of-Forced-Sex/1/

"If this policy was in place, then like other laws, it should have varying courses of action based upon the intent of the woman. If a woman wore no condom and did not take birth control, why should she have the same punishment as a woman who made the man wear a condom? Intent is a very important factor in law -- it keeps law just and fair to all." E6) It does not matter whether your intentions are pure. As explained in P2 & H1, there is a distinction between willfully entering the act (sex) and desiring every consequence the act (baby, venereal diseases). Unless you can find me a man or woman who doesn't understand that having sex has unintended consequences, along with, knowing every safeguard against the consequences isn't absolute, then you may have a point. Otherwise, as I've said before, everything else is mere details. "However, if we are to follow along with my logic, then you'd see that taking a woman's right to abortion is in fact taking away the ability to choose her own procedures for the best of her own body." E7) By engaging in sex, I would argue that she already chose her path. Therefor, forfeits all rights to end the fetuses life. "Therefore, that policy would be unjust and the scope of government would only increase." E8) Not necessarily, Different political economies could have their own way of implementing such a policy. An anarchist, minianarchist, democratic, etc. system could apply this in the way property rights are dealt with (suing), and, the way they would deal with any other murder case. I admit that this would be tricky in an anarchist system, and if I had more character space I would write more thoroughly on the subject (where we might actually agree). "The law cannot make policies simply because there *could* be technology in the future. If the fetus cannot live independently, then it is not a separate entity and does *not* have protection." E9) It is not a law, it is a negative right. Negative rights are timeless, meaning, a cavemen had the same rights as we do today. In other words, the right to not be harmed is a negative right. Therefor, the fetus does have the same right to not be harmed. For example, A 100 years ago we couldn't evict the baby without causing it harm (aggression). Today we have the technology to not harm the fetus if it is removed from the host (non-aggression -> aggression). A 100 years from now we could have the ability to keep the fetus going (viable solution against abortion). Until we are able of such technology the act of aborting the fetus is murder. Conclusion: My position is based upon voluntary accepting the contract from having sex, by engaging in sex itself. Furthermore, the contract should be kept, just as though, in any other contractual agreement. If the contract is in anyway breached, a measure of punishment should be held against the person. For example, a man, wanting to keep the child, could sue as explained in P4. THANKS

Tidin

"If this policy was in place, then like other laws, it should have varying courses of action based upon the intent of the woman. If a woman wore no condom and did not take birth control, why should she have the same punishment as a woman who made the man wear a condom? Intent is a very important factor in law -- it keeps law just and fair to all." E6) It does not matter whether your intentions are pure. As explained in P2 & H1, there is a distinction between willfully entering the act (sex) and desiring every consequence the act (baby, venereal diseases). Unless you can find me a man or woman who doesn't understand that having sex has unintended consequences, along with, knowing every safeguard against the consequences isn't absolute, then you may have a point. Otherwise, as I've said before, everything else is mere details. "However, if we are to follow along with my logic, then you'd see that taking a woman's right to abortion is in fact taking away the ability to choose her own procedures for the best of her own body." E7) By engaging in sex, I would argue that she already chose her path. Therefor, forfeits all rights to end the fetuses life. "Therefore, that policy would be unjust and the scope of government would only increase." E8) Not necessarily, Different political economies could have their own way of implementing such a policy. An anarchist, minianarchist, democratic, etc. system could apply this in the way property rights are dealt with (suing), and, the way they would deal with any other murder case. I admit that this would be tricky in an anarchist system, and if I had more character space I would write more thoroughly on the subject (where we might actually agree). "The law cannot make policies simply because there *could* be technology in the future. If the fetus cannot live independently, then it is not a separate entity and does *not* have protection." E9) It is not a law, it is a negative right. Negative rights are timeless, meaning, a cavemen had the same rights as we do today. In other words, the right to not be harmed is a negative right. Therefor, the fetus does have the same right to not be harmed. For example, A 100 years ago we couldn't evict the baby without causing it harm (aggression). Today we have the technology to not harm the fetus if it is removed from the host (non-aggression -> aggression). A 100 years from now we could have the ability to keep the fetus going (viable solution against abortion). Until we are able of such technology the act of aborting the fetus is murder. Conclusion: My position is based upon voluntary accepting the contract from having sex, by engaging in sex itself. Furthermore, the contract should be kept, just as though, in any other contractual agreement. If the contract is in anyway breached, a measure of punishment should be held against the person. For example, a man, wanting to keep the child, could sue as explained in P4. THANKS

Politics

Abortion-Ought-to-be-Illegal-Except-Under-the-Circumstances-of-Forced-Sex/1/

First off, I will concede this debate to you on the grounds that it is unwinnable from either side of the arguement. My reason for that point of view is that, abortion is a moral issue imposed upon by law. And, the law is set and straight forward and any woman or individual performing an abortion is protected by the law if it is strictly followed. Therefore, what points of law could I argue that would give me an advantage? The law, however, does not and cannot make a moral issue right or wrong. That is determined by the ethical and religeous beliefs of the society in which one lives. And, those morals and ethics are reinforced by every individual in that society. As an example: I think you would more than likely agree with me that cannablism is morally wrong. It is, at least, looked at in our society as being both morally and legally wrong. (a case in which both the law and morality agree.) There have been, and may still be, countries in which chasing down an individual in a neighboring tribe, smashing his head in with a club, and having him for dinner was perfectly O.K. And this point of view was shared by every member of the society. But that fact does not change our belief that it is not morally right to do that. And, we even find it repulsive. After all, we are an enlightened society, right? (I sometimes wonder if that is true?) And, so, that brings me back to my view on abortion. Simply because the law says it is legal does not make it morally right. I would venture to say that if a pole were taken, most individuals would feel it is morally wrong. But, that has not prevented nor changed the law and I doubt that it ever will. The reason I feel that most individuals would feel it is morally wrong is because most individuals believe in a supreme god, and their religion believes it is morally wrong.(I would point out here that I am an agnostic and my moral point of view comes from my old fashioned upbringing and old fashioned world. In other words, before todays moral decay set in.) And from a religeous point of view, abortion, in a sense, would be murder. And that is both morally and illegally wrong in our society. But, since those individuals in charge of the law (the Supreme Court) have chosen to declare it legal, most individuals who practice it have also chosen to view it as morally right. The Supreme Court in making it legal chose to arbitrarily set standards to determine why it should be legal. One of those standards was, "when is the fetus viable?" There choice was that the fetus is viable after the third trimester, and, therefore, to perform an abortion, it must be done before the third trimester. Some abortions now are performed on fetus' by reaching in with tongs and smashing the skull before delivery so that the fetus is not viable after delivery. So let's look at what viable means. Webster's dictionary defines viable as: 1. capable of living: esp.: born alive with such form and development of organs as to be normally capable of living. :2.capable of growing or developing. :(such as viable seeds or viable eggs) Now I dout very much that you will find any biologist and, more than likely, if you are honest with yourself, that would not agree that most eggs produced by women and most sperm produced by men are viable. In other words, if we put a female egg with most male sperm we will get conception.(the beginning of life) and that in and of itself meets the second criteria of viability listed in Webster's dictionary. From that point of view, the Supreme Court had to totally ignore the second definition of viability and impose the one in which the organs were developed. But let's dig a little deeper. What exactly is viability? Viability from the very beginning of conception depends on the mother providing nurishment to the developing fetus. And that need does not end after birth. A baby is not even aware of its own existance until it is around six or seven months old, as observed and attested to by most psychologists. But even then it is only viable when provided with, by someone else, the necessities of life. Left to fend for itself, it would die within days or weeks. This need extends over a period of five or six years. Now let's extend this idea to rediculousness just as it is with murdering the fetus. If a child is not taken care of outside the womb, as it is inside the womb, it is not viable until it is five years old. Therefore, by the definition of viability provided by the Supreme Court one should be able to murder a child before it is five years old, because it is not yet viable. You and I both know that that is rediculously outrageous. But just as that logic is rediculously outrageous, so is it rediculously outrageous to destroy a fetus in the womb, when, if left to the natural laws of nature, it will become the child outside the womb. And viability has nothing to do with it, nor does it justify it. All the rhetoric surrounding abortion is nothing more than an attempt to justify murder. That is my opinion, of course.

SumIDLtalk

First off, I will concede this debate to you on the grounds that it is unwinnable from either side of the arguement. My reason for that point of view is that, abortion is a moral issue imposed upon by law. And, the law is set and straight forward and any woman or individual performing an abortion is protected by the law if it is strictly followed. Therefore, what points of law could I argue that would give me an advantage? The law, however, does not and cannot make a moral issue right or wrong. That is determined by the ethical and religeous beliefs of the society in which one lives. And, those morals and ethics are reinforced by every individual in that society. As an example: I think you would more than likely agree with me that cannablism is morally wrong. It is, at least, looked at in our society as being both morally and legally wrong. (a case in which both the law and morality agree.) There have been, and may still be, countries in which chasing down an individual in a neighboring tribe, smashing his head in with a club, and having him for dinner was perfectly O.K. And this point of view was shared by every member of the society. But that fact does not change our belief that it is not morally right to do that. And, we even find it repulsive. After all, we are an enlightened society, right? (I sometimes wonder if that is true?) And, so, that brings me back to my view on abortion. Simply because the law says it is legal does not make it morally right. I would venture to say that if a pole were taken, most individuals would feel it is morally wrong. But, that has not prevented nor changed the law and I doubt that it ever will. The reason I feel that most individuals would feel it is morally wrong is because most individuals believe in a supreme god, and their religion believes it is morally wrong.(I would point out here that I am an agnostic and my moral point of view comes from my old fashioned upbringing and old fashioned world. In other words, before todays moral decay set in.) And from a religeous point of view, abortion, in a sense, would be murder. And that is both morally and illegally wrong in our society. But, since those individuals in charge of the law (the Supreme Court) have chosen to declare it legal, most individuals who practice it have also chosen to view it as morally right. The Supreme Court in making it legal chose to arbitrarily set standards to determine why it should be legal. One of those standards was, "when is the fetus viable?" There choice was that the fetus is viable after the third trimester, and, therefore, to perform an abortion, it must be done before the third trimester. Some abortions now are performed on fetus' by reaching in with tongs and smashing the skull before delivery so that the fetus is not viable after delivery. So let's look at what viable means. Webster's dictionary defines viable as: 1. capable of living: esp.: born alive with such form and development of organs as to be normally capable of living. :2.capable of growing or developing. :(such as viable seeds or viable eggs) Now I dout very much that you will find any biologist and, more than likely, if you are honest with yourself, that would not agree that most eggs produced by women and most sperm produced by men are viable. In other words, if we put a female egg with most male sperm we will get conception.(the beginning of life) and that in and of itself meets the second criteria of viability listed in Webster's dictionary. From that point of view, the Supreme Court had to totally ignore the second definition of viability and impose the one in which the organs were developed. But let's dig a little deeper. What exactly is viability? Viability from the very beginning of conception depends on the mother providing nurishment to the developing fetus. And that need does not end after birth. A baby is not even aware of its own existance until it is around six or seven months old, as observed and attested to by most psychologists. But even then it is only viable when provided with, by someone else, the necessities of life. Left to fend for itself, it would die within days or weeks. This need extends over a period of five or six years. Now let's extend this idea to rediculousness just as it is with murdering the fetus. If a child is not taken care of outside the womb, as it is inside the womb, it is not viable until it is five years old. Therefore, by the definition of viability provided by the Supreme Court one should be able to murder a child before it is five years old, because it is not yet viable. You and I both know that that is rediculously outrageous. But just as that logic is rediculously outrageous, so is it rediculously outrageous to destroy a fetus in the womb, when, if left to the natural laws of nature, it will become the child outside the womb. And viability has nothing to do with it, nor does it justify it. All the rhetoric surrounding abortion is nothing more than an attempt to justify murder. That is my opinion, of course.

Politics

Abortion-before-the-third-trimester/1/

1. Point A: As I stated already, this entire debate is like comparing apples to oranges. On the one side is morality, ie., law. Your grounds for debate are that the two are, in essence, the same. My view is that they are not. In the end the winner of the debate will depend on the number of individuals voting from one point of view or the other, ie., the moral side or the law side. 2. Point B: Your position is that laws and morality are not disconnected. The very fact that we are debating abortion points out that they are. From societies point of view, abortion is immoral. As a proof of that I would give the results of a Time Magazine poll. In he poll 91% of the individuals polled said they believed in the existance of a god. And, 71% said they believed that God had a part in the creation of man. But, suprisingly, 68% said they believed that aetheists had morals even though they did not believe there was a god. I am of course assuming that those morals of aethiests would normally condem abortion. I am an agnostic and I do not believe in abortion because I consider it morally wrong. Besides that, I am a very morallistic individual and my morals have nothing what-so-ever to do with the law. It is simply that most of the time the law agrees with what I believe morally. 3. Point C: First, "viability" and the Supreme Court. You say that the Supreme Court uses the gauge of viability outside the womb and that that viability is the requirement of fully functional organs. My point of view was the fact that the Supreme Court arbitrarily set that as a basis to declare abortion legal. By setting that point they could ignore the entire process that takes place before it and impose a position of acceptable morality. After all, they must bring morality and the law as close together as possible to get society to accept their decision. My point and usually the point of all those that disagree with the law, is that from the moment of conception (the actual beginning of life)the egg and the sperm are provided with all the organs necessary to provide a living, breathing, human being. If we were to ignore all that happens before the third tri-mester, we would not have a viable fetus to worry about. Second: The difference and similarty of law and morality. Many laws are not only similar to moral points of view, but, often re-enforce them. In other words, it's wrong to steal and it is illegal. It is wrong to kill and it is illegal. Most individuals agree with that Where the rub comes in is when the moral issue does not closely agree with the legal issue. (abortion is one of those issues.) What happens at that point is it becomes a political issue and in the political arena the politician sells his honor and his morals for what is most convenient to his political gain. And, again, abortion is one of those issues. Abortion is one of the most rationalized issues in our society. There is hardly any individuals you can stop on the street that will not rationalize it in one manner or another. The phrase used more than any other is, "I am against it, but I believe a woman should have the right to choose for herself." I is the position I have taken and is the position of most of the people I personally know. But that does not make it morally right. 4. When morals and laws disagree: It isn't that often when morals and laws disagree, but, when the do, morals are usually set aside for the sake of the law. If there is a small disagreement what usually happens is that the law is enforced in the courts and people protest or complain. As the issue grows and the number of people who get behind it increases, the law is usually repealed. Our laws during prohibition is an example of societal pressure although not a good example of morality. Although most individuals don't consider moderate drinking to be immoral. Even Christ created wine. And so, the more grievous the issue between the law and the moral the more likely the law will lose out. 5. Law and moral: We abide by our morals willingly. We may not like them sometimes, but, we know in our hearts that it is the proper thing to do. We obey the law because we have to. We may not necessarily believe in it, but, to disobey it requires paying a price and only those inividuals that are anti social usually disobey the law on purpose. Most of us fight to change the law while at the same time obeying it. A law requires three things: 1. Social efficacy 2. Proper promulgation 3. Permissable content A moral requires four things: 1. Understanding its benefits 2. Willingness to abide by it 3. Being taught by elders 4. Accepted and promoted by ones society

SumIDLtalk

1. Point A: As I stated already, this entire debate is like comparing apples to oranges. On the one side is morality, ie., law. Your grounds for debate are that the two are, in essence, the same. My view is that they are not. In the end the winner of the debate will depend on the number of individuals voting from one point of view or the other, ie., the moral side or the law side. 2. Point B: Your position is that laws and morality are not disconnected. The very fact that we are debating abortion points out that they are. From societies point of view, abortion is immoral. As a proof of that I would give the results of a Time Magazine poll. In he poll 91% of the individuals polled said they believed in the existance of a god. And, 71% said they believed that God had a part in the creation of man. But, suprisingly, 68% said they believed that aetheists had morals even though they did not believe there was a god. I am of course assuming that those morals of aethiests would normally condem abortion. I am an agnostic and I do not believe in abortion because I consider it morally wrong. Besides that, I am a very morallistic individual and my morals have nothing what-so-ever to do with the law. It is simply that most of the time the law agrees with what I believe morally. 3. Point C: First, "viability" and the Supreme Court. You say that the Supreme Court uses the gauge of viability outside the womb and that that viability is the requirement of fully functional organs. My point of view was the fact that the Supreme Court arbitrarily set that as a basis to declare abortion legal. By setting that point they could ignore the entire process that takes place before it and impose a position of acceptable morality. After all, they must bring morality and the law as close together as possible to get society to accept their decision. My point and usually the point of all those that disagree with the law, is that from the moment of conception (the actual beginning of life)the egg and the sperm are provided with all the organs necessary to provide a living, breathing, human being. If we were to ignore all that happens before the third tri-mester, we would not have a viable fetus to worry about. Second: The difference and similarty of law and morality. Many laws are not only similar to moral points of view, but, often re-enforce them. In other words, it's wrong to steal and it is illegal. It is wrong to kill and it is illegal. Most individuals agree with that Where the rub comes in is when the moral issue does not closely agree with the legal issue. (abortion is one of those issues.) What happens at that point is it becomes a political issue and in the political arena the politician sells his honor and his morals for what is most convenient to his political gain. And, again, abortion is one of those issues. Abortion is one of the most rationalized issues in our society. There is hardly any individuals you can stop on the street that will not rationalize it in one manner or another. The phrase used more than any other is, "I am against it, but I believe a woman should have the right to choose for herself." I is the position I have taken and is the position of most of the people I personally know. But that does not make it morally right. 4. When morals and laws disagree: It isn't that often when morals and laws disagree, but, when the do, morals are usually set aside for the sake of the law. If there is a small disagreement what usually happens is that the law is enforced in the courts and people protest or complain. As the issue grows and the number of people who get behind it increases, the law is usually repealed. Our laws during prohibition is an example of societal pressure although not a good example of morality. Although most individuals don't consider moderate drinking to be immoral. Even Christ created wine. And so, the more grievous the issue between the law and the moral the more likely the law will lose out. 5. Law and moral: We abide by our morals willingly. We may not like them sometimes, but, we know in our hearts that it is the proper thing to do. We obey the law because we have to. We may not necessarily believe in it, but, to disobey it requires paying a price and only those inividuals that are anti social usually disobey the law on purpose. Most of us fight to change the law while at the same time obeying it. A law requires three things: 1. Social efficacy 2. Proper promulgation 3. Permissable content A moral requires four things: 1. Understanding its benefits 2. Willingness to abide by it 3. Being taught by elders 4. Accepted and promoted by ones society

Politics

Abortion-before-the-third-trimester/1/

Point A: I will concede to you on that, that we agree. Point B: I still disagree with you that the basis of laws lie in societal morality. If we go back to the introduction of law, sometime before the time of the Greek era, we find many writings on the concept of law and morality. Greek thinkers such as Aristotle, Sophocles, Plato and others wrote extensively on the difference between what lawconsidered right and what seemed natural, or moral. One who is well read has at one time or another read these writers. In the first appearance of law it was assumed that the law was the desires of the gods. The average citizens were willing to obey the law because they thought that was whattheir gods expected of them. But when they looked around at what was really happening, they found that law did not follow the natural flow of things in most cases and that the law was more a tool of the rulers or the upper class to control the lower class. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. Most individuals feel that what is legal is legitimate. In the case of Roe vs Wade (Jane Roe whose real name was Norma McCorvey) Roe was pregnant, but never did get an abortion. She had had two children prior to seeking an abortion. When she went to the clinic to seek an abortion, the clinic had closed. In the process of attempting to find another clinic, she was referred to two female lawyers that were liberal feminists looking for a patsy to try an abortion case in the Supreme Court. Roe then lied and told the Supreme Court that she had been raped and that she needed the abortion. She did this, of course, because she never appeared before the court herself. It was all done through her lawyers. So, the Supreme Court passed out a ruling on a case that was a lie from the very beginning. Roe herself was actually a homosexual and a drug addict. She had numerous relationships with other women and at one time maintained a relationship with one woman for almost two decades. She gave birth to her third child. She had put her first two up for adoption. She later went to work in an abortion clinic where she met with and talked to women on a daily basis who were getting abortions. She eventually became Catholic and regretted what she had done in the Roe vs Wade court case and applied to the Supreme Court to have the ruling reversed. The court refused her hearing on the grounds that her case was moot. Jane Roe A.K.A. Norma McCorvey eventually formed a foundation called "Roe no More'to fight abortion and help women understand the trauma and heart break they suffer as a consequence of abortion. Thousands of women tell of their experiences after abortion. Some tell of waking up in the middle of the night hearing children crying, feeling depressed and not knowing why, feelings of regret and having difficulty having children later when they want to. But most complain that no one told them about what the consequences would be later. As far as statistics go, I am citing a poll conducted by Zogby. I like Zogby because I consider him to be more impartial than most. He is a bipartisan pollster. One of his polls on abortion can be viewed here: <URL> As far as the context of the debate being in the first trimester or the last, it makes no difference. I conceded to you in the very beginning of the debate that there was no way to win that argument, since it has already been legalized by the Supreme Court. I will agree with you on the context that most opinion is subjective and in that context, if we look at polls that have been conducted over the last thirty years, we find that the opinion of the public is moving more and more to the right and individuals and new generations of individuals are taking the view that Roe vs Wade may be wrong and may pressure the Supreme Court to reverse its decision. Only time will decide the outcome. The original decision was a 5 to 4 decision and today it still teeters on a 5 to 4 precipice. As far as abortion being protected by the Constitution, I must disagree with you. Nowhere in the Constitution is the subject of abortion mentioned. And, in fact, I would venture to say that if the founders of the Constitution were here today and one was to suggest to them that abortion was protected under it, they would be appalled at the idea. The Supreme Court has stretched the Fourteenth Amendment to the limit in order to legalize abortion under a persons right to free choice. It is a wonder that trial lawyers have not used the ruling to justify the murder of other people, by their clients, because they are making a free choice as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment. Of course we know that is ridiculous, so why isn't the murder of a baby in the womb ridiculous? Because it is not politically expedient. I will agree with you that the Supreme Court does not just randomly pick something out of the air when they are making a decision. I am quite aware of the process they go through. It is a process of debate in which each and every justice involved in the case expresses his point of view and how he arrived at it. In the end they decide whether it is protected or prohibited by the Constitution. The rub comes in when they apply the Constitution. Each justice, just like each individual and scholars, looks at the Constitution in one of two different ways. It is either a static or living instrument. Most liberals look at it as a living instrument, whereas, most conservatives look at it as static. As a living instrument most liberals feel that they can imply what it means when it is necessary to accomplish what they want. Just as you do when you say that abortion is protected under the Constitution, when it plainly is not, since it is not mentioned there. By stretching the meaning of 'the right to a free choice' in the fourteenth amendment you can imply that it is. As a static instrument, it would be impossible for the justices to find the act of abortion legal. That is why four of the justices dissent. Their view of the Constitution is that it is a static instrument and nowhere does it protect the right to an abortion. And, yes, I agree, just because they are legal does not necessarily make them wrong. Point C: You stated that I did not provide a better definition when I criticized the Supreme Court on theirs. I thought that I had provided a definition. As you point out from the beginning, it will be up to those who vote as to which is the best. I pointed out that I felt, as many do, that life begins at conception, not at the thirdtrimester. If we look at the fetus just sixty days after the blastocyst attaches itself to the wall of the uterus it is almost as big as a kidney bean. It has a head, a rump and hands with webbed fingers. It is clearly developing into a human being and has all the necessary DNA and tools to finish growing into the viable individual that the Supreme Court gives a woman the right to kill, before the third trimester, of course. You say that I agree with you on the Supreme Court being the authority on what is viable and what is not. I agreed with you that the Supreme Court is the appointed authority on Constitutional Law. From a moral and religious point of view, I would have to say that the individual and God would have to be a better choice of what is viable and what is not. God said, "I am alpha and omega, the beginning and end of all things." He also said, "I am the same yesterday, today and tomorrow." In other words, if it was wrong a thousand years ago, it will be wrong a thousand years from now. The Bible speaks of abortion in only one place. If I remember right, it is in the King James version in Exodus 21: 22-23. It speaks only of the price one must pay for damage to a fetus.

SumIDLtalk

Point A: I will concede to you on that, that we agree. Point B: I still disagree with you that the basis of laws lie in societal morality. If we go back to the introduction of law, sometime before the time of the Greek era, we find many writings on the concept of law and morality. Greek thinkers such as Aristotle, Sophocles, Plato and others wrote extensively on the difference between what lawconsidered right and what seemed natural, or moral. One who is well read has at one time or another read these writers. In the first appearance of law it was assumed that the law was the desires of the gods. The average citizens were willing to obey the law because they thought that was whattheir gods expected of them. But when they looked around at what was really happening, they found that law did not follow the natural flow of things in most cases and that the law was more a tool of the rulers or the upper class to control the lower class. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. Most individuals feel that what is legal is legitimate. In the case of Roe vs Wade (Jane Roe whose real name was Norma McCorvey) Roe was pregnant, but never did get an abortion. She had had two children prior to seeking an abortion. When she went to the clinic to seek an abortion, the clinic had closed. In the process of attempting to find another clinic, she was referred to two female lawyers that were liberal feminists looking for a patsy to try an abortion case in the Supreme Court. Roe then lied and told the Supreme Court that she had been raped and that she needed the abortion. She did this, of course, because she never appeared before the court herself. It was all done through her lawyers. So, the Supreme Court passed out a ruling on a case that was a lie from the very beginning. Roe herself was actually a homosexual and a drug addict. She had numerous relationships with other women and at one time maintained a relationship with one woman for almost two decades. She gave birth to her third child. She had put her first two up for adoption. She later went to work in an abortion clinic where she met with and talked to women on a daily basis who were getting abortions. She eventually became Catholic and regretted what she had done in the Roe vs Wade court case and applied to the Supreme Court to have the ruling reversed. The court refused her hearing on the grounds that her case was moot. Jane Roe A.K.A. Norma McCorvey eventually formed a foundation called "Roe no More'to fight abortion and help women understand the trauma and heart break they suffer as a consequence of abortion. Thousands of women tell of their experiences after abortion. Some tell of waking up in the middle of the night hearing children crying, feeling depressed and not knowing why, feelings of regret and having difficulty having children later when they want to. But most complain that no one told them about what the consequences would be later. As far as statistics go, I am citing a poll conducted by Zogby. I like Zogby because I consider him to be more impartial than most. He is a bipartisan pollster. One of his polls on abortion can be viewed here: www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=6982 As far as the context of the debate being in the first trimester or the last, it makes no difference. I conceded to you in the very beginning of the debate that there was no way to win that argument, since it has already been legalized by the Supreme Court. I will agree with you on the context that most opinion is subjective and in that context, if we look at polls that have been conducted over the last thirty years, we find that the opinion of the public is moving more and more to the right and individuals and new generations of individuals are taking the view that Roe vs Wade may be wrong and may pressure the Supreme Court to reverse its decision. Only time will decide the outcome. The original decision was a 5 to 4 decision and today it still teeters on a 5 to 4 precipice. As far as abortion being protected by the Constitution, I must disagree with you. Nowhere in the Constitution is the subject of abortion mentioned. And, in fact, I would venture to say that if the founders of the Constitution were here today and one was to suggest to them that abortion was protected under it, they would be appalled at the idea. The Supreme Court has stretched the Fourteenth Amendment to the limit in order to legalize abortion under a persons right to free choice. It is a wonder that trial lawyers have not used the ruling to justify the murder of other people, by their clients, because they are making a free choice as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment. Of course we know that is ridiculous, so why isn't the murder of a baby in the womb ridiculous? Because it is not politically expedient. I will agree with you that the Supreme Court does not just randomly pick something out of the air when they are making a decision. I am quite aware of the process they go through. It is a process of debate in which each and every justice involved in the case expresses his point of view and how he arrived at it. In the end they decide whether it is protected or prohibited by the Constitution. The rub comes in when they apply the Constitution. Each justice, just like each individual and scholars, looks at the Constitution in one of two different ways. It is either a static or living instrument. Most liberals look at it as a living instrument, whereas, most conservatives look at it as static. As a living instrument most liberals feel that they can imply what it means when it is necessary to accomplish what they want. Just as you do when you say that abortion is protected under the Constitution, when it plainly is not, since it is not mentioned there. By stretching the meaning of ‘the right to a free choice' in the fourteenth amendment you can imply that it is. As a static instrument, it would be impossible for the justices to find the act of abortion legal. That is why four of the justices dissent. Their view of the Constitution is that it is a static instrument and nowhere does it protect the right to an abortion. And, yes, I agree, just because they are legal does not necessarily make them wrong. Point C: You stated that I did not provide a better definition when I criticized the Supreme Court on theirs. I thought that I had provided a definition. As you point out from the beginning, it will be up to those who vote as to which is the best. I pointed out that I felt, as many do, that life begins at conception, not at the thirdtrimester. If we look at the fetus just sixty days after the blastocyst attaches itself to the wall of the uterus it is almost as big as a kidney bean. It has a head, a rump and hands with webbed fingers. It is clearly developing into a human being and has all the necessary DNA and tools to finish growing into the viable individual that the Supreme Court gives a woman the right to kill, before the third trimester, of course. You say that I agree with you on the Supreme Court being the authority on what is viable and what is not. I agreed with you that the Supreme Court is the appointed authority on Constitutional Law. From a moral and religious point of view, I would have to say that the individual and God would have to be a better choice of what is viable and what is not. God said, "I am alpha and omega, the beginning and end of all things." He also said, "I am the same yesterday, today and tomorrow." In other words, if it was wrong a thousand years ago, it will be wrong a thousand years from now. The Bible speaks of abortion in only one place. If I remember right, it is in the King James version in Exodus 21: 22-23. It speaks only of the price one must pay for damage to a fetus.

Politics

Abortion-before-the-third-trimester/1/

Abortions before the third trimester should be considered legal and under the protection of the 14th Ammendment and Due Process clauses stating that a womam has the right to due process when she has in interest in life, liberty, or in this case property. Since the fetus is not considered to be "viable" outside the womb until after the second trimester or somewhere around there, then it is not a person, and therefore denied the rights listed in the constitution.

UBERdude63

Abortions before the third trimester should be considered legal and under the protection of the 14th Ammendment and Due Process clauses stating that a womam has the right to due process when she has in interest in life, liberty, or in this case property. Since the fetus is not considered to be "viable" outside the womb until after the second trimester or somewhere around there, then it is not a person, and therefore denied the rights listed in the constitution.

Politics

Abortion-before-the-third-trimester/1/

First, a summation of what you are saying: A: Neither side can win this debate, so you concede it to me B: Laws have no say in morality because morality is based upon societal concensus ex. is cannabalism C: The Supreme Court arbitrarily defines "viable" Point A: Yes, we can. Though morality is subjective to each and every person, people share their beliefs and try to convince the other of the superiority of their own beliefs, as we are doing now during this debate. It is up to those who will vote to decide who has the superior position, so yes, one side can and WILL win this debate, so I would very much not like you to concede, though you really aren't because you did present arguments. It is important that we do participate, so please don't just give up. Point B: Our laws DO define morality, but just in a generic sense so that we can have somewhat of a base morality so people can't just go around killing people because to them they are morally justified. You see, whenever our society originally drafted the Constitution, they obviously had morality in mind, for there is really nothing else. Since laws regulate what we can and cannot do (ideally), they are the ultimate moral justifiers because everything we do is justified morally to us, and we would be obliged to follow the societal paradigm else we would be rejected from the group. Take your example of cannibalism. In OUR society, cannabalism is not accepted because we find it morally wrong, for example, because of the killing, just like they would have when the Constitution was drafted. So then, our founding fathers made it a point to make laws against killing others, but of course not just for cannabalism. My point is that a society's values are the reason for laws; they are not disconnected. Point C: First, I will say that it is the Supreme Court's function to interpret the Constitution for specific instances such as abortion, and they do it according to not only what they believe would have been the founding father's ruling, but also according to political realities. You see, they define "viablility" as not only being alive, but (specific to the context of conception) being able to survive outside the mother's womb, albeit with some support. The main idea, though, is that it is fully functioning as far as all the organs work, or at least with reasonable artificial support. My point here is that the Supreme Court's "arbitrary" definition is one specific to a scenario involving abortion, and it is certainly more appropriate than Webster's.

UBERdude63

First, a summation of what you are saying: A: Neither side can win this debate, so you concede it to me B: Laws have no say in morality because morality is based upon societal concensus ex. is cannabalism C: The Supreme Court arbitrarily defines "viable" Point A: Yes, we can. Though morality is subjective to each and every person, people share their beliefs and try to convince the other of the superiority of their own beliefs, as we are doing now during this debate. It is up to those who will vote to decide who has the superior position, so yes, one side can and WILL win this debate, so I would very much not like you to concede, though you really aren't because you did present arguments. It is important that we do participate, so please don't just give up. Point B: Our laws DO define morality, but just in a generic sense so that we can have somewhat of a base morality so people can't just go around killing people because to them they are morally justified. You see, whenever our society originally drafted the Constitution, they obviously had morality in mind, for there is really nothing else. Since laws regulate what we can and cannot do (ideally), they are the ultimate moral justifiers because everything we do is justified morally to us, and we would be obliged to follow the societal paradigm else we would be rejected from the group. Take your example of cannibalism. In OUR society, cannabalism is not accepted because we find it morally wrong, for example, because of the killing, just like they would have when the Constitution was drafted. So then, our founding fathers made it a point to make laws against killing others, but of course not just for cannabalism. My point is that a society's values are the reason for laws; they are not disconnected. Point C: First, I will say that it is the Supreme Court's function to interpret the Constitution for specific instances such as abortion, and they do it according to not only what they believe would have been the founding father's ruling, but also according to political realities. You see, they define "viablility" as not only being alive, but (specific to the context of conception) being able to survive outside the mother's womb, albeit with some support. The main idea, though, is that it is fully functioning as far as all the organs work, or at least with reasonable artificial support. My point here is that the Supreme Court's "arbitrary" definition is one specific to a scenario involving abortion, and it is certainly more appropriate than Webster's.

Politics

Abortion-before-the-third-trimester/1/

Point A: We are in agreement Point B: Just because we disagree on the matter doesn't refute my position that the basis for laws lie in societal morality. As for your statistics citing the beliefs of many to believe abortion is immoral, I first say that those statistics are actually those who believe in God, and you assume that they are against abortion. That means by no means that they are against abortion, and even those who are probably aren't against abortions as we are defining them in this context as before the third trimester. If THAT isn't enough, people's ideals fluctuate all the time, so until you prove that the general populace was always against abortion, then your argument doesn't refute my own. My position is that the basis of laws lies in societal morality because the people who made our countries put what they believed to be right in our Constitution so that those values would be protected. Just because your views or my views, or even the majority of society's views that abortions are immoral in the context of religion or personal belief doesn't mean that, when put in the context of society, should be illegalized because the fact of the matter is that it IS protected by the Constitution that was made for the greater good of our society, and so to violate that protection by illegalizing abortion before the third trimester would be like spitting on our forefathers. Point C: Once again, the Supreme Court doesn't just randomly suggest some definition from nowhere; it is determined by political realities as well as how they believe the founding fathers would have thought. Who are you to say that they just randomly pick a definition, especially when you don't provide a better one? As I do recall, you cited Websters, and also didn't disagree with me on my point that the highest authority on constitutional matters, the Supreme Court, has probably the most viable definition seeing as it is their job to decide such matters.

UBERdude63

Point A: We are in agreement Point B: Just because we disagree on the matter doesn't refute my position that the basis for laws lie in societal morality. As for your statistics citing the beliefs of many to believe abortion is immoral, I first say that those statistics are actually those who believe in God, and you assume that they are against abortion. That means by no means that they are against abortion, and even those who are probably aren't against abortions as we are defining them in this context as before the third trimester. If THAT isn't enough, people's ideals fluctuate all the time, so until you prove that the general populace was always against abortion, then your argument doesn't refute my own. My position is that the basis of laws lies in societal morality because the people who made our countries put what they believed to be right in our Constitution so that those values would be protected. Just because your views or my views, or even the majority of society's views that abortions are immoral in the context of religion or personal belief doesn't mean that, when put in the context of society, should be illegalized because the fact of the matter is that it IS protected by the Constitution that was made for the greater good of our society, and so to violate that protection by illegalizing abortion before the third trimester would be like spitting on our forefathers. Point C: Once again, the Supreme Court doesn't just randomly suggest some definition from nowhere; it is determined by political realities as well as how they believe the founding fathers would have thought. Who are you to say that they just randomly pick a definition, especially when you don't provide a better one? As I do recall, you cited Websters, and also didn't disagree with me on my point that the highest authority on constitutional matters, the Supreme Court, has probably the most viable definition seeing as it is their job to decide such matters.

Politics

Abortion-before-the-third-trimester/1/

My argument is simple: (1) A fetus, or embryo, is an individual human being (2) Abortion kills this innocent human being. (3) Abortion should be banned. The main contention that needs to argued for is (1). In support of this, I will use an objective way to show that fetuses are individual, human beings: DNA. William Lane Craig, Professor of Philosophy at Biola University, has said, "Already in that moment of conception, that individual is either male or female, depending on whether he or she received an X or Y chromosome from the sperm. The later developments of sexual organs and other secondary sexual characteristics is only evidence of a difference in sexuality that has been there from the very beginning. Moreover, all of the individual's traits, such as body type, ey and hair color, facial characteristics, and so forth, are determined at the moment of conception and are just waiting to unfold. From the moment of conception we have a genetically complete and unique human being; in effect, you began at the moment of your conception." From the moment of conception, the fetus has DNA that tells us that it is human (obviously) and that it is an individual (in that no one else has that DNA). What do we call an individual human? A human being. This is why Professor Matthews-Roth of Harvard University Medical School has said, "It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins as conception." My second point follows the simple definition of abortion. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines abortion as "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus". Abortion kills the fetus. My conclusion follows logically. The killing of innocent human beings, no matter how large or small, should be banned.

cjack92

My argument is simple: (1) A fetus, or embryo, is an individual human being (2) Abortion kills this innocent human being. (3) Abortion should be banned. The main contention that needs to argued for is (1). In support of this, I will use an objective way to show that fetuses are individual, human beings: DNA. William Lane Craig, Professor of Philosophy at Biola University, has said, "Already in that moment of conception, that individual is either male or female, depending on whether he or she received an X or Y chromosome from the sperm. The later developments of sexual organs and other secondary sexual characteristics is only evidence of a difference in sexuality that has been there from the very beginning. Moreover, all of the individual's traits, such as body type, ey and hair color, facial characteristics, and so forth, are determined at the moment of conception and are just waiting to unfold. From the moment of conception we have a genetically complete and unique human being; in effect, you began at the moment of your conception." From the moment of conception, the fetus has DNA that tells us that it is human (obviously) and that it is an individual (in that no one else has that DNA). What do we call an individual human? A human being. This is why Professor Matthews-Roth of Harvard University Medical School has said, "It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins as conception." My second point follows the simple definition of abortion. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines abortion as "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus". Abortion kills the fetus. My conclusion follows logically. The killing of innocent human beings, no matter how large or small, should be banned.

Society

Abortion-except-in-the-cases-of-rape-or-when-the-mother-s-life-is-endangered-should-be-banned./1/

First, I would like to note that my opponent agrees with me on the fact that it is, quoting uj0320, "acceptable enough that the act of abortion can be referred as killing a human-being." I interpret my opponent's argument as: (1) There is an increased chance of the children being unhappy (2) Therefore, we should allow abortion My opponent's argument has 3 flaws: (A) My opponent's solution to helping unhappy children is flawed. We do not KILL children simply because they are unhappy. For my opponent to successfully argue against this objection, he or she (I can't tell by the name) must rationally support the idea that a HELPFUL way to treat unhappy children is to KILL them. (B) My opponent assumes that these children will be unhappy. Even if my opponent somehow explains how a helpful way to treat children is to kill them, he or she must show how he or she KNOWS that these children will be unhappy. Unless my opponent shows this, his or her argument rests on the fact that there is a CHANCE that the child will grow up to be unhappy. However, this position is irrational. If we should abort people simply because there is a CHANCE that they will become unhappy, then we should abort EVERYONE. Why? Because, for everyone, there is a chance of growing up unhappy. My opponent's illogic is obvious. Yes, there is a chance that the unborn will grow up unhappy. But yes, there is a chance the unborn will grow up happy. What my opponent MUST show is that the unborn babies WILL grow up to be unhappy. Personally, I don't believe that my opponent can show this...unless my opponent can see into the future. (C) My opponent creates a false dilemma. My opponent seems to assume that a child can either be aborted or kept. However, there is another stunningly obvious option: ADOPTION. If a child is adopted, then their parents, who my opponent states will likely not take care of them well, do not have to take care of them. This gives them a chance to be adopted into a family that will take care of and love them. I would also like to add that I am not debating this for purely intellectual reasons. Through this simple online discussion, I pray that someone will recognize abortion for what is truly is: an evil that takes 1.2 MILLION lives away every year.

cjack92

First, I would like to note that my opponent agrees with me on the fact that it is, quoting uj0320, "acceptable enough that the act of abortion can be referred as killing a human-being." I interpret my opponent's argument as: (1) There is an increased chance of the children being unhappy (2) Therefore, we should allow abortion My opponent's argument has 3 flaws: (A) My opponent's solution to helping unhappy children is flawed. We do not KILL children simply because they are unhappy. For my opponent to successfully argue against this objection, he or she (I can't tell by the name) must rationally support the idea that a HELPFUL way to treat unhappy children is to KILL them. (B) My opponent assumes that these children will be unhappy. Even if my opponent somehow explains how a helpful way to treat children is to kill them, he or she must show how he or she KNOWS that these children will be unhappy. Unless my opponent shows this, his or her argument rests on the fact that there is a CHANCE that the child will grow up to be unhappy. However, this position is irrational. If we should abort people simply because there is a CHANCE that they will become unhappy, then we should abort EVERYONE. Why? Because, for everyone, there is a chance of growing up unhappy. My opponent's illogic is obvious. Yes, there is a chance that the unborn will grow up unhappy. But yes, there is a chance the unborn will grow up happy. What my opponent MUST show is that the unborn babies WILL grow up to be unhappy. Personally, I don't believe that my opponent can show this...unless my opponent can see into the future. (C) My opponent creates a false dilemma. My opponent seems to assume that a child can either be aborted or kept. However, there is another stunningly obvious option: ADOPTION. If a child is adopted, then their parents, who my opponent states will likely not take care of them well, do not have to take care of them. This gives them a chance to be adopted into a family that will take care of and love them. I would also like to add that I am not debating this for purely intellectual reasons. Through this simple online discussion, I pray that someone will recognize abortion for what is truly is: an evil that takes 1.2 MILLION lives away every year.

Society

Abortion-except-in-the-cases-of-rape-or-when-the-mother-s-life-is-endangered-should-be-banned./1/

I think differently. There is truly no doubt about that abortion results death of unborned baby. And it is also acceptable enough that the act of abortion can be referred as killing a human-being, because unborned babies are already considred as human beings at the point where they were created according to the citations. However, abortion is not for the benefit of people who want to abort their babies, it is for unborned babies. It is quite expectable that people who want to abort their babies, except for the cases that are mentioned in the topic, were irresponsible enough to not think about the consequences of having a sexual relationship without proper equipments or knowledge. There is only a little chance of them to raise their babies with full responsibility in the future;therefore, the unhappy children will not live in ideal environments for the most of time. By prohibiting them from aborting their babies, it can cause other serious problems. The irresponsible parents-who will most likely be only the mother, in this case- will be overwhelmed by the amount of work that is needed to raise a baby. Also, according to a scientific research, the babies from such parents are more potentential of commtting a crime than other babies are.

uj0320

I think differently. There is truly no doubt about that abortion results death of unborned baby. And it is also acceptable enough that the act of abortion can be referred as killing a human-being, because unborned babies are already considred as human beings at the point where they were created according to the citations. However, abortion is not for the benefit of people who want to abort their babies, it is for unborned babies. It is quite expectable that people who want to abort their babies, except for the cases that are mentioned in the topic, were irresponsible enough to not think about the consequences of having a sexual relationship without proper equipments or knowledge. There is only a little chance of them to raise their babies with full responsibility in the future;therefore, the unhappy children will not live in ideal environments for the most of time. By prohibiting them from aborting their babies, it can cause other serious problems. The irresponsible parents-who will most likely be only the mother, in this case- will be overwhelmed by the amount of work that is needed to raise a baby. Also, according to a scientific research, the babies from such parents are more potentential of commtting a crime than other babies are.

Society

Abortion-except-in-the-cases-of-rape-or-when-the-mother-s-life-is-endangered-should-be-banned./1/

My opponent represented "killing is not the right solution for unhappy children." First of all, "unhappy children" is not enough of a description for the situations that the babies, whom their own parents wanted to abort, will get through. They will neither experience love from their parents, nor live in an appropriate condition. It is certainly doubtful that parents who did not want their children to be born would treat their children well in the future. "Unhappy children" is an appropriate description for kids who are not allowed to play with their friends too much, or forced to study all day. The state that the children whom their parents were forced to give birth to because of their irresponsibility will be much worse than the state of unhappy. It is not a mere assumption, but it is a perceptive future for those poor unborn infants, if they were forced to live under pressure of the social environments surrounding them entire their childhood. Secondly, people should not only focus on the babies, but also focus on the woman who is on a serious perssure that cannot be compared to that of any others. She will have to devote her entire life for her child; the burden that she will have to deal with will be hard for most of us even to imagine. Therefore, it is she who has to decide to give birth to her own child, not anyone else. My opponent argued that there is another option that's called adoption. However, candidates for adoption are not always present, and the mother is in the situation where she doesn't have enough time to wait for a candidate for adoption. Furthermore, the governement's foster care system for the babies is often in a miserable situation. In the state of Texas alone it is learned that 48 foster children died in the state's care. Compared to the general population, a child is 4 times more likely to die in their foster care system than in a loving household. And the only way we got these statistics is because Texas is one of the few states who takes action and tries to help these children as much as possible. Many states are less effective, less caring, and more neglegent than Texas. Foster care is unsafe. In 2004, almost 100 children were treated for poisoning; 63 were treated for rape that happened while in state care; and 142 children gave birth. In Missouri, they found that 57% of foster children were likely to be abused and neglected. (I'm using libertarian's quotes for this citations) [ <URL>... ] [ <URL>... ] Since it is certain that government doesn't have proper and appropriate system for the parents who can't raise their babies on their own, the parents are only left with a tragic, but inevitable option, abortion.

uj0320

My opponent represented "killing is not the right solution for unhappy children." First of all, "unhappy children" is not enough of a description for the situations that the babies, whom their own parents wanted to abort, will get through. They will neither experience love from their parents, nor live in an appropriate condition. It is certainly doubtful that parents who did not want their children to be born would treat their children well in the future. "Unhappy children" is an appropriate description for kids who are not allowed to play with their friends too much, or forced to study all day. The state that the children whom their parents were forced to give birth to because of their irresponsibility will be much worse than the state of unhappy. It is not a mere assumption, but it is a perceptive future for those poor unborn infants, if they were forced to live under pressure of the social environments surrounding them entire their childhood. Secondly, people should not only focus on the babies, but also focus on the woman who is on a serious perssure that cannot be compared to that of any others. She will have to devote her entire life for her child; the burden that she will have to deal with will be hard for most of us even to imagine. Therefore, it is she who has to decide to give birth to her own child, not anyone else. My opponent argued that there is another option that's called adoption. However, candidates for adoption are not always present, and the mother is in the situation where she doesn't have enough time to wait for a candidate for adoption. Furthermore, the governement's foster care system for the babies is often in a miserable situation. In the state of Texas alone it is learned that 48 foster children died in the state's care. Compared to the general population, a child is 4 times more likely to die in their foster care system than in a loving household. And the only way we got these statistics is because Texas is one of the few states who takes action and tries to help these children as much as possible. Many states are less effective, less caring, and more neglegent than Texas. Foster care is unsafe. In 2004, almost 100 children were treated for poisoning; 63 were treated for rape that happened while in state care; and 142 children gave birth. In Missouri, they found that 57% of foster children were likely to be abused and neglected. (I'm using libertarian's quotes for this citations) [ http://www.window.state.tx.us... ] [ http://en.wikipedia.org... ] Since it is certain that government doesn't have proper and appropriate system for the parents who can't raise their babies on their own, the parents are only left with a tragic, but inevitable option, abortion.

Society

Abortion-except-in-the-cases-of-rape-or-when-the-mother-s-life-is-endangered-should-be-banned./1/

My opponent failed to come up with further arguments and he also failed to represent better alternatives than abortion.

uj0320

My opponent failed to come up with further arguments and he also failed to represent better alternatives than abortion.

Society

Abortion-except-in-the-cases-of-rape-or-when-the-mother-s-life-is-endangered-should-be-banned./1/

According to your issues on your Profile page, you are In-favor for abortion but against late-term abortion. Killing a child is killing a child; whether or not its late-term or not. How can you be in-favor for one, and against the other?

audraxheartsxyou

According to your issues on your Profile page, you are In-favor for abortion but against late-term abortion. Killing a child is killing a child; whether or not its late-term or not. How can you be in-favor for one, and against the other?

Society

Abortion-in-General/1/

I am most deffinantly against any type of abortion. But I don't understand how you can be for Abortion, but against the Late-term. Yes, the baby is more developed. But either way you're killing a living human.

audraxheartsxyou

I am most deffinantly against any type of abortion. But I don't understand how you can be for Abortion, but against the Late-term. Yes, the baby is more developed. But either way you're killing a living human.

Society

Abortion-in-General/1/

Either way it's bad to get rid of a living human that is completely innocent. It's not the baby's fault that that person messed up by having sex and getting pregnant. If that person didn't want the baby, they should've been on a type of birth control or used a condom, or even better, not had sex at all. If the baby is less developed it's the same as killing it when it more developed cuz either way it still has the same smarts and doesn't know what's going on. 1 month or 8 months, the baby is still living off of its mother. Instead of abortion, the mother can easily put the baby up for adoption when it's born, or even before if she's not ready, physically able, or not willing to take care of a baby. Letting someone else take care of him/her, is a way better choice then killing it in prelife. It doesn't even get a chance to take their first breath of fresh air or anything. A baby that has been murdered in the womb could amount to anything if given the chance to live. But how can anyone know if the mother is ignorant enough to get an abortion?

audraxheartsxyou

Either way it's bad to get rid of a living human that is completely innocent. It's not the baby's fault that that person messed up by having sex and getting pregnant. If that person didn't want the baby, they should've been on a type of birth control or used a condom, or even better, not had sex at all. If the baby is less developed it's the same as killing it when it more developed cuz either way it still has the same smarts and doesn't know what's going on. 1 month or 8 months, the baby is still living off of its mother. Instead of abortion, the mother can easily put the baby up for adoption when it's born, or even before if she's not ready, physically able, or not willing to take care of a baby. Letting someone else take care of him/her, is a way better choice then killing it in prelife. It doesn't even get a chance to take their first breath of fresh air or anything. A baby that has been murdered in the womb could amount to anything if given the chance to live. But how can anyone know if the mother is ignorant enough to get an abortion?

Society

Abortion-in-General/1/

I affirm the resolution: termination of the fetus is morally justified. I will go through a few definitions and a few simple opening arguments. [Definition - Abortion] <URL>... In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. ===== Argument - Fetus is not a Person ===== By definition, murder is the intentional (first degree and second degree) killing of a human being usually with malice afterthought (meaning not an accident)[1]. I argue that a fetus is NOT a person because it is not self-aware and it's brain is not fully developed (i.e. it's personality or "personhood" has yet to form). ===== Conclusion ===== Stemming from that one argument, I argue that the right over abortions should be placed into the mother's hand. Since she is carrying the fetus, who in itself is not a person, she is allowed to choose whether or not to abort it. ---References--- 1. <URL>...

TheSkeptic

I affirm the resolution: termination of the fetus is morally justified. I will go through a few definitions and a few simple opening arguments. [Definition - Abortion] http://www.medterms.com... In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. ===== Argument - Fetus is not a Person ===== By definition, murder is the intentional (first degree and second degree) killing of a human being usually with malice afterthought (meaning not an accident)[1]. I argue that a fetus is NOT a person because it is not self-aware and it's brain is not fully developed (i.e. it's personality or "personhood" has yet to form). ===== Conclusion ===== Stemming from that one argument, I argue that the right over abortions should be placed into the mother's hand. Since she is carrying the fetus, who in itself is not a person, she is allowed to choose whether or not to abort it. ---References--- 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Society

Abortion-is-Morally-Justified/1/

I thank my opponent for his quick response, and I hope we have a good one. >>>Life Begins at conception, when the fetus is killed, its life is over.<<< Who ever said life was the category we are basing this debate on? We kill many things that are alive, like plants. Would someone who picks a flower out from the ground, sniffs it, then throws it away be charged with murder? >>>About 4,000 babies are killed everyday.<<< FETUSES. >>>How is this any different then abortion? Sure, abortion involves the killing of a fetus or an embryo, but in reality a fetus and embryo are forms of life and should be considered human beings.<<< Ridiculous statement. Not all forms of life are human beings. Is a dog a human being? Is a plant a human being? >>>Many people will argue that the fetus and embryo are not considered human beings, since they have only begun to form into a human being.<<< Perhaps, but I did not argue this. I argue that the fetus is not a person, i.e. hasn't a fully functioning brain (until it's self-aware). >>>Should I be permitted to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, just because I convince some people you are either not alive, or your 'quality of life' is not worth sustaining?<<< This can be broken down into two parts: 1. You are threatening my life by saying I'm not alive? Contradiction anyone? But also, I never used life as a criteria, so bad analogy there. 2. I never used the "quality of life" as an argument. So again, bad analogy. >>>If you believe murder (the taking of an innocent human life) is wrong, who has the authority to decide when a human life begins?<<< Personhood. I doubt you have read my argument. >>>Less than 1% of abortions are performed for reasons of rape or incest. What is the driving motivation behind promoting them? Is it profit for the providers?<<< Irrelevant since I never used this as part of my argument; I'm well aware of the statistics. ===== Conclusion ===== My opponent's primary argument relies on the premise that murder = taking life. This is simply not true. As I've stated before, killing plants is not murder and yet a plant is alive. My opponent has completely dodged my argument: abortion is morally justified because a fetus is not self-aware thus granting it personhood.

TheSkeptic

I thank my opponent for his quick response, and I hope we have a good one. >>>Life Begins at conception, when the fetus is killed, its life is over.<<< Who ever said life was the category we are basing this debate on? We kill many things that are alive, like plants. Would someone who picks a flower out from the ground, sniffs it, then throws it away be charged with murder? >>>About 4,000 babies are killed everyday.<<< FETUSES. >>>How is this any different then abortion? Sure, abortion involves the killing of a fetus or an embryo, but in reality a fetus and embryo are forms of life and should be considered human beings.<<< Ridiculous statement. Not all forms of life are human beings. Is a dog a human being? Is a plant a human being? >>>Many people will argue that the fetus and embryo are not considered human beings, since they have only begun to form into a human being.<<< Perhaps, but I did not argue this. I argue that the fetus is not a person, i.e. hasn't a fully functioning brain (until it's self-aware). >>>Should I be permitted to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, just because I convince some people you are either not alive, or your 'quality of life' is not worth sustaining?<<< This can be broken down into two parts: 1. You are threatening my life by saying I'm not alive? Contradiction anyone? But also, I never used life as a criteria, so bad analogy there. 2. I never used the "quality of life" as an argument. So again, bad analogy. >>>If you believe murder (the taking of an innocent human life) is wrong, who has the authority to decide when a human life begins?<<< Personhood. I doubt you have read my argument. >>>Less than 1% of abortions are performed for reasons of rape or incest. What is the driving motivation behind promoting them? Is it profit for the providers?<<< Irrelevant since I never used this as part of my argument; I'm well aware of the statistics. ===== Conclusion ===== My opponent's primary argument relies on the premise that murder = taking life. This is simply not true. As I've stated before, killing plants is not murder and yet a plant is alive. My opponent has completely dodged my argument: abortion is morally justified because a fetus is not self-aware thus granting it personhood.

Society

Abortion-is-Morally-Justified/1/

I thank my opponent for a speedy response, but I have to say that his argument are completely off-topic. He mixes up the words "life" and "person" so much that it seems he does not know the philosophical definition of a person. Until he can even approach cleaning up his mess (and then refuting my arguments), the vote goes to PRO. >>>life was the category of this debate round the second the fetus was destroyed in an abortion.<<< I never used life as a measurement for justification in this debate. I used PERSONHOOD. To be a person is to be self-aware, thus implying one has a fully functioning brain. This is much more distinct that simply being alive. >>>and are you going to compare human life to a plant? if you were to do that you could say it is alright to kill any man just as it is to kill a plant. plants are not human. we shall not compare them to humans.<<< EXACTLY. But that's what YOU DID. You said a fetus is life, abortion is killing life, so therefore abortion is wrong. Basically, you have stated that killing life is wrong. But life is a broad category. Life INCLUDES animals and plants. Unless you give a non-arbitrary reason for why humans, a form of life, should have "higher" or "more" rights than an animal or plant, your argument is fallacious. >>>again were talking about human embryo's. you can take it however you like, but remember this is a debate on human abortion.<<< *Sigh* you are refuting your own argument. I said "is a dog a human being" to show how fallacious it was of you to say that killing life is bad, thus abortion is bad. You're justification is too broad, and includes non-human animals and plants. Unless you justify against eating veggies, you're argument is arbitrary. >>>the point of this statement was to show that a fetus and embryo ARE alive. but thoughts don't always make somebody alive.<<< I NEVER USED LIVING AS A JUSTIFICATION. I USED PERSONHOOD. >>>should we go kill every stillborn out there because they simply have no thought reaction?<<< ...haha. A stillborn is a dead fetus via miscarriage or upon birth. You can't kill something that's dead. ===== The two part response ===== >>>1. exactly your proving my point. it is a contradiction. one that should not be made, and me putting a gun to your head would be no different from an abortion. thankyou for expanding the true intent of my words. and again, life and quality of life became the issue the second the fetuses life became endagered by an abortion.<<< If you agree that it's a contradiction, then it's YOUR statement that is contradiction. You can't threaten to kill something that is dead. Can you threaten a rock with it's life? Of course not, that's ridiculous. >>>2.you didn't use the quality of life arg. i did. good analogy.<<< No, it's a sh*tty analogy because I never used "quality of life" as an argument, and your original response was an attempted REBUTTAL of mine. Therefore, you have committed a strawman. >>>first of all you have one argument, that we have been debating this whole round. 'is the fetus a person?' second of all i have given plenty good reasons to show a fetus is living.<<< *facesmash*. Just because something is living DOES NOT MEAN it's necessarily a person. Your failure to see this difference is so naive and trivial that I can't believe it's been like this the entire the debate. >>>sorry sir but it became relevant the second you used the resolution "abortion is morally justified, meaning you must prove it is justified in all cases. me seeing that you dropped this argument tells me that you agree with it, and that should be held on note for the voters. and i used it as part of MY arguement, so there should be some kind of obligation to refute it as i have refute any point you have made. but any ways one arguments dropped for me :)<<< You say that rape and incest account for only 1% of abortions. You then go on to say what is the "driving motivation behind promoting them", or whatever. Obviously, this would be relevant IF I WAS JUSTIFYING ABORTION because of rape and incest cases. You can't construct a rebuttal of an argument I never use. ===== My opponent's conclusion ===== I will go through little snippets of my opponent's argument to demonstrate the incredible "logic" he displays: >>>we are not comparing plants to human life, because you wouldn't kill a man just because it is alright to kill a plant...plant life is not relevant to abortion. however do keep in mind that however irrelevant it seems to me, i still argued it.<<< What is it, does life matter or not? Because you seem to say both sides. >>>MY opponent has not given me any info as to when a fetus can be concieved as actually living.<<< LIVING DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN BEING A PERSON. >>>me telling you your life is not important because you are not a live would be a contradiction just as my opponent pointed so gratefully for me.<<< Yes, a contradiction on YOUR PART. Those who are sensible, just read that closely. Telling someone their life is not important because they AREN'T ALIVE? Their life wouldn't be important because THEY DON'T HAVE ONE. Similarly so, I NEVER USE the life reason. ===== Conclusion ===== I'm sorry to say, but my opponent's argument is completely illogical and filled with strawmans. He hasn't even come to the understanding that living isn't necessarily make you a person - which I have you used as a measurement of justification for abortion. My opponent seriously needs to pay attention next time. VOTE PRO.

TheSkeptic

I thank my opponent for a speedy response, but I have to say that his argument are completely off-topic. He mixes up the words "life" and "person" so much that it seems he does not know the philosophical definition of a person. Until he can even approach cleaning up his mess (and then refuting my arguments), the vote goes to PRO. >>>life was the category of this debate round the second the fetus was destroyed in an abortion.<<< I never used life as a measurement for justification in this debate. I used PERSONHOOD. To be a person is to be self-aware, thus implying one has a fully functioning brain. This is much more distinct that simply being alive. >>>and are you going to compare human life to a plant? if you were to do that you could say it is alright to kill any man just as it is to kill a plant. plants are not human. we shall not compare them to humans.<<< EXACTLY. But that's what YOU DID. You said a fetus is life, abortion is killing life, so therefore abortion is wrong. Basically, you have stated that killing life is wrong. But life is a broad category. Life INCLUDES animals and plants. Unless you give a non-arbitrary reason for why humans, a form of life, should have "higher" or "more" rights than an animal or plant, your argument is fallacious. >>>again were talking about human embryo's. you can take it however you like, but remember this is a debate on human abortion.<<< *Sigh* you are refuting your own argument. I said "is a dog a human being" to show how fallacious it was of you to say that killing life is bad, thus abortion is bad. You're justification is too broad, and includes non-human animals and plants. Unless you justify against eating veggies, you're argument is arbitrary. >>>the point of this statement was to show that a fetus and embryo ARE alive. but thoughts don't always make somebody alive.<<< I NEVER USED LIVING AS A JUSTIFICATION. I USED PERSONHOOD. >>>should we go kill every stillborn out there because they simply have no thought reaction?<<< ...haha. A stillborn is a dead fetus via miscarriage or upon birth. You can't kill something that's dead. ===== The two part response ===== >>>1. exactly your proving my point. it is a contradiction. one that should not be made, and me putting a gun to your head would be no different from an abortion. thankyou for expanding the true intent of my words. and again, life and quality of life became the issue the second the fetuses life became endagered by an abortion.<<< If you agree that it's a contradiction, then it's YOUR statement that is contradiction. You can't threaten to kill something that is dead. Can you threaten a rock with it's life? Of course not, that's ridiculous. >>>2.you didn't use the quality of life arg. i did. good analogy.<<< No, it's a sh*tty analogy because I never used "quality of life" as an argument, and your original response was an attempted REBUTTAL of mine. Therefore, you have committed a strawman. >>>first of all you have one argument, that we have been debating this whole round. 'is the fetus a person?' second of all i have given plenty good reasons to show a fetus is living.<<< *facesmash*. Just because something is living DOES NOT MEAN it's necessarily a person. Your failure to see this difference is so naive and trivial that I can't believe it's been like this the entire the debate. >>>sorry sir but it became relevant the second you used the resolution "abortion is morally justified, meaning you must prove it is justified in all cases. me seeing that you dropped this argument tells me that you agree with it, and that should be held on note for the voters. and i used it as part of MY arguement, so there should be some kind of obligation to refute it as i have refute any point you have made. but any ways one arguments dropped for me :)<<< You say that rape and incest account for only 1% of abortions. You then go on to say what is the "driving motivation behind promoting them", or whatever. Obviously, this would be relevant IF I WAS JUSTIFYING ABORTION because of rape and incest cases. You can't construct a rebuttal of an argument I never use. ===== My opponent's conclusion ===== I will go through little snippets of my opponent's argument to demonstrate the incredible "logic" he displays: >>>we are not comparing plants to human life, because you wouldn't kill a man just because it is alright to kill a plant...plant life is not relevant to abortion. however do keep in mind that however irrelevant it seems to me, i still argued it.<<< What is it, does life matter or not? Because you seem to say both sides. >>>MY opponent has not given me any info as to when a fetus can be concieved as actually living.<<< LIVING DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN BEING A PERSON. >>>me telling you your life is not important because you are not a live would be a contradiction just as my opponent pointed so gratefully for me.<<< Yes, a contradiction on YOUR PART. Those who are sensible, just read that closely. Telling someone their life is not important because they AREN'T ALIVE? Their life wouldn't be important because THEY DON'T HAVE ONE. Similarly so, I NEVER USE the life reason. ===== Conclusion ===== I'm sorry to say, but my opponent's argument is completely illogical and filled with strawmans. He hasn't even come to the understanding that living isn't necessarily make you a person - which I have you used as a measurement of justification for abortion. My opponent seriously needs to pay attention next time. VOTE PRO.

Society

Abortion-is-Morally-Justified/1/

Life Begins at conception, when the fetus is killed, its life is over. About 4,000 babies are killed everyday. No, this is not due to disease, SIDS, or even mal-nutrition. 4,000 living beings are killed everyday due to abortion. This is one of the most controversial topics in America. Many people even chose their president based on their view. But what I wonder is, how can the murder of a living being possibly be so controversial? Abortion should be considered murder, immoral, and illegal. Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus. Abortions are most commonly performed between the sixth and twelfth week of pregnancy, where conception occurs at week two and birth occurs at week forty. Abortions are also performed routinely up to sixteen weeks and then less often into the later months of pregnancy. And what is the definition of murder? Murder is the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. How is this any different then abortion? Sure, abortion involves the killing of a fetus or an embryo, but in reality a fetus and embryo are forms of life and should be considered human beings. Many people will argue that the fetus and embryo are not considered human beings, since they have only begun to form into a human being. Should I be permitted to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, just because I convince some people you are either not alive, or your 'quality of life' is not worth sustaining? Is a doctor who performs a Caesarean Section delivery creating a life where there was none before? If you believe murder (the taking of an innocent human life) is wrong, who has the authority to decide when a human life begins? If there is any uncertainty, would you rather murder than not murder? Less than 1% of abortions are performed for reasons of rape or incest. What is the driving motivation behind promoting them? Is it profit for the providers? An egg and sperm are each alive even before they've joined in fertilization. Each of your body's cells are alive, but they don't have independent legal protection.

philosphical

Life Begins at conception, when the fetus is killed, its life is over. About 4,000 babies are killed everyday. No, this is not due to disease, SIDS, or even mal-nutrition. 4,000 living beings are killed everyday due to abortion. This is one of the most controversial topics in America. Many people even chose their president based on their view. But what I wonder is, how can the murder of a living being possibly be so controversial? Abortion should be considered murder, immoral, and illegal. Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus. Abortions are most commonly performed between the sixth and twelfth week of pregnancy, where conception occurs at week two and birth occurs at week forty. Abortions are also performed routinely up to sixteen weeks and then less often into the later months of pregnancy. And what is the definition of murder? Murder is the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. How is this any different then abortion? Sure, abortion involves the killing of a fetus or an embryo, but in reality a fetus and embryo are forms of life and should be considered human beings. Many people will argue that the fetus and embryo are not considered human beings, since they have only begun to form into a human being. Should I be permitted to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, just because I convince some people you are either not alive, or your 'quality of life' is not worth sustaining? Is a doctor who performs a Caesarean Section delivery creating a life where there was none before? If you believe murder (the taking of an innocent human life) is wrong, who has the authority to decide when a human life begins? If there is any uncertainty, would you rather murder than not murder? Less than 1% of abortions are performed for reasons of rape or incest. What is the driving motivation behind promoting them? Is it profit for the providers? An egg and sperm are each alive even before they've joined in fertilization. Each of your body's cells are alive, but they don't have independent legal protection.

Society

Abortion-is-Morally-Justified/1/

thankyou mr skeptic for this interesting debate round. first you say "Who ever said life was the category we are basing this debate on? We kill many things that are alive, like plants. Would someone who picks a flower out from the ground, sniffs it, then throws it away be charged with murder?" life was the category of this debate round the second the fetus was destroyed in an abortion. and are you going to compare human life to a plant? if you were to do that you could say it is alright to kill any man just as it is to kill a plant. plants are not human. we shall not compare them to humans. next you say "Ridiculous statement. Not all forms of life are human beings. Is a dog a human being? Is a plant a human being?" again were talking about human embryo's. you can take it however you like, but remember this is a debate on human abortion. next you say "Perhaps, but I did not argue this. I argue that the fetus is not a person, i.e. hasn't a fully functioning brain (until it's self-aware)." yes i understand what you ere saying. the point of this statement was to show that a fetus and embryo ARE alive. but thoughts don't always make somebody alive. if they have the intent to grow and live, just like anyone else, it should be considered murder to end their life. should we go kill every stillborn out there because they simply have no thought reaction? Next you say "This can be broken down into two parts: 1. You are threatening my life by saying I'm not alive? Contradiction anyone? But also, I never used life as a criteria, so bad analogy there. 2. I never used the "quality of life" as an argument. So again, bad analogy." 1. exactly your proving my point. it is a contradiction. one that should not be made, and me putting a gun to your head would be no different from an abortion. thankyou for expanding the true intent of my words. and again, life and quality of life became the issue the second the fetuses life became endagered by an abortion. 2.you didn't use the quality of life arg. i did. good analogy. next you say "Personhood. I doubt you have read my argument." first of all you have one argument, that we have been debating this whole round. 'is the fetus a person?' second of all i have given plenty good reasons to show a fetus is living. so all in all who is it really who has refused to read the others case? no offence mr.skeptic, but i don't think accusations like that are justified with out any evidence. so again i will say "who has the authority to decide when a human life begins?" Next you say "Irrelevant since I never used this as part of my argument; I'm well aware of the statistics." sorry sir but it became relevant the second you used the resolution "abortion is morally justified, meaning you must prove it is justified in all cases. me seeing that you dropped this argument tells me that you agree with it, and that should be held on note for the voters. and i used it as part of MY arguement, so there should be some kind of obligation to refute it as i have refute any point you have made. but any ways one arguments dropped for me :) Conclusion: seeing as my opponent dropped two of my arguments, it must mean he agrees with both. (silence is compliance) and i would like the voters to remember that. also remember that i have argued EVERY point of his. again i would like to remind you that we are not comparing plants to human life, because you wouldn't kill a man just because it is alright to kill a plant. plant life is not relevant to abortion. however do keep in mind that however irrelevant it seems to me, i still argued it. MY opponent has not given me any info as to when a fetus can be concieved as actually living. so again the fetus is alive when it is concieved. me telling you your life is not important because you are not a live would be a contradiction just as my opponent pointed so gratefully for me. thankyou and i look forwar for the next round

philosphical

thankyou mr skeptic for this interesting debate round. first you say "Who ever said life was the category we are basing this debate on? We kill many things that are alive, like plants. Would someone who picks a flower out from the ground, sniffs it, then throws it away be charged with murder?" life was the category of this debate round the second the fetus was destroyed in an abortion. and are you going to compare human life to a plant? if you were to do that you could say it is alright to kill any man just as it is to kill a plant. plants are not human. we shall not compare them to humans. next you say "Ridiculous statement. Not all forms of life are human beings. Is a dog a human being? Is a plant a human being?" again were talking about human embryo's. you can take it however you like, but remember this is a debate on human abortion. next you say "Perhaps, but I did not argue this. I argue that the fetus is not a person, i.e. hasn't a fully functioning brain (until it's self-aware)." yes i understand what you ere saying. the point of this statement was to show that a fetus and embryo ARE alive. but thoughts don't always make somebody alive. if they have the intent to grow and live, just like anyone else, it should be considered murder to end their life. should we go kill every stillborn out there because they simply have no thought reaction? Next you say "This can be broken down into two parts: 1. You are threatening my life by saying I'm not alive? Contradiction anyone? But also, I never used life as a criteria, so bad analogy there. 2. I never used the "quality of life" as an argument. So again, bad analogy." 1. exactly your proving my point. it is a contradiction. one that should not be made, and me putting a gun to your head would be no different from an abortion. thankyou for expanding the true intent of my words. and again, life and quality of life became the issue the second the fetuses life became endagered by an abortion. 2.you didn't use the quality of life arg. i did. good analogy. next you say "Personhood. I doubt you have read my argument." first of all you have one argument, that we have been debating this whole round. 'is the fetus a person?' second of all i have given plenty good reasons to show a fetus is living. so all in all who is it really who has refused to read the others case? no offence mr.skeptic, but i don't think accusations like that are justified with out any evidence. so again i will say "who has the authority to decide when a human life begins?" Next you say "Irrelevant since I never used this as part of my argument; I'm well aware of the statistics." sorry sir but it became relevant the second you used the resolution "abortion is morally justified, meaning you must prove it is justified in all cases. me seeing that you dropped this argument tells me that you agree with it, and that should be held on note for the voters. and i used it as part of MY arguement, so there should be some kind of obligation to refute it as i have refute any point you have made. but any ways one arguments dropped for me :) Conclusion: seeing as my opponent dropped two of my arguments, it must mean he agrees with both. (silence is compliance) and i would like the voters to remember that. also remember that i have argued EVERY point of his. again i would like to remind you that we are not comparing plants to human life, because you wouldn't kill a man just because it is alright to kill a plant. plant life is not relevant to abortion. however do keep in mind that however irrelevant it seems to me, i still argued it. MY opponent has not given me any info as to when a fetus can be concieved as actually living. so again the fetus is alive when it is concieved. me telling you your life is not important because you are not a live would be a contradiction just as my opponent pointed so gratefully for me. thankyou and i look forwar for the next round

Society

Abortion-is-Morally-Justified/1/

mr skeptic i am sorry you are unsatisfied with this debate. i think you are a very good opponent despite the disagreement we have in this debate. with that said i will jump into then. first you say "I never used life as a measurement for justification in this debate. I used PERSONHOOD. To be a person is to be self-aware, thus implying one has a fully functioning brain. This is much more distinct that simply being alive." i understood that you used personhood as a topic in your argument. and i refuted it wholeheartedly. but just beacuse i am neg i cant bring up a couple points of my own? (ones that got left untouched btw) next -""EXACTLY. But that's what YOU DID. You said a fetus is life, abortion is killing life, so therefore abortion is wrong. Basically, you have stated that killing life is wrong. But life is a broad category. Life INCLUDES animals and plants. Unless you give a non-arbitrary reason for why humans, a form of life, should have "higher" or "more" rights than an animal or plant, your argument is fallacious."" Humans have more rights than plants do because we are the dominant species and we ar generally more important. to us humanity is more important because we strive to live here and surivive among our fellow man daily. just like a plant does to survive everyday. to us our lives hold more value than the plants. to the plant, their lives mean more to them. I am not saying that their lifes aren't essential, but are theirs more important than ours? you could risk your life saving a human being because to you their life is important. but would you risk your life saving a plant? and the samee would go for a plant too. so again the plants life is essential, but its not of our species and less important to US than a human is. next you say- "*Sigh* you are refuting your own argument. I said "is a dog a human being" to show how fallacious it was of you to say that killing life is bad, thus abortion is bad. You're justification is too broad, and includes non-human animals and plants. Unless you justify against eating veggies, you're argument is arbitrary." again as i am sure you didn't understand but i will say it again. OUR life human life, is more important than a dogs is. to us. If you wanted to argue from the other angle you could say that eating anythig lving is bad, which is just ridiculous. HUMANS life is more important to us as human beings. not to the plants or the dogs. but to US. next you say-"I NEVER USED LIVING AS A JUSTIFICATION. I USED PERSONHOOD" I KNOW THAT!! TRUST ME YOUR FIRST ARGUMENT IS NOT THAT HARD TO READ BUDDY. considering the fact that it is your only argument. funny how i am the neg and you are putting down all my points instead of me putting yours down. (oh yeah because there was only one) again I used living as a justification so its your job as pro to show how the con is wrong and you are right. and the con job is to prove the con is right and you are wrong. but everytime you hear the word 'life' in my arguments you turn tail and run from it.. so i was hoping that maybe in this round you would finally get up and argue it. but apparently not... oh well, another argument dropped. or the same one dropped again. Next -"...haha. A stillborn is a dead fetus via miscarriage or upon birth. You can't kill something that's dead." no buddy a still born is not dead. a stillborn is a baby who is born without thought process. slightly lower than retardation, and a step higher than dead. nice try though. Next-"If you agree that it's a contradiction, then it's YOUR statement that is contradiction. You can't threaten to kill something that is dead. Can you threaten a rock with it's life? Of course not, that's ridiculous." i am a bit confused about this part. here i was arguing about life being concieved as life. I dont know where you are coming at with the whole rock issue. Again if you believe the rock is alive, it is alive. not in reality but in peoples perspectives, and this is why they kill abortion. because in their minds they want to think it is okay to have one, so they tell themselves and every one else that it is dead so they have an excuse to kill it. Next-"No, it's a sh*tty analogy because I never used "quality of life" as an argument, and your original response was an attempted REBUTTAL of mine. Therefore, you have committed a strawman." nice vocabulary. i am sure that will hold for voters ha ha. and although it its the cons job to refute your case, the con is still allowed to bring up points of their own. if you think its is not a good argument tell me why. argue against it.dont just blow it off like you have been doing. Next-"*facesmash*. Just because something is living DOES NOT MEAN it's necessarily a person. Your failure to see this difference is so naive and trivial that I can't believe it's been like this the entire the debate." ha ha i find it funny how you can get so mad over a debate. again like i said "who's life is more important, the humans or the plants?" next you say-"You say that rape and incest account for only 1% of abortions. You then go on to say what is the "driving motivation behind promoting them", or whatever. Obviously, this would be relevant IF I WAS JUSTIFYING ABORTION because of rape and incest cases. You can't construct a rebuttal of an argument I never use." i know you never used it kid. i did. i am supposed to prove that abortion is wrong in at least one case. which is here. and you dropped it. thanks. My first conclusion: you said "What is it, does life matter or not? Because you seem to say both sides." no i have not said both sides. i have said human life is more important. for the third of fourth time now You say "LIVING DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN BEING A PERSON" because like i said you concieve whether you want it to be a person or not. its still a potential life, therefore a human being. and living. make any excuse you want to kill it, its still a living human being. you say "Yes, a contradiction on YOUR PART. Those who are sensible, just read that closely. Telling someone their life is not important because they AREN'T ALIVE? Their life wouldn't be important because THEY DON'T HAVE ONE. Similarly so, I NEVER USE the life reason." aren't alive in your eyes. thats what the whole argument was about. percievement. you can sit there and find every excuse to say that it is not alive where i can say it is. it wont matter. but either it had the potential to be. it had every same course of life to take as you would have as a fetus. to take that away from the world would be just as murder. My opponents conclusion: "I'm sorry to say, but my opponent's argument is completely illogical and filled with strawmans. He hasn't even come to the understanding that living isn't necessarily make you a person - which I have you used as a measurement of justification for abortion. My opponent seriously needs to pay attention next time." ilogical? how? because you didnt want to argue half the points i made, and the one argument you did have you keep attacking from the same side and same angle? whose case is really filled with holes? and yes for the fifth time now i have come to the understanding that living does not mean human. human fetus = living. and if you read any of my arguments which i doubt you understood, you would realize that. And I need to pay better attention next time? lets see here (re-reads case) hmm..... (reads again) hmmmmmmm................. (asks strangers opinion) yeah i dont think so pal... contradiction big time. ok now that this debate is over, i would like him to know that i am thankful to him for taking up this debate and giving me wholehearted responses. I have no vendetta towards him because i know this is just a debate. From what i have heard from his case i am not so sure he feels the same about me though unfortunately. but oh well. THANKS BYE

philosphical

mr skeptic i am sorry you are unsatisfied with this debate. i think you are a very good opponent despite the disagreement we have in this debate. with that said i will jump into then. first you say "I never used life as a measurement for justification in this debate. I used PERSONHOOD. To be a person is to be self-aware, thus implying one has a fully functioning brain. This is much more distinct that simply being alive." i understood that you used personhood as a topic in your argument. and i refuted it wholeheartedly. but just beacuse i am neg i cant bring up a couple points of my own? (ones that got left untouched btw) next -""EXACTLY. But that's what YOU DID. You said a fetus is life, abortion is killing life, so therefore abortion is wrong. Basically, you have stated that killing life is wrong. But life is a broad category. Life INCLUDES animals and plants. Unless you give a non-arbitrary reason for why humans, a form of life, should have "higher" or "more" rights than an animal or plant, your argument is fallacious."" Humans have more rights than plants do because we are the dominant species and we ar generally more important. to us humanity is more important because we strive to live here and surivive among our fellow man daily. just like a plant does to survive everyday. to us our lives hold more value than the plants. to the plant, their lives mean more to them. I am not saying that their lifes aren't essential, but are theirs more important than ours? you could risk your life saving a human being because to you their life is important. but would you risk your life saving a plant? and the samee would go for a plant too. so again the plants life is essential, but its not of our species and less important to US than a human is. next you say- "*Sigh* you are refuting your own argument. I said "is a dog a human being" to show how fallacious it was of you to say that killing life is bad, thus abortion is bad. You're justification is too broad, and includes non-human animals and plants. Unless you justify against eating veggies, you're argument is arbitrary." again as i am sure you didn't understand but i will say it again. OUR life human life, is more important than a dogs is. to us. If you wanted to argue from the other angle you could say that eating anythig lving is bad, which is just ridiculous. HUMANS life is more important to us as human beings. not to the plants or the dogs. but to US. next you say-"I NEVER USED LIVING AS A JUSTIFICATION. I USED PERSONHOOD" I KNOW THAT!! TRUST ME YOUR FIRST ARGUMENT IS NOT THAT HARD TO READ BUDDY. considering the fact that it is your only argument. funny how i am the neg and you are putting down all my points instead of me putting yours down. (oh yeah because there was only one) again I used living as a justification so its your job as pro to show how the con is wrong and you are right. and the con job is to prove the con is right and you are wrong. but everytime you hear the word 'life' in my arguments you turn tail and run from it.. so i was hoping that maybe in this round you would finally get up and argue it. but apparently not... oh well, another argument dropped. or the same one dropped again. Next -"...haha. A stillborn is a dead fetus via miscarriage or upon birth. You can't kill something that's dead." no buddy a still born is not dead. a stillborn is a baby who is born without thought process. slightly lower than retardation, and a step higher than dead. nice try though. Next-"If you agree that it's a contradiction, then it's YOUR statement that is contradiction. You can't threaten to kill something that is dead. Can you threaten a rock with it's life? Of course not, that's ridiculous." i am a bit confused about this part. here i was arguing about life being concieved as life. I dont know where you are coming at with the whole rock issue. Again if you believe the rock is alive, it is alive. not in reality but in peoples perspectives, and this is why they kill abortion. because in their minds they want to think it is okay to have one, so they tell themselves and every one else that it is dead so they have an excuse to kill it. Next-"No, it's a sh*tty analogy because I never used "quality of life" as an argument, and your original response was an attempted REBUTTAL of mine. Therefore, you have committed a strawman." nice vocabulary. i am sure that will hold for voters ha ha. and although it its the cons job to refute your case, the con is still allowed to bring up points of their own. if you think its is not a good argument tell me why. argue against it.dont just blow it off like you have been doing. Next-"*facesmash*. Just because something is living DOES NOT MEAN it's necessarily a person. Your failure to see this difference is so naive and trivial that I can't believe it's been like this the entire the debate." ha ha i find it funny how you can get so mad over a debate. again like i said "who's life is more important, the humans or the plants?" next you say-"You say that rape and incest account for only 1% of abortions. You then go on to say what is the "driving motivation behind promoting them", or whatever. Obviously, this would be relevant IF I WAS JUSTIFYING ABORTION because of rape and incest cases. You can't construct a rebuttal of an argument I never use." i know you never used it kid. i did. i am supposed to prove that abortion is wrong in at least one case. which is here. and you dropped it. thanks. My first conclusion: you said "What is it, does life matter or not? Because you seem to say both sides." no i have not said both sides. i have said human life is more important. for the third of fourth time now You say "LIVING DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN BEING A PERSON" because like i said you concieve whether you want it to be a person or not. its still a potential life, therefore a human being. and living. make any excuse you want to kill it, its still a living human being. you say "Yes, a contradiction on YOUR PART. Those who are sensible, just read that closely. Telling someone their life is not important because they AREN'T ALIVE? Their life wouldn't be important because THEY DON'T HAVE ONE. Similarly so, I NEVER USE the life reason." aren't alive in your eyes. thats what the whole argument was about. percievement. you can sit there and find every excuse to say that it is not alive where i can say it is. it wont matter. but either it had the potential to be. it had every same course of life to take as you would have as a fetus. to take that away from the world would be just as murder. My opponents conclusion: "I'm sorry to say, but my opponent's argument is completely illogical and filled with strawmans. He hasn't even come to the understanding that living isn't necessarily make you a person - which I have you used as a measurement of justification for abortion. My opponent seriously needs to pay attention next time." ilogical? how? because you didnt want to argue half the points i made, and the one argument you did have you keep attacking from the same side and same angle? whose case is really filled with holes? and yes for the fifth time now i have come to the understanding that living does not mean human. human fetus = living. and if you read any of my arguments which i doubt you understood, you would realize that. And I need to pay better attention next time? lets see here (re-reads case) hmm..... (reads again) hmmmmmmm................. (asks strangers opinion) yeah i dont think so pal... contradiction big time. ok now that this debate is over, i would like him to know that i am thankful to him for taking up this debate and giving me wholehearted responses. I have no vendetta towards him because i know this is just a debate. From what i have heard from his case i am not so sure he feels the same about me though unfortunately. but oh well. THANKS BYE

Society

Abortion-is-Morally-Justified/1/

Round 1 is ACCEPTANCE ONLY! All arguments come afterward Here is my complete position: Abortion should only be allowed if there is a serious health hazard to the parent or child, if it can be proven that the baby will be stillborn(is dead while still inside mother), or if the mother was raped. I look forward to the debate!

JMSJMS

Round 1 is ACCEPTANCE ONLY! All arguments come afterward Here is my complete position: Abortion should only be allowed if there is a serious health hazard to the parent or child, if it can be proven that the baby will be stillborn(is dead while still inside mother), or if the mother was raped. I look forward to the debate!

Philosophy

Abortion-is-both-inherrently-unethical-and-should-be-illegal/1/

I will re-affirm my stance so that we can actually have a debate on ethics rather than a mistake I made in typing. STATEMENT: Abortion(except in the cases mentioned above) is inherently unethical and should be illegal. Debate: Murder is inherently unethical. Even unborn children are alive. If you kill a pregnant mother, it is a double homicide. Therefore, abortion is unethical because it is murder and should be illegal because there is a discrepancy in the law that needs to be fixed(Abortion of unborn children should be illegal because in other situations murdering an unborn child is illegal.)

JMSJMS

I will re-affirm my stance so that we can actually have a debate on ethics rather than a mistake I made in typing. STATEMENT: Abortion(except in the cases mentioned above) is inherently unethical and should be illegal. Debate: Murder is inherently unethical. Even unborn children are alive. If you kill a pregnant mother, it is a double homicide. Therefore, abortion is unethical because it is murder and should be illegal because there is a discrepancy in the law that needs to be fixed(Abortion of unborn children should be illegal because in other situations murdering an unborn child is illegal.)

Philosophy

Abortion-is-both-inherrently-unethical-and-should-be-illegal/1/

I apologize, I was absent from round 3 due to family matters. Abortion is murder because it is the killing of a human. A human fetus is also a living human being, not yet fully developed. If You argue that it is not fully a human being, I argue that that makes it legal to murder those with deformities because they are also not fully developed. Hair follicles are a collection of cells but not a organism.

JMSJMS

I apologize, I was absent from round 3 due to family matters. Abortion is murder because it is the killing of a human. A human fetus is also a living human being, not yet fully developed. If You argue that it is not fully a human being, I argue that that makes it legal to murder those with deformities because they are also not fully developed. Hair follicles are a collection of cells but not a organism.

Philosophy

Abortion-is-both-inherrently-unethical-and-should-be-illegal/1/

Patience, Patience. There are a great many things in life that are more important than typing. The only "Problem" with my response was that I managed to defeat most of your points with 4 sentences. Morality is based on what is fair. That is to say, morality defines what is the right thing to do in a given situation and is not based upon an individual perspective. Morality is not what is judged to be correct by any group or amount of people, but what is actually correct. Looking at morality seriously requires abstract thinking, the likes of which you are obviously not using. It is not something that can be studied using most thought processes, and has to be studied "Outside the Box", that is to say, with creative thought, rather than conventional reasoning. Murder is the unjust killing of another human. There is my warrant. A human being is a collection of varied cells assembled into an organism that has human DNA and follows the structure of a human body to a fair degree, imitating basic bodily systems. A fetus contains all of the above and therefore is a human being. My hair does not have all of these features and is therefore not human. You cannot argue that a fetus is not alive, because even the paramecium in my backyard pond is alive. Once again, you need to use a slightly different thought process to arrive at a working conclusion in these matters. Ignorance is independent of being. Until 2 months ago, I did not know that the capital of Lichtenstein was Vaduz. I was ignorant of my outside surroundings, but I was still a human being. Until a few days ago, you were unaware that I existed, yet you were still a human being. Humans are ALWAYS ignorant of their surroundings to some degree. Do you remember Plato's story of the men in a cave? They were there their whole lives, as ignorant as babies, and yet they were also human. Why do you continue to bring up ovulation and masturbation when I have never even mentioned them? You try to defeat a point I have never made to try to gain support. It is not unfair to you if I bring up new points, as you will be able to fight against them.

JMSJMS

Patience, Patience. There are a great many things in life that are more important than typing. The only “Problem” with my response was that I managed to defeat most of your points with 4 sentences. Morality is based on what is fair. That is to say, morality defines what is the right thing to do in a given situation and is not based upon an individual perspective. Morality is not what is judged to be correct by any group or amount of people, but what is actually correct. Looking at morality seriously requires abstract thinking, the likes of which you are obviously not using. It is not something that can be studied using most thought processes, and has to be studied “Outside the Box”, that is to say, with creative thought, rather than conventional reasoning. Murder is the unjust killing of another human. There is my warrant. A human being is a collection of varied cells assembled into an organism that has human DNA and follows the structure of a human body to a fair degree, imitating basic bodily systems. A fetus contains all of the above and therefore is a human being. My hair does not have all of these features and is therefore not human. You cannot argue that a fetus is not alive, because even the paramecium in my backyard pond is alive. Once again, you need to use a slightly different thought process to arrive at a working conclusion in these matters. Ignorance is independent of being. Until 2 months ago, I did not know that the capital of Lichtenstein was Vaduz. I was ignorant of my outside surroundings, but I was still a human being. Until a few days ago, you were unaware that I existed, yet you were still a human being. Humans are ALWAYS ignorant of their surroundings to some degree. Do you remember Plato’s story of the men in a cave? They were there their whole lives, as ignorant as babies, and yet they were also human. Why do you continue to bring up ovulation and masturbation when I have never even mentioned them? You try to defeat a point I have never made to try to gain support. It is not unfair to you if I bring up new points, as you will be able to fight against them.

Philosophy

Abortion-is-both-inherrently-unethical-and-should-be-illegal/1/

I believe that abortion is wrong. The first round is for acceptance, and the second round is where I will begin my case. I wish luck to whoever accepts this debate.

lnhsjayhawk

I believe that abortion is wrong. The first round is for acceptance, and the second round is where I will begin my case. I wish luck to whoever accepts this debate.

Society

Abortion-is-wrong/33/

Abortion is wrong: To begin my case I will clarify the following definitions, which are all from the Merriam Webster Dictionary - Abortion: A medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of a fetus Fetus: A human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born Death: The time when someone or something dies Murder: The crime of deliberately killing a person I will now begin my case. I will be exploring abortion in three main areas today. In my first area, I will give you reasons as to why abortion is wrong in that it is murder. In my second area, I will give why it is more important to give Fetus"s the choice to live rather than giving woman the choice to have an abortion. Finally, in my third area, I will give you statistics that support my case. Now let"s go to my first contention, where I will give you reasons why abortion is wrong in that it is murder. As my definitions from the Merriam Webster Dictionary can prove, abortion actually is murder. The definition of abortion is a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of a fetus, obviously implying that it is a deliberate choice by the pregnant human. A fetus in a human form is something in the later stages of being born. The heart of a baby starts beating a mere 18 days after conception [1], and as a human gestation period is more than double that time, you are killing something by the time the fetus is formed. The definition of murder states that it is the crime of killing a person, which an abortion does, as I have already proved with little evidence, only definitions. Because we as an American population do not endorse murdering, and believe it is morally wrong, abortion is therefore morally wrong and should not be done. This is where I will give you why it should be important that babies are given a chance to live, instead of woman being given the chance to choose. Let"s start off with the women. When women want to get an abortion, it is obviously because they are pregnant but do not want to have the baby, for various reasons. However, if a women didn"t want to have a baby, they should"ve simply not had sex in the first place. My opponent may argue that many women are raped, and have a right to abort because of this. However, only 1% of abortions are caused by rape [1]. Also, the women who have been raped could simply go through pregnancy and give their child up for adoption, among many other options. Now, let"s go to the children. My opponent may argue that this is a women"s rights issue we are talking about here, and that the whether the child wants to live or no doesn"t matter. However, this is something much bigger, as this is a human rights issue we are talking about here. Here"s a scary fact: Abortion is America"s LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH with more than double the deaths of Heart Disease. Clearly, this is a problem, as we are killing off a whole generation of innocent citizens who could"ve achieved so much more in life. Just imagine if MLK Jr. had been aborted, or any of our presidents, our other historical figures. Our world would be much different today without them. In my third area, I will list some sources that will support my case. [1]: <URL>... (I urge you to go to this site, as it give you clock at the beginning that will shock you, and some of the stats may make you change your opinion on abortion) [2]: <URL>... [3]: <URL>... [4]: <URL>... "I"ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" - Ronald Reagan

lnhsjayhawk

Abortion is wrong: To begin my case I will clarify the following definitions, which are all from the Merriam Webster Dictionary - Abortion: A medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of a fetus Fetus: A human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born Death: The time when someone or something dies Murder: The crime of deliberately killing a person I will now begin my case. I will be exploring abortion in three main areas today. In my first area, I will give you reasons as to why abortion is wrong in that it is murder. In my second area, I will give why it is more important to give Fetus"s the choice to live rather than giving woman the choice to have an abortion. Finally, in my third area, I will give you statistics that support my case. Now let"s go to my first contention, where I will give you reasons why abortion is wrong in that it is murder. As my definitions from the Merriam Webster Dictionary can prove, abortion actually is murder. The definition of abortion is a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of a fetus, obviously implying that it is a deliberate choice by the pregnant human. A fetus in a human form is something in the later stages of being born. The heart of a baby starts beating a mere 18 days after conception [1], and as a human gestation period is more than double that time, you are killing something by the time the fetus is formed. The definition of murder states that it is the crime of killing a person, which an abortion does, as I have already proved with little evidence, only definitions. Because we as an American population do not endorse murdering, and believe it is morally wrong, abortion is therefore morally wrong and should not be done. This is where I will give you why it should be important that babies are given a chance to live, instead of woman being given the chance to choose. Let"s start off with the women. When women want to get an abortion, it is obviously because they are pregnant but do not want to have the baby, for various reasons. However, if a women didn"t want to have a baby, they should"ve simply not had sex in the first place. My opponent may argue that many women are raped, and have a right to abort because of this. However, only 1% of abortions are caused by rape [1]. Also, the women who have been raped could simply go through pregnancy and give their child up for adoption, among many other options. Now, let"s go to the children. My opponent may argue that this is a women"s rights issue we are talking about here, and that the whether the child wants to live or no doesn"t matter. However, this is something much bigger, as this is a human rights issue we are talking about here. Here"s a scary fact: Abortion is America"s LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH with more than double the deaths of Heart Disease. Clearly, this is a problem, as we are killing off a whole generation of innocent citizens who could"ve achieved so much more in life. Just imagine if MLK Jr. had been aborted, or any of our presidents, our other historical figures. Our world would be much different today without them. In my third area, I will list some sources that will support my case. [1]: http://www.wickedshepherds.com... (I urge you to go to this site, as it give you clock at the beginning that will shock you, and some of the stats may make you change your opinion on abortion) [2]: http://www.lifesitenews.com... [3]: https://eslbee.com... [4]: http://www.jstor.org... "I"ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" - Ronald Reagan

Society

Abortion-is-wrong/33/

First I will begin by asking my opponent to not bring up any new arguments in the final round, as this would be unfair to today's debate round, and only build up theirs and counter mine. My opponent begins with giving some dictionaries that attempt to disprove my first contention. However, when we look at these dictionaries, we can see that one says it is the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy [1], while the other states that it is an operation or other procedure to terminate pregnancy before the fetus is viable[2]. Now unless my opponent can prove that terminating pregnancy doesn't kill the fetus, these definitions are saying the same thing as Merriam Webster's, which states that it is a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of a fetus [3]. My opponent attempted to say that these definitions prove that abortion is not murder, however they actually mean the same thing, as terminating pregnancy causes the death of a fetus. While the definitions in my opponent's dictionaries may state that abortion isn't murder, abortion is still killing, even if it is legal. Basically my opponent is attempting to state that killing is justified if it is not murder, because murder is illegal, as stated in both of the dictionaries they provided, while abortion is legal in some states. Of course, this does not include abortions that happen where it is illegal, where it would be murder. I will briefly go over where my opponent stated that one of my sources was unreliable, which may be true, as people indeed can make up statistics. However, I will now provide sources that further back up the point of my case where Iv state abortion is the leading cause of death in the U.S. Please note that one of my sources is from 2005, however it is from the CDC, the Center for Disease control and Prevention. meaning it is reliable. To be honest, I am giving my opponent grace here as abortion numbers, while they were bad in 2005, were not as worse as now. It also only refers to black abortions, further lowering the numbers. To be clear the sources I will use to back up the fore mentioned part of my case are sources [4], [5], and [6]. I will admit it was a fault of mine to bring up the hypothetical question regarding historical figures, as it would only bring up arguments involving tons of good and bad historical figures. I think me and my opponent can agree that it would be best for the debate to just throw out that argument, as it would cause unnecessary debating. My opponent also brings up the argument that I have disregarded the emotions and feelings of a woman who has been raped in my first case. However, the only reason I brought up the 1% statistic is because I was arguing that it should not be a major part in today's debate. Of course I regard all peoples feelings, including those women who have been raped. I also believe that my opponent is being very contradictory here, as my opponent is completely disregarding the fetus, who hasn't really been given a chance at life. Finally, my opponent states that the fetus actually has been given a chance to live, which is technically true. However, unless my opponent can show me someone who would like to live in a womb for less than one year and then die, that point is invalid. For these reasons and many more I respectfully ask for a pro ballot in today's debate. Sources: [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>... [6] <URL>...

lnhsjayhawk

First I will begin by asking my opponent to not bring up any new arguments in the final round, as this would be unfair to today's debate round, and only build up theirs and counter mine. My opponent begins with giving some dictionaries that attempt to disprove my first contention. However, when we look at these dictionaries, we can see that one says it is the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy [1], while the other states that it is an operation or other procedure to terminate pregnancy before the fetus is viable[2]. Now unless my opponent can prove that terminating pregnancy doesn't kill the fetus, these definitions are saying the same thing as Merriam Webster's, which states that it is a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of a fetus [3]. My opponent attempted to say that these definitions prove that abortion is not murder, however they actually mean the same thing, as terminating pregnancy causes the death of a fetus. While the definitions in my opponent's dictionaries may state that abortion isn't murder, abortion is still killing, even if it is legal. Basically my opponent is attempting to state that killing is justified if it is not murder, because murder is illegal, as stated in both of the dictionaries they provided, while abortion is legal in some states. Of course, this does not include abortions that happen where it is illegal, where it would be murder. I will briefly go over where my opponent stated that one of my sources was unreliable, which may be true, as people indeed can make up statistics. However, I will now provide sources that further back up the point of my case where Iv state abortion is the leading cause of death in the U.S. Please note that one of my sources is from 2005, however it is from the CDC, the Center for Disease control and Prevention. meaning it is reliable. To be honest, I am giving my opponent grace here as abortion numbers, while they were bad in 2005, were not as worse as now. It also only refers to black abortions, further lowering the numbers. To be clear the sources I will use to back up the fore mentioned part of my case are sources [4], [5], and [6]. I will admit it was a fault of mine to bring up the hypothetical question regarding historical figures, as it would only bring up arguments involving tons of good and bad historical figures. I think me and my opponent can agree that it would be best for the debate to just throw out that argument, as it would cause unnecessary debating. My opponent also brings up the argument that I have disregarded the emotions and feelings of a woman who has been raped in my first case. However, the only reason I brought up the 1% statistic is because I was arguing that it should not be a major part in today's debate. Of course I regard all peoples feelings, including those women who have been raped. I also believe that my opponent is being very contradictory here, as my opponent is completely disregarding the fetus, who hasn't really been given a chance at life. Finally, my opponent states that the fetus actually has been given a chance to live, which is technically true. However, unless my opponent can show me someone who would like to live in a womb for less than one year and then die, that point is invalid. For these reasons and many more I respectfully ask for a pro ballot in today's debate. Sources: [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://www.collinsdictionary.com... [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] http://cnsnews.com... [5] http://home.epix.net... [6] http://www.freerepublic.com...

Society

Abortion-is-wrong/33/

Dude..Abortion should be illegal..why are you in favor of it..R-Tard. Its not like the baby is gonna be raised to be a rapist.

YummyYummCupcake

Dude..Abortion should be illegal..why are you in favor of it..R-Tard. Its not like the baby is gonna be raised to be a rapist.

Health

Abortion-should-be-illegal/2/

There's many woman who would love to have child and maybe she cant. Maybe she cant cause she had ovarian cancer and her dreams had fallen apart. Now she's counting on a person to have a chilD for her or maybe yet.. SHE CAN GO TO FOSTER CARE..oops caps. And well people who dont choose to have a child is okay...they can have it and when there done having that c-section or labor, she can put it in a foster care..simple as that..why go through a much more painful stage of abortion when they have to live with the guilt with the rest of their life's. When they really can feel good about making a family happy when she can donate her son or daughter to a family that can't have kids. Killing an unborn child is cruel and should be stopped. Woman should think twice before having sex without a condom..And if they choose not to have sex with a condom on..The should suffer the consequences. Dont take it out on the baby and kill it. Thats just wrong.

YummyYummCupcake

There's many woman who would love to have child and maybe she cant. Maybe she cant cause she had ovarian cancer and her dreams had fallen apart. Now she's counting on a person to have a chilD for her or maybe yet.. SHE CAN GO TO FOSTER CARE..oops caps. And well people who dont choose to have a child is okay...they can have it and when there done having that c-section or labor, she can put it in a foster care..simple as that..why go through a much more painful stage of abortion when they have to live with the guilt with the rest of their life's. When they really can feel good about making a family happy when she can donate her son or daughter to a family that can't have kids. Killing an unborn child is cruel and should be stopped. Woman should think twice before having sex without a condom..And if they choose not to have sex with a condom on..The should suffer the consequences. Dont take it out on the baby and kill it. Thats just wrong.

Health

Abortion-should-be-illegal/2/

I understand..May girls get raped by the fathers I bet. But if they have the chance to go through labor and so on and so forth. The hospital, in a heart beat contacts social services, and social services gives her options. They can easily re-areange something for the victim. She can put the baby in foster care if there's no one that can take care of the baby with a STABLE environment. Of course social services is not going to hand the baby to one of the girls uncles thats a crack dealer or crack head, pipes laying everywhere on the floor, powder substance on the coffee table..That's a big no no. Like I said before. I don't think anyone would want to live with the guilt of killing something thats of part of them. In my eyes. I would love to make a family happy with a child that they always wanted to care. Babies is what keeps this world growing day by day. Rapist are another rebate..Should they be put to death row? Or just give them time? Special Victims Unit has a job..To keep them pervs off the streets and not let them rape again. Rape victims should have only two choices..Keep the baby for herself or make a family happy. I belive if they live with the guilt of murder that it will eventually lead to depression and maybe suicide. So not only she killed her son or daughter..she killed herself..and she's gonna be poop outta luck when those portals open for her and her son or daughter would be waiting for her on the other side with questions...Okay that was dumb..but i have a point. Abortion should be illegal. period.

YummyYummCupcake

I understand..May girls get raped by the fathers I bet. But if they have the chance to go through labor and so on and so forth. The hospital, in a heart beat contacts social services, and social services gives her options. They can easily re-areange something for the victim. She can put the baby in foster care if there's no one that can take care of the baby with a STABLE environment. Of course social services is not going to hand the baby to one of the girls uncles thats a crack dealer or crack head, pipes laying everywhere on the floor, powder substance on the coffee table..That's a big no no. Like I said before. I don't think anyone would want to live with the guilt of killing something thats of part of them. In my eyes. I would love to make a family happy with a child that they always wanted to care. Babies is what keeps this world growing day by day. Rapist are another rebate..Should they be put to death row? Or just give them time? Special Victims Unit has a job..To keep them pervs off the streets and not let them rape again. Rape victims should have only two choices..Keep the baby for herself or make a family happy. I belive if they live with the guilt of murder that it will eventually lead to depression and maybe suicide. So not only she killed her son or daughter..she killed herself..and she's gonna be poop outta luck when those portals open for her and her son or daughter would be waiting for her on the other side with questions...Okay that was dumb..but i have a point. Abortion should be illegal. period.

Health

Abortion-should-be-illegal/2/

You put it on the comment box r-tard. Why does everbody think rape victims when the hear the word abortion. i just dont understand that a woman would go a long way to harm herself with the drinking of clorox or bleach to punching herself and maing herslef fall down the stairs to kill a baby and hurting herself also. and when she thinks about it, i wouldn't be in this situation if her partner didn't wear a condom with those 15 minutes of satisfaction.. if she does indeed abort her baby she's gonna have a bad record for the rest of her life and when indeed she decides to have a baby, social services are gonna be contacting her twice a month until the baby is 18. Herassment? No. Because of that one mistake that one guilt she decided to do. So you are in favor of self-harm? or people to harm themselfs for a long time just to give up something that's a part of them..a part of their soul?

YummyYummCupcake

You put it on the comment box r-tard. Why does everbody think rape victims when the hear the word abortion. i just dont understand that a woman would go a long way to harm herself with the drinking of clorox or bleach to punching herself and maing herslef fall down the stairs to kill a baby and hurting herself also. and when she thinks about it, i wouldn't be in this situation if her partner didn't wear a condom with those 15 minutes of satisfaction.. if she does indeed abort her baby she's gonna have a bad record for the rest of her life and when indeed she decides to have a baby, social services are gonna be contacting her twice a month until the baby is 18. Herassment? No. Because of that one mistake that one guilt she decided to do. So you are in favor of self-harm? or people to harm themselfs for a long time just to give up something that's a part of them..a part of their soul?

Health

Abortion-should-be-illegal/2/

Gaah. Why would she go through all that..when she can that it to a foster care?? Wouldn't you feel good if you made a family happy? You tell me. Maybe that baby that she aborted had the idea of the cure for cancer. Maybe he coud've been the president that had it all. Ever thought about that? Kids are the future. We need more engineers. We need more doctors, M.D'S, Dentists, Scientist, Archiologist...etc You just never know who a kid is gonna be, Cure for AID'S? Cure for H.I.V? The biggest question..Cure for cancer? In this century kids are getting very smart by the age of 3. The can understand and talk a full conversation like an adult. When there 6..Who knows what they thinking..We need them no more than ever. Dont you think?

YummyYummCupcake

Gaah. Why would she go through all that..when she can that it to a foster care?? Wouldn't you feel good if you made a family happy? You tell me. Maybe that baby that she aborted had the idea of the cure for cancer. Maybe he coud've been the president that had it all. Ever thought about that? Kids are the future. We need more engineers. We need more doctors, M.D'S, Dentists, Scientist, Archiologist...etc You just never know who a kid is gonna be, Cure for AID'S? Cure for H.I.V? The biggest question..Cure for cancer? In this century kids are getting very smart by the age of 3. The can understand and talk a full conversation like an adult. When there 6..Who knows what they thinking..We need them no more than ever. Dont you think?

Health

Abortion-should-be-illegal/2/

OK, I accept you challenge. Here why I say it should be. Abortion should be leagle because it's a choice, and in this great country of America, we do have the choice to do as we feel, as long as it doesn't come into interruptance with anyone elses freedom. You believe in pro-life, possibly because you think its considered murder. Well if a baby is still in it's 1st tri-mester, then it would be no larger than a plumb (mmmm plumbs). Being this so small it hasn't devoloped its pain nerves to feel it being put to death. If a women cannot take care of a child, why force that baby into being here on this planet, miserable? A women has a choice to say whether she may have her underdeveloped child or not. Wouldn't you want the choice?

eyeleapy

OK, I accept you challenge. Here why I say it should be. Abortion should be leagle because it's a choice, and in this great country of America, we do have the choice to do as we feel, as long as it doesn't come into interruptance with anyone elses freedom. You believe in pro-life, possibly because you think its considered murder. Well if a baby is still in it's 1st tri-mester, then it would be no larger than a plumb (mmmm plumbs). Being this so small it hasn't devoloped its pain nerves to feel it being put to death. If a women cannot take care of a child, why force that baby into being here on this planet, miserable? A women has a choice to say whether she may have her underdeveloped child or not. Wouldn't you want the choice?

Health

Abortion-should-be-illegal/2/

I think maybe Adrians right on this one... Thanx Ok you made a great statement... Aborting would be killing the child before it began to live. But here's a question. If the woman were to be raped by her father at lets say the age of 16. Then because she couldn't abort, she's out in the situation in which she must have this child and not ready for it in the long term. She hasn't had a job and yet she's being forced to care for this new child with no finances. Yes she may abort it, but there's always that one chance that her grandparent, (her dad) can file to adopt the child. If there's no proof, he can and will gain custody of the child. Now you put your child in a much worse environment than you might have thought. And these cases happen all the time. It wouldn't be fair. Also, if the child is unborn, it's not murder nor is it cruel. for the simple fact that it isn't even alive yet. You cannot kill something that doesn't have a life.

eyeleapy

I think maybe Adrians right on this one... Thanx Ok you made a great statement... Aborting would be killing the child before it began to live. But here's a question. If the woman were to be raped by her father at lets say the age of 16. Then because she couldn't abort, she's out in the situation in which she must have this child and not ready for it in the long term. She hasn't had a job and yet she's being forced to care for this new child with no finances. Yes she may abort it, but there's always that one chance that her grandparent, (her dad) can file to adopt the child. If there's no proof, he can and will gain custody of the child. Now you put your child in a much worse environment than you might have thought. And these cases happen all the time. It wouldn't be fair. Also, if the child is unborn, it's not murder nor is it cruel. for the simple fact that it isn't even alive yet. You cannot kill something that doesn't have a life.

Health

Abortion-should-be-illegal/2/

Whoops, i F*cked up G. Ignorith the commint. :) Your endeing statement in round 2 can't be used. Sorry gurl but ya just can't use that statement in a debate, because then i can turn and say that i think it can be legal, that's why it should be period. But as I've said before, if the special victims unit can't prove that the grandfather was the rapist then it will most likly to go to the grand-dads custody, even though they ask for a perternity test, he can easily say it's against his religion and without having to prove it, they cannot give him the test. And it shouldn't be a guilty consience if the child weren't alive to begin with. Even though i stated that, doesn't mean thy're not going to feel guilty. and if they considered suicide, it shows them to be weak minded. you also stated that the baby would see it's mother in heaven? Well the baby hasn't even been alive and yet seeks out a vengence against his mother, i find this highly un-likely. This would go into the debate, if God exists, or if fetuses have souls. Most rape victims never go to the police simply because they have fear of the raper. I know it sounds wack, but more than 70% of all rape victims never go to the authorities.

eyeleapy

Whoops, i F*cked up G. Ignorith the commint. :) Your endeing statement in round 2 can't be used. Sorry gurl but ya just can't use that statement in a debate, because then i can turn and say that i think it can be legal, that's why it should be period. But as I've said before, if the special victims unit can't prove that the grandfather was the rapist then it will most likly to go to the grand-dads custody, even though they ask for a perternity test, he can easily say it's against his religion and without having to prove it, they cannot give him the test. And it shouldn't be a guilty consience if the child weren't alive to begin with. Even though i stated that, doesn't mean thy're not going to feel guilty. and if they considered suicide, it shows them to be weak minded. you also stated that the baby would see it's mother in heaven? Well the baby hasn't even been alive and yet seeks out a vengence against his mother, i find this highly un-likely. This would go into the debate, if God exists, or if fetuses have souls. Most rape victims never go to the police simply because they have fear of the raper. I know it sounds wack, but more than 70% of all rape victims never go to the authorities.

Health

Abortion-should-be-illegal/2/

It'll never go on a bad record because it's not against the law in some states. Also, she doesn't have to harm her self in any way. They do have abortion clinics which makes it safe and clean for an abortion and it can remain anomynous. Also the thing about having sex and wearing a condom, sometimes, but rarely the males shlong is too gigantic, the condom tears, or pops (I'll show you when i meet you on what i mean by this. lol). Then they are left with pregnancy. And just because they have sex, doesn't mean you can say, "Well they can do it then they should be responsible enough to have a baby." That'll then make the wearing of condoms null-n-void. Because then that'll mean sex should only be done if you want a baby. Sex is very healthy and satisfying. It also releases endorfins which can make you feel good and can even fight off any illnesses. Ill show you how this works, instead of talking any furhter on it. *BONG!!!!!!!

eyeleapy

It'll never go on a bad record because it's not against the law in some states. Also, she doesn't have to harm her self in any way. They do have abortion clinics which makes it safe and clean for an abortion and it can remain anomynous. Also the thing about having sex and wearing a condom, sometimes, but rarely the males shlong is too gigantic, the condom tears, or pops (I'll show you when i meet you on what i mean by this. lol). Then they are left with pregnancy. And just because they have sex, doesn't mean you can say, "Well they can do it then they should be responsible enough to have a baby." That'll then make the wearing of condoms null-n-void. Because then that'll mean sex should only be done if you want a baby. Sex is very healthy and satisfying. It also releases endorfins which can make you feel good and can even fight off any illnesses. Ill show you how this works, instead of talking any furhter on it. *BONG!!!!!!!

Health

Abortion-should-be-illegal/2/

True, Kids are the future, but the fact that the earth is over populated can be the down fall of our species. More kids means more mouths to feed, more pollution more crime,. etc etc. Maybe the child will be something great, or maube he'll be the next Dahmer or rapist, ya never know, but dealing with the worst of out comes, comes from scared future parents. If they simply can't handle a kid because of finances, or dealing with the care for a child, or the thought of the rapped victims father with gain custody, just is too much. This is why i say women should have a choice on how they want to deal with thier body. If you wanted to piece your belly or tongue, wouldn't you say that it's your choice. Or what if God placed a baby in some young womens body and has no idea why it's there, and can't afford a child at the point of her life where she's near success, shouldn't she be able to afford it? LOL... LMAO

eyeleapy

True, Kids are the future, but the fact that the earth is over populated can be the down fall of our species. More kids means more mouths to feed, more pollution more crime,. etc etc. Maybe the child will be something great, or maube he'll be the next Dahmer or rapist, ya never know, but dealing with the worst of out comes, comes from scared future parents. If they simply can't handle a kid because of finances, or dealing with the care for a child, or the thought of the rapped victims father with gain custody, just is too much. This is why i say women should have a choice on how they want to deal with thier body. If you wanted to piece your belly or tongue, wouldn't you say that it's your choice. Or what if God placed a baby in some young womens body and has no idea why it's there, and can't afford a child at the point of her life where she's near success, shouldn't she be able to afford it? LOL... LMAO

Health

Abortion-should-be-illegal/2/

Ironically I am in another debate arguing abortion is a rational perspective early in the pregnancy dpending on your beliefs. Here I am going to qualify all you say still. If you believe it's not a baby early early on, then sure that's a rational view. But, I would still outlaw it. If you're for killing a baby five seconds before it gets out of the mother but not when it's out, what's the difference? will you admit you're willing to allow killing to suit the mother's not want of a bother? why can't someone go on and kill anyone who is a bother to them? they can't, because that infringes another's life. the mother chose to have sex, she has to pay the consequences. she didn't choose to get pregnant, but she assumed the risk. how do you say she doesn't assume the risk? if i caused a car accident, and the other person was suddenly attahed to my body until it could be surgically removed a few months later, any reasonable person would say the person who caused the crash has no right to termineate the other person. often i say it's reasonable to have differing beliefs, but here I do not believe it'd be reasonable to say otherwise. it's analogous fully to the baby, in my opinion, and not reasonable to say otherwise. with that said, you have an argument if you don't think it's a person. we'd probably quibble about when it's reasonable to say it is or isn't a person. but, you have a right to say when you think it is or is not just as much as I do. and you'd have a rational argument if it's based on the personness of the baby, up to a point of course. wihtout that argument, you have no basis to say abortion should be legal.

dairygirl4u2c

Ironically I am in another debate arguing abortion is a rational perspective early in the pregnancy dpending on your beliefs. Here I am going to qualify all you say still. If you believe it's not a baby early early on, then sure that's a rational view. But, I would still outlaw it. If you're for killing a baby five seconds before it gets out of the mother but not when it's out, what's the difference? will you admit you're willing to allow killing to suit the mother's not want of a bother? why can't someone go on and kill anyone who is a bother to them? they can't, because that infringes another's life. the mother chose to have sex, she has to pay the consequences. she didn't choose to get pregnant, but she assumed the risk. how do you say she doesn't assume the risk? if i caused a car accident, and the other person was suddenly attahed to my body until it could be surgically removed a few months later, any reasonable person would say the person who caused the crash has no right to termineate the other person. often i say it's reasonable to have differing beliefs, but here I do not believe it'd be reasonable to say otherwise. it's analogous fully to the baby, in my opinion, and not reasonable to say otherwise. with that said, you have an argument if you don't think it's a person. we'd probably quibble about when it's reasonable to say it is or isn't a person. but, you have a right to say when you think it is or is not just as much as I do. and you'd have a rational argument if it's based on the personness of the baby, up to a point of course. wihtout that argument, you have no basis to say abortion should be legal.

Politics

Abortion-should-be-legal./1/

I agree privacy should be implied into the constitution. All the amendments you cite imply it. I would also add, the conservatives like to go on and on about how soverign immunity, that states generally cannot be sued technically, is implied in teh constitution, because of the states rights stuff like the tenth amendment... so if that can be done, surely privacy can be implied too, to be fair. You cite Court authority, and following stare decisis or precedent, you would be correct that it's technically the law of the land. But, much like brown versus the board of education overturned segretation type laws, these current cases can be overturned as well. you are not resting your argument on a techincal basis that the cases cannot be overturned? so, i assume you think it's good policy that it be that way. i say it's a policy argument, because there's competing legal theories. one is privacy, the other is protecting human life. surely, you do not have the privacy to kill a person who is born? techincally, they are born, i admit, and not expressly included in the constitution, the unborn. but, are you being a technicalist such that the framers didn't intend to protect a baby five minutes before the baby is born? get real if that's the case. there's a burden you're putting on people to change the constitution, whatever the court decides. who should the burden be on? are you giong to be a technicalist and say the burden should be on the framers because they didn't clarify babies are included too? it seems natural they'd include the baby at later points at least. it's at least a reasonable person standarnd to read into it given that the baby is clearly a person later on. now, i suppose given that it's a policy argument, the states could decide like the first one or two semesters since it's arbitrary anyway. we can't avoid arbitrariness afterall, because the standards roe made are themselves arbitrary. this all simply illustrates are laws are man made, and the practical consequences of them bore full face when implmenting and interpreting them. so, policy is a sound way to proceed. anyway, ultimately, if you disagree, you're drawing an arbitrary line at the birth canal, just as much as i'm being arbitrary saying a point the baby is a person. if not anything else, the issue should be given to the states. the states have dealt with it up until the 1900s. some had abortion laws, others didn't. the tenth amendment relegates stuff not in the constitution to the states. i say, don't be a techinalist with the presumption for death.

dairygirl4u2c

I agree privacy should be implied into the constitution. All the amendments you cite imply it. I would also add, the conservatives like to go on and on about how soverign immunity, that states generally cannot be sued technically, is implied in teh constitution, because of the states rights stuff like the tenth amendment... so if that can be done, surely privacy can be implied too, to be fair. You cite Court authority, and following stare decisis or precedent, you would be correct that it's technically the law of the land. But, much like brown versus the board of education overturned segretation type laws, these current cases can be overturned as well. you are not resting your argument on a techincal basis that the cases cannot be overturned? so, i assume you think it's good policy that it be that way. i say it's a policy argument, because there's competing legal theories. one is privacy, the other is protecting human life. surely, you do not have the privacy to kill a person who is born? techincally, they are born, i admit, and not expressly included in the constitution, the unborn. but, are you being a technicalist such that the framers didn't intend to protect a baby five minutes before the baby is born? get real if that's the case. there's a burden you're putting on people to change the constitution, whatever the court decides. who should the burden be on? are you giong to be a technicalist and say the burden should be on the framers because they didn't clarify babies are included too? it seems natural they'd include the baby at later points at least. it's at least a reasonable person standarnd to read into it given that the baby is clearly a person later on. now, i suppose given that it's a policy argument, the states could decide like the first one or two semesters since it's arbitrary anyway. we can't avoid arbitrariness afterall, because the standards roe made are themselves arbitrary. this all simply illustrates are laws are man made, and the practical consequences of them bore full face when implmenting and interpreting them. so, policy is a sound way to proceed. anyway, ultimately, if you disagree, you're drawing an arbitrary line at the birth canal, just as much as i'm being arbitrary saying a point the baby is a person. if not anything else, the issue should be given to the states. the states have dealt with it up until the 1900s. some had abortion laws, others didn't. the tenth amendment relegates stuff not in the constitution to the states. i say, don't be a techinalist with the presumption for death.

Politics

Abortion-should-be-legal./1/

Then my assumption was wrong, and you simply insist on not changing their decision. By your reasoning, segregation laws and other types of race cases etc would not be overturned. But I'm pretty sure you'd not be advocating all that. it seems you're ignoring the principle of preserving life, which is explicitly in the Constitution, and at any rate could be implied just as much as but probably even more than the right to privacy. While you say you're not pushing for this because of your morality, I see no other reason than for you to think privacy should outweigh life with a presumption of death based on your own inclinations, (my guess is augmented by your rhetoric of laws and the woman's body stuff). If I'm wrong and you simply insist on not changing course, you have not explained why other cases can change, or admit you want to remain ever the same no matter what the Court decides.

dairygirl4u2c

Then my assumption was wrong, and you simply insist on not changing their decision. By your reasoning, segregation laws and other types of race cases etc would not be overturned. But I'm pretty sure you'd not be advocating all that. it seems you're ignoring the principle of preserving life, which is explicitly in the Constitution, and at any rate could be implied just as much as but probably even more than the right to privacy. While you say you're not pushing for this because of your morality, I see no other reason than for you to think privacy should outweigh life with a presumption of death based on your own inclinations, (my guess is augmented by your rhetoric of laws and the woman's body stuff). If I'm wrong and you simply insist on not changing course, you have not explained why other cases can change, or admit you want to remain ever the same no matter what the Court decides.

Politics

Abortion-should-be-legal./1/

Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Opening arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Final words, no new arguments Good luck!

cnb

Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Opening arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Final words, no new arguments Good luck!

Health

Abortion-should-stay-legal/3/

I thank my opponent for accepting. First, I would like to say that abortion is not killing a human being. Since a human being, by definition, is a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. (1) So an embryo is classified as a human being. Even if abortion would be illegal, women would still seek a way for abortion, bringing them to find illegal places performing abortion, which would not have good hygiene and could be the cause for a lot of health problems and even cause fatality for the women. 42% of women carrying out abortion are poor. (2) These women would not be able to provide for themselves and the baby. They would also miss out on work and lose wages because of it. 1: <URL>... 2: <URL>...

cnb

I thank my opponent for accepting. First, I would like to say that abortion is not killing a human being. Since a human being, by definition, is a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. (1) So an embryo is classified as a human being. Even if abortion would be illegal, women would still seek a way for abortion, bringing them to find illegal places performing abortion, which would not have good hygiene and could be the cause for a lot of health problems and even cause fatality for the women. 42% of women carrying out abortion are poor. (2) These women would not be able to provide for themselves and the baby. They would also miss out on work and lose wages because of it. 1: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 2: https://www.guttmacher.org...

Health

Abortion-should-stay-legal/3/

I agree, that my definition of a human being has flaws. The main idea behind that was that abortion is not actually killing a human being, sine an embryo is still not having the same characteristics as a grown human being. It doesn't even feel pain until it's at least 24 weeks old. (1) Abortion is not a murder since, the fetus only has the POTENTIAL to be a human and is yet not a human. Murder is wrong, but abortion is not a murder. 1: <URL>...

cnb

I agree, that my definition of a human being has flaws. The main idea behind that was that abortion is not actually killing a human being, sine an embryo is still not having the same characteristics as a grown human being. It doesn't even feel pain until it's at least 24 weeks old. (1) Abortion is not a murder since, the fetus only has the POTENTIAL to be a human and is yet not a human. Murder is wrong, but abortion is not a murder. 1: http://www.motherjones.com...

Health

Abortion-should-stay-legal/3/

All life should be valued and held sacred. Life begins at conception and killing them would be murder. Just because they are not full grown human being they should not be looked at differently. No civilized society on earth permits taking the life of another, abortion should not be any different.

Aznsupahman123

All life should be valued and held sacred. Life begins at conception and killing them would be murder. Just because they are not full grown human being they should not be looked at differently. No civilized society on earth permits taking the life of another, abortion should not be any different.

Health

Abortion/177/

All life is treasured as you argued, so the mother bearing the child's life should also be considered. Abortion is the mother's right. The baby's birth may endanger the life of the mother, thus validating the use for abortion. Also, a woman has the right to choose who she chooses to bear her baby. If a woman is raped, she shouldn't just idly have her raper's child, she should have absolute choice to keep or abort the baby. Also your statement of a society that murders is existent nowadays. Capital punishment and civilian terrorism are all acts of murder. Although these murders many times have no good reasons, at least abortion gives a compelling reason.

webberwu0304

All life is treasured as you argued, so the mother bearing the child's life should also be considered. Abortion is the mother's right. The baby's birth may endanger the life of the mother, thus validating the use for abortion. Also, a woman has the right to choose who she chooses to bear her baby. If a woman is raped, she shouldn't just idly have her raper's child, she should have absolute choice to keep or abort the baby. Also your statement of a society that murders is existent nowadays. Capital punishment and civilian terrorism are all acts of murder. Although these murders many times have no good reasons, at least abortion gives a compelling reason.

Health

Abortion/177/

I dont believe abortion should be legal unless two situations exist, rape or the mothers life is in danger. Abortion shouldnt be an option for young women (or older women) who dont wish to be burdened with carrying and delivering a child. Especially with the numerous forms of birth control for little or no cost.

Boo92

I dont believe abortion should be legal unless two situations exist, rape or the mothers life is in danger. Abortion shouldnt be an option for young women (or older women) who dont wish to be burdened with carrying and delivering a child. Especially with the numerous forms of birth control for little or no cost.

Health

Abortion/226/

According to mayoclinic.com a babies heart starts beating 4 weeks after conception therfore it is to be considered a living human being, making an abortion after four weeks murder, and murder is illegal, yes? Why should a fetus with a heartbeat be any different? A woman has many ways to protect against pregnancy (under normal circumstances) failure to protect against unwanted pregnancy is NOT reason enough to warrent killing a human being.

Boo92

According to mayoclinic.com a babies heart starts beating 4 weeks after conception therfore it is to be considered a living human being, making an abortion after four weeks murder, and murder is illegal, yes? Why should a fetus with a heartbeat be any different? A woman has many ways to protect against pregnancy (under normal circumstances) failure to protect against unwanted pregnancy is NOT reason enough to warrent killing a human being.

Health

Abortion/226/

Lets begin with Pro's argument about currently legal abortion, as abortion is not legal in my state. There is currently much debate about whether or not to legalize it, the purpose of my debate is to show why not to legalize it. It also goes to show why Pro's 'illegal killing' argument is invalid and does not pertain to all states, including mine. Moving on. Since most home pregnancy tests detect pregnancy as early as a week after a missed period, 5 weeks after implantation, the fetus is then considered viable. (babymed.com) Current abortion laws in 13 different states do not allow abortion after 24 weeks because "a presumption of viability" exists. (wikipedia) If a 24 weeks fetus is considered viable, why not a 4-5 week fetus? The insinuation that all vertebrates be given human status because they all have heartbeats is absurd. But if that's the way you look at it, grant them human status then it would be illegal to kill and eat them as it would be considered cannibalism. As for pregnancy stemming from rape, the decision to abort would be completely left up to the mother. You said why add murder to a terrible thing like rape? Why should a woman be forced to carry a child that is a product of a hate crime? What about the daily reminder of the terrible crime commited against her? Rape victims want to move forward with their lives not be reminded of the incident everyday when they look down at their growing bellies. Why cause more pain and suffering by forcing her to carry it ? As you offered no argument on my statements about the abundance of birth control available to women today, I can only assume that you understand and agree with that fact. Furthermore, I would like to reiterate the point I made in my last statement, and say that these numerous forms of birth control are available at little or no cost to a woman and most certainly should be utilized if pregnancy is not desired. Too often young women are engaging in sexual intercourse unprotected without thought to the consequences. Knowing, in some cases, that if they happen to get pregnant, it can just be 'taken care of'. No more should this be a viable option for irresponsible women. You made your bed lie in it. I'm willing to bet if abortion were no longer an option, birth control would be better utilized, and teen pregnancy would drop.

Boo92

Lets begin with Pro's argument about currently legal abortion, as abortion is not legal in my state. There is currently much debate about whether or not to legalize it, the purpose of my debate is to show why not to legalize it. It also goes to show why Pro's 'illegal killing' argument is invalid and does not pertain to all states, including mine. Moving on. Since most home pregnancy tests detect pregnancy as early as a week after a missed period, 5 weeks after implantation, the fetus is then considered viable. (babymed.com) Current abortion laws in 13 different states do not allow abortion after 24 weeks because "a presumption of viability" exists. (wikipedia) If a 24 weeks fetus is considered viable, why not a 4-5 week fetus? The insinuation that all vertebrates be given human status because they all have heartbeats is absurd. But if that's the way you look at it, grant them human status then it would be illegal to kill and eat them as it would be considered cannibalism. As for pregnancy stemming from rape, the decision to abort would be completely left up to the mother. You said why add murder to a terrible thing like rape? Why should a woman be forced to carry a child that is a product of a hate crime? What about the daily reminder of the terrible crime commited against her? Rape victims want to move forward with their lives not be reminded of the incident everyday when they look down at their growing bellies. Why cause more pain and suffering by forcing her to carry it ? As you offered no argument on my statements about the abundance of birth control available to women today, I can only assume that you understand and agree with that fact. Furthermore, I would like to reiterate the point I made in my last statement, and say that these numerous forms of birth control are available at little or no cost to a woman and most certainly should be utilized if pregnancy is not desired. Too often young women are engaging in sexual intercourse unprotected without thought to the consequences. Knowing, in some cases, that if they happen to get pregnant, it can just be 'taken care of'. No more should this be a viable option for irresponsible women. You made your bed lie in it. I'm willing to bet if abortion were no longer an option, birth control would be better utilized, and teen pregnancy would drop.

Health

Abortion/226/

I would like my opponent to answer the following: What gives the justification to kill a being? At what point does something become 'living'? What are upsides of abortion? Downsides? Thanks for accepting!

Xie-Xijivuli

I would like my opponent to answer the following: What gives the justification to kill a being? At what point does something become 'living'? What are upsides of abortion? Downsides? Thanks for accepting!

Health

Abortion/27/

Wha--? Answer the questions, please...

Xie-Xijivuli

Wha--? Answer the questions, please...

Health

Abortion/27/

//sorry about that I was thinking of something else. If a baby is born ill he will never live I normal life. something becomes living once the sperm and eggs touch but, If a baby is born ill he will never live I normal life.// So, if you are ill, and not normal, this provides grounds to kill? A man without working legs has a hard life, and therefore can be killed? //the good things about abortion is both the parents and the kid do not have to go through all the hardships of an extremely ill person. Imagine if you had to go through not even be able to talk and not now who anybody you have known for a long time is. Imagine that,Imagine that.// I'd rather have a baby alive than dead, no matter what. Abortion is the killing of a baby -- 99% of the time for illegitimate reasons. Less than one percent of abortions are for the good of the baby, mother, or due to rape and incest. THat makes over 40 million abortions a year unjustified.

Xie-Xijivuli

//sorry about that I was thinking of something else. If a baby is born ill he will never live I normal life. something becomes living once the sperm and eggs touch but, If a baby is born ill he will never live I normal life.// So, if you are ill, and not normal, this provides grounds to kill? A man without working legs has a hard life, and therefore can be killed? //the good things about abortion is both the parents and the kid do not have to go through all the hardships of an extremely ill person. Imagine if you had to go through not even be able to talk and not now who anybody you have known for a long time is. Imagine that,Imagine that.// I'd rather have a baby alive than dead, no matter what. Abortion is the killing of a baby -- 99% of the time for illegitimate reasons. Less than one percent of abortions are for the good of the baby, mother, or due to rape and incest. THat makes over 40 million abortions a year unjustified.

Health

Abortion/27/

. . . Hello...?

Xie-Xijivuli

. . . Hello...?

Health

Abortion/27/

Hello, and thanks to LB628 for accepting the debate I have made. I, for one, think this will be very productive and fun. I shall start arguing once my opponents has answered these questions. If you could do so, LB, thanks! 1) Why do you support abortion? 2) If the fetus was proved human, would you become pro-life? 3) Why doesn't the fetus have any rights, in your opinion? (Or, what rights does it not have and why.)

Xie-Xijivuli

Hello, and thanks to LB628 for accepting the debate I have made. I, for one, think this will be very productive and fun. I shall start arguing once my opponents has answered these questions. If you could do so, LB, thanks! 1) Why do you support abortion? 2) If the fetus was proved human, would you become pro-life? 3) Why doesn't the fetus have any rights, in your opinion? (Or, what rights does it not have and why.)

Health

Abortion/29/

Thanks to LB628! I may not be able to post quickly; I have a busy schedule for the next week. (TAKS) <URL>... ==== I support the right to an abortion for several reasons, the first of which is the right to do what you please to your own body. Seeing as I believe that a fetus is most definitely a part of a woman's body, it is her choice to abort it or not ==== Okay, I see what you are saying. The woman has right to her own body. Her baby, her choice. Why then does the fetus not get a voice? The fetus's body is more its own than the mothers! The fetus, at the time of most abortions, can pump its own blood, move, and do many things we humans can do born. You say at the bottom, "... I believe that people have the right to do whatever they wish to their bodies," yet you are not giving everyone the opportunity to choose. Now, the fetus does not have a voice. The fetus cannot say whether he wants to die or not. However, we have many clues that point to the conclusion that fetuses don't like being sucked to death. (first link I list) ==== I am a utilitarianist, which is to say that I believe that the morally correct action is the one which produces the most happiness for the largest number of people. Given that there are numerous instances of poor . . . ==== Well, first, refer to the video above once again. Secondly, I want you to ask yourself, "Would I be happy if I were the fetus in the situation of abortion?" Let us assume a fetus can at least feel the emotion of happiness or despair. (Now, please -- answer honestly. If you were about to be killed in a similar way to a fetus, would you be "happy?") Quoted from abortionfacts.com: Do you believe the new "ethic" should be that we kill the suffering or burdensome? Some of these cases are tragic, some are also inspirational. We cannot assume the responsibility for killing an unborn child simply because the child has not yet been seen in public. The child's place of residence does not change what abortion does - kill a human being. ==== he first is that the pro-life position is one of moral absolutism, saying that it is always wrong for an action to occur, which I think is completely untenable. ==== A fetus isn't killed because of what it has or hasn't done. It is killed for convenience. I am morally absolute on the fact killing a 'clean' baby (One who hasn't sinned or done wrong by our society's standards) shouldn't be legal. Would you kill a baby 10 seconds before it came out of the womb? 10 seconds after? ==== A fetus only has the rights the mother wishes to extend to it. A fetus is, in essence, a parasite ==== Have you heard of a beneficial parasite? ("Symbiosis"?) Well, the fetus can be a symbiotical relation. For instance, it can raise his/her mother when s/he grows up. He can provide joy. A fetus is a parasite in the sense that it sucks from the mother. However, it is a parasite that will become a human in less than one year. It is a parasite that rarely kills. It is a parasite that has rights. It is not a tapeworm, it is a fetus. I am dependent on MY mother. I need her to cook for me (I tried to cook once; I am now on the Fire Dept's bad boy list.) I need her to pay for the house and work (My family is divorced). I need her to support my brother and I. Does this mean I am not human? What about a baby born early? Are they not dependent on their little oxygen tanks? Without them they would die! Dos this mean they cannot receive the rights of a human? (This can also go for an elderly person with breathing issues.) - I would smile, LB628 -- YOUR mother chose LIFE.

Xie-Xijivuli

Thanks to LB628! I may not be able to post quickly; I have a busy schedule for the next week. (TAKS) http://abort73.com... ==== I support the right to an abortion for several reasons, the first of which is the right to do what you please to your own body. Seeing as I believe that a fetus is most definitely a part of a woman's body, it is her choice to abort it or not ==== Okay, I see what you are saying. The woman has right to her own body. Her baby, her choice. Why then does the fetus not get a voice? The fetus's body is more its own than the mothers! The fetus, at the time of most abortions, can pump its own blood, move, and do many things we humans can do born. You say at the bottom, "... I believe that people have the right to do whatever they wish to their bodies," yet you are not giving everyone the opportunity to choose. Now, the fetus does not have a voice. The fetus cannot say whether he wants to die or not. However, we have many clues that point to the conclusion that fetuses don't like being sucked to death. (first link I list) ==== I am a utilitarianist, which is to say that I believe that the morally correct action is the one which produces the most happiness for the largest number of people. Given that there are numerous instances of poor . . . ==== Well, first, refer to the video above once again. Secondly, I want you to ask yourself, "Would I be happy if I were the fetus in the situation of abortion?" Let us assume a fetus can at least feel the emotion of happiness or despair. (Now, please -- answer honestly. If you were about to be killed in a similar way to a fetus, would you be "happy?") Quoted from abortionfacts.com: Do you believe the new "ethic" should be that we kill the suffering or burdensome? Some of these cases are tragic, some are also inspirational. We cannot assume the responsibility for killing an unborn child simply because the child has not yet been seen in public. The child's place of residence does not change what abortion does - kill a human being. ==== he first is that the pro-life position is one of moral absolutism, saying that it is always wrong for an action to occur, which I think is completely untenable. ==== A fetus isn't killed because of what it has or hasn't done. It is killed for convenience. I am morally absolute on the fact killing a 'clean' baby (One who hasn't sinned or done wrong by our society's standards) shouldn't be legal. Would you kill a baby 10 seconds before it came out of the womb? 10 seconds after? ==== A fetus only has the rights the mother wishes to extend to it. A fetus is, in essence, a parasite ==== Have you heard of a beneficial parasite? ("Symbiosis"?) Well, the fetus can be a symbiotical relation. For instance, it can raise his/her mother when s/he grows up. He can provide joy. A fetus is a parasite in the sense that it sucks from the mother. However, it is a parasite that will become a human in less than one year. It is a parasite that rarely kills. It is a parasite that has rights. It is not a tapeworm, it is a fetus. I am dependent on MY mother. I need her to cook for me (I tried to cook once; I am now on the Fire Dept's bad boy list.) I need her to pay for the house and work (My family is divorced). I need her to support my brother and I. Does this mean I am not human? What about a baby born early? Are they not dependent on their little oxygen tanks? Without them they would die! Dos this mean they cannot receive the rights of a human? (This can also go for an elderly person with breathing issues.) - I would smile, LB628 -- YOUR mother chose LIFE.

Health

Abortion/29/

==== On the contrary, I would say that the fetus does not posses it's own body ==== According to <URL>... , Possession (the one that applies most to our current topic) is "the control over oneself, one's mind, etc." Now, a fetus can move itself. A fetus has simple thought patterns. A fetus can tell itself to kick. A fetus possesses its body. Why do you think that the fetus does not posses its own body? - Let me rephrase the question: Would you enjoy being killed in a way similar to that of a fetus? - ==== First, I deny the premise of a fetus' humanity. Fetus' are not able to survive if independent from one particular source of nutrients. Humans are. ==== Wrong. Humans cannot survive without nutrients we sap from earth. We need the sun, the earth, foood, etc. We aren't self-sufficient. If you base humanity partially on the ability to sustain itself without outside help, then you consider humans un-human. ==== Second, humans can, at least in a primitive way, express emotions which other humans can interpret. Fetus' have never been shown to do so. ==== So, emotion = human and/or sentience? Well, if you look at the video I posted in the argument above, I think you can clearly see the expression of pain and despair on its face. If not, either a) get reading glasses, or b) watch the video in HD. ==== Secondly, however, and this is a point I will refer to later, there is a difference between what I will call a willing and an unwilling parasite. If someone wishes to take care of people who would not be able to do so by themselves, that is fine. But when the person in question has no choice in the matter but is obligated by law to maintain that parasite, there is an issue. ==== A person is not always forced to hold that pregnancy. There are many other options, such as vitro-fertilization. If there is a person who, by law, is killed without a say nor care, there is an issue. I understand that there are people out there who cannot support babies. They can adopt, but they cannot kill. ==== So you are certain that there is absolutely no situation, no matter how outlandish, ill-conceived or just plain unlikely, that would make it moral to kill a baby? ==== Yes. No one has the right to kill another. If the baby is born and the mother dies (Unlikely in the US), it is tragic -- but life for the child can go on. Let me explain... an abortion can kill any single baby to twins and beyond. Therefore, we can conclude that there are more deaths to abortion than being forced to carry the child. If the baby dies, in my opinion, it is worse -- the mother has had an opportunity to live and experience life, whereas the child has not. ==== Personally? No I would not. When I am talking about abortion, I talking about the time fairly early in the fetus' development, not just before it comes out the womb, which is something of a gray area(what is the actual moment of birth?). ==== Well, even an hour before birth, the baby is dependent on the mother -- and by your own definition, not human. You may not do it personally, but your logic could allow you. (Sorry... by seconds I mean minutes... it was ate at night! :D) ==== First, what you are saying is that the relationship only becomes symbiotic AFTER the fetus is born, not during the period when it can be aborted, which is what we are talking about. ==== Well, I would like to point out that the fetus will usually become beneficial. A baby cannot benefit, but with time, s/he could become productive, moral, and helpful to society. ==== Nope. You are perfectly human. I am not saying dependency removes humanity, I am saying it removes a lot of rights (for instance, while [if] you are under the age of 18, at least in the United States, basically your entire life is subject to legal parental control). My arguments against including fetus' as human are elsewhere. ==== Tell me, why did you not answer my question on the earlt-born: What about a baby born early? Are they not dependent on their little oxygen tanks? Without them they would die! Dos this mean they cannot receive the rights of a human? (This can also go for an elderly person with breathing issues.) <URL>... abortionno.org Since my opponent wants alternative reasons not to have an abortion, I shall provide another: The health of the woman. Here is a basic overview of consequences of abortion: By Mrs. Ann Warner [ Visit <URL>... in addition] Physical Effects: Miscarriages Ectopic Pregnancies Perforated Uterus/Infections Nervousness Frigidity Sterility/Stillbirths Shock Fever/Cold Sweats Loss of Other Organs Psychological Effects: Unfulfillment/Sense of Loss Loss of Confidence in Decision-Making Intense Interest in Babies Loss of Interest in Sexual Contact Feeling of Dehumanization Feelings of Being exploited Flashback of the Actual Abortion Guilt/Suicidal Impulses Anniversaries (of Actual Due Date and Abortion Date) Eating Disorders Sleeping Disorders Low Self-Esteem Fear of Something Happening to One of their Other Children Problem with Trusting Another Partner Fear of Never Being Given Another Pregnancy Depression/Anxiety Interruption of the Bonding Process with Present and/or Future Children Survival Guilt Alcohol/Drug Abuse <URL>...

Xie-Xijivuli

==== On the contrary, I would say that the fetus does not posses it's own body ==== According to http://dictionary.reference.com... , Possession (the one that applies most to our current topic) is "the control over oneself, one's mind, etc." Now, a fetus can move itself. A fetus has simple thought patterns. A fetus can tell itself to kick. A fetus possesses its body. Why do you think that the fetus does not posses its own body? - Let me rephrase the question: Would you enjoy being killed in a way similar to that of a fetus? - ==== First, I deny the premise of a fetus' humanity. Fetus' are not able to survive if independent from one particular source of nutrients. Humans are. ==== Wrong. Humans cannot survive without nutrients we sap from earth. We need the sun, the earth, foood, etc. We aren't self-sufficient. If you base humanity partially on the ability to sustain itself without outside help, then you consider humans un-human. ==== Second, humans can, at least in a primitive way, express emotions which other humans can interpret. Fetus' have never been shown to do so. ==== So, emotion = human and/or sentience? Well, if you look at the video I posted in the argument above, I think you can clearly see the expression of pain and despair on its face. If not, either a) get reading glasses, or b) watch the video in HD. ==== Secondly, however, and this is a point I will refer to later, there is a difference between what I will call a willing and an unwilling parasite. If someone wishes to take care of people who would not be able to do so by themselves, that is fine. But when the person in question has no choice in the matter but is obligated by law to maintain that parasite, there is an issue. ==== A person is not always forced to hold that pregnancy. There are many other options, such as vitro-fertilization. If there is a person who, by law, is killed without a say nor care, there is an issue. I understand that there are people out there who cannot support babies. They can adopt, but they cannot kill. ==== So you are certain that there is absolutely no situation, no matter how outlandish, ill-conceived or just plain unlikely, that would make it moral to kill a baby? ==== Yes. No one has the right to kill another. If the baby is born and the mother dies (Unlikely in the US), it is tragic -- but life for the child can go on. Let me explain... an abortion can kill any single baby to twins and beyond. Therefore, we can conclude that there are more deaths to abortion than being forced to carry the child. If the baby dies, in my opinion, it is worse -- the mother has had an opportunity to live and experience life, whereas the child has not. ==== Personally? No I would not. When I am talking about abortion, I talking about the time fairly early in the fetus' development, not just before it comes out the womb, which is something of a gray area(what is the actual moment of birth?). ==== Well, even an hour before birth, the baby is dependent on the mother -- and by your own definition, not human. You may not do it personally, but your logic could allow you. (Sorry... by seconds I mean minutes... it was ate at night! :D) ==== First, what you are saying is that the relationship only becomes symbiotic AFTER the fetus is born, not during the period when it can be aborted, which is what we are talking about. ==== Well, I would like to point out that the fetus will usually become beneficial. A baby cannot benefit, but with time, s/he could become productive, moral, and helpful to society. ==== Nope. You are perfectly human. I am not saying dependency removes humanity, I am saying it removes a lot of rights (for instance, while [if] you are under the age of 18, at least in the United States, basically your entire life is subject to legal parental control). My arguments against including fetus' as human are elsewhere. ==== Tell me, why did you not answer my question on the earlt-born: What about a baby born early? Are they not dependent on their little oxygen tanks? Without them they would die! Dos this mean they cannot receive the rights of a human? (This can also go for an elderly person with breathing issues.) http://www.abortiontv.com... abortionno.org Since my opponent wants alternative reasons not to have an abortion, I shall provide another: The health of the woman. Here is a basic overview of consequences of abortion: By Mrs. Ann Warner [ Visit http://www.christianliferesources.com... in addition] Physical Effects: Miscarriages Ectopic Pregnancies Perforated Uterus/Infections Nervousness Frigidity Sterility/Stillbirths Shock Fever/Cold Sweats Loss of Other Organs Psychological Effects: Unfulfillment/Sense of Loss Loss of Confidence in Decision-Making Intense Interest in Babies Loss of Interest in Sexual Contact Feeling of Dehumanization Feelings of Being exploited Flashback of the Actual Abortion Guilt/Suicidal Impulses Anniversaries (of Actual Due Date and Abortion Date) Eating Disorders Sleeping Disorders Low Self-Esteem Fear of Something Happening to One of their Other Children Problem with Trusting Another Partner Fear of Never Being Given Another Pregnancy Depression/Anxiety Interruption of the Bonding Process with Present and/or Future Children Survival Guilt Alcohol/Drug Abuse http://www.nrlc.org...

Health

Abortion/29/

____ I'm so very sorry! I have an enormous research paper to work on. I cannot finish this. I urge you all to vote PRO for my ignorance and rude behavior. I'm sorry -- I will post my argument as is. ____ I'm going to try this from a new plane and then asses your rebuttals. Let me tell you the seven requirements for life: 1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature. 2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life. 3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life. 4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish. 5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present. 6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and chemotaxis. 7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth. Homeostasis ________ A fetus can do all of these. According to <URL>... and HP Laburn , "The fetus produces much metabolic heat and loses it mainly via the placental circulation, across a fetomaternal temperature gradient of ~0.5'C. During maternal hyperthermia, the risk of noxious fetal hyperthermia is less than expected. The thermal protection appears to result from the fetus's own thermal inertia and consequences of maternal thermo-regulatory strategies." Thus, as we can see, a fetus has homeostasis. Organization ________ Since the fetus' body is composed of cells, it is, by definition, organized.

Xie-Xijivuli

____ I'm so very sorry! I have an enormous research paper to work on. I cannot finish this. I urge you all to vote PRO for my ignorance and rude behavior. I'm sorry -- I will post my argument as is. ____ I'm going to try this from a new plane and then asses your rebuttals. Let me tell you the seven requirements for life: 1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature. 2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life. 3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life. 4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish. 5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present. 6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and chemotaxis. 7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth. Homeostasis ________ A fetus can do all of these. According to http://physiologyonline.physiology.org... and HP Laburn , "The fetus produces much metabolic heat and loses it mainly via the placental circulation, across a fetomaternal temperature gradient of ~0.5�‚��C. During maternal hyperthermia, the risk of noxious fetal hyperthermia is less than expected. The thermal protection appears to result from the fetus's own thermal inertia and consequences of maternal thermo-regulatory strategies." Thus, as we can see, a fetus has homeostasis. Organization ________ Since the fetus' body is composed of cells, it is, by definition, organized.

Health

Abortion/29/

I will be holding the affirmative position of the topic. I will state my reasons in the second round in support of my side. If my opponent would be so kind to state his/her reasons in a brief statement in this round....

heyitsjay

I will be holding the affirmative position of the topic. I will state my reasons in the second round in support of my side. If my opponent would be so kind to state his/her reasons in a brief statement in this round....

Health

Abortion/33/

My opponent has offered specific examples of abortion. Even though I was actually anticipating on the idea of medical abortion, I will argue against the evidence anyway. I will begin by arguing against "Abortions inflicted on unwilling people". Now, this technically can be classified as abortion. On the other hand, it could be classified as an act of assault as well. "Assault" can be performed by anyone as well as affecting anyone. There are many cases that are classified assault besides this. So this is not uncommon. "There is something inherently immoral in the act of walking up to a pregnant woman and kicking in her stomach such that she miscarries. Though this is a form of abortion, I argue that it should in no way be supported." In these cases, clearly the woman is unwilling to have an abortion anyway. So she does not intend on having an abortion. This is clearly an act of assault performed by the person who kicks her in the stomach. Immoral: -not in conformity with accepted principles of right and wrong behavior -wicked -not in conformity with the accepted standards of proper sexual behavior; unchaste; lewd (may I also note that many compare morality with Christianity as well as many other religious beliefs involving Christ) I care to dispute the fact that abortion is immoral. Many would say that abortion is immoral because it violates the Bible or it is murder. First of all, the Bible does mention many other things that should not be done besides murder. These would be called "sins". The Bible states that shaving your beard is immoral or is a sin. So, that strikes against everyman who does shave. I dispute this as well. "not in conformity with accepted principles of right and wrong behavior" What people think is right and wrong is all conceived by their own understanding. People all have their own idea of what is right or wrong and many care to argue their own opinions. For example this debate, I argue abortion is right and my opponent argues it is wrong. All made up of our own opinions. Some people feel vigilantism is right, others state it is wrong. May I remind the audience and my opponent that there are those who feel murder is right like for example terrorism in the Middle East. They thought 9/11 was justified. Clearly it was not but their own opinions caused the death toll of thousands of innocent lives. I now argue situations that damage many lives of women. For example rape. Many young women get raped every year as well as some young men. Women end up being pregnant unwillingly. Is it not fair for these people to have their entire life ruined when they can simply stop it. Pregnant teenagers "usually" result in no college, minimum wage, and no father to even care for the child. These situations affect the woman and child. The child was brought into a life where he/she has an irresponsible mother and father, no school or money, not even given the chance to be brought into a desirable life. This could be avoided through medical abortion when the child is not even anything but a mere cell. Teenagers who all share irresponsibility do not deserve to have many good opportunities taken away. Yes, they were very idiotic for being so irresponsible for having unprotected sex when unprepared for having a child. But it makes the situation much worse when the child is brought into the world. It is not fair for the teenager to have opportunities taken away and not fair for the child to be brought into the world with no one responsible enough to take care of him or her. These also goes for all women in general.

heyitsjay

My opponent has offered specific examples of abortion. Even though I was actually anticipating on the idea of medical abortion, I will argue against the evidence anyway. I will begin by arguing against "Abortions inflicted on unwilling people". Now, this technically can be classified as abortion. On the other hand, it could be classified as an act of assault as well. "Assault" can be performed by anyone as well as affecting anyone. There are many cases that are classified assault besides this. So this is not uncommon. "There is something inherently immoral in the act of walking up to a pregnant woman and kicking in her stomach such that she miscarries. Though this is a form of abortion, I argue that it should in no way be supported." In these cases, clearly the woman is unwilling to have an abortion anyway. So she does not intend on having an abortion. This is clearly an act of assault performed by the person who kicks her in the stomach. Immoral: -not in conformity with accepted principles of right and wrong behavior -wicked -not in conformity with the accepted standards of proper sexual behavior; unchaste; lewd (may I also note that many compare morality with Christianity as well as many other religious beliefs involving Christ) I care to dispute the fact that abortion is immoral. Many would say that abortion is immoral because it violates the Bible or it is murder. First of all, the Bible does mention many other things that should not be done besides murder. These would be called "sins". The Bible states that shaving your beard is immoral or is a sin. So, that strikes against everyman who does shave. I dispute this as well. "not in conformity with accepted principles of right and wrong behavior" What people think is right and wrong is all conceived by their own understanding. People all have their own idea of what is right or wrong and many care to argue their own opinions. For example this debate, I argue abortion is right and my opponent argues it is wrong. All made up of our own opinions. Some people feel vigilantism is right, others state it is wrong. May I remind the audience and my opponent that there are those who feel murder is right like for example terrorism in the Middle East. They thought 9/11 was justified. Clearly it was not but their own opinions caused the death toll of thousands of innocent lives. I now argue situations that damage many lives of women. For example rape. Many young women get raped every year as well as some young men. Women end up being pregnant unwillingly. Is it not fair for these people to have their entire life ruined when they can simply stop it. Pregnant teenagers "usually" result in no college, minimum wage, and no father to even care for the child. These situations affect the woman and child. The child was brought into a life where he/she has an irresponsible mother and father, no school or money, not even given the chance to be brought into a desirable life. This could be avoided through medical abortion when the child is not even anything but a mere cell. Teenagers who all share irresponsibility do not deserve to have many good opportunities taken away. Yes, they were very idiotic for being so irresponsible for having unprotected sex when unprepared for having a child. But it makes the situation much worse when the child is brought into the world. It is not fair for the teenager to have opportunities taken away and not fair for the child to be brought into the world with no one responsible enough to take care of him or her. These also goes for all women in general.

Health

Abortion/33/

I thank my opponent for his response to my previous statement. "Whether or not abortion can also be classified as assault is irrelevant to this debate" (I argue this statement) As a matter of fact it is relevant to this debate. The topic we are discussing is abortion and whether it should be accepted or not. Clearly anyone who is kicked in the stomach has witnessed an act of assault. Abortion is only abortion if it is considered to be or not to be by the child carrier. If not considered abortion, it is only a mere act of assault. This can happen to anyone. I now argue my opponent's ideology of the "morning after pill". Referring back to my opponent's definition of abortion, the morning after pill is also another form of abortion. It all eliminates the infant correct? Therefore, my opponent provided another form of abortion that he stated is the solution to pregnancy even though he is supposed to argue against it. Any act of the mother eliminating her child would be classified as abortion only if it is intended by the carrier. Immorality: No, I was not intending it to fall under my opponent's four categories. I was only preventing that from being argued. It may not be relevant to the four types of abortion, but it is relevant to the topic at hand. what is right and wrong?: The people in this world have their own basic concept of what is right or wrong. This can also relate to morality. Every single person shares the same individual mindset, their own gathered ideas and opinions of what is right and wrong. I extend my argument referring to morality with only the slightest question...What is moral in this world? Certainly not shaving. This refers to the Bible. It is absolutely hypocritical for someone who shaves to say abortion is immoral. In addition to my opponent's remark about whether kicking a woman in the stomach is moral or not. Assault is not moral. But then again we are not talking about assault, we are talking about abortion. Why I did not respond to the other three categories of abortion, well that is the thing....I actually did in a general remark. Referring to my previous statements about morality, intentional abortion and teen pregnancy. I extend my previous arguments..... In conclusion, I affirm abortion as a way of preventing further difficulty in life with both the mother and child. Creating problems or preventing them with out the slightest sense of guilt. Thank you!

heyitsjay

I thank my opponent for his response to my previous statement. "Whether or not abortion can also be classified as assault is irrelevant to this debate" (I argue this statement) As a matter of fact it is relevant to this debate. The topic we are discussing is abortion and whether it should be accepted or not. Clearly anyone who is kicked in the stomach has witnessed an act of assault. Abortion is only abortion if it is considered to be or not to be by the child carrier. If not considered abortion, it is only a mere act of assault. This can happen to anyone. I now argue my opponent's ideology of the "morning after pill". Referring back to my opponent's definition of abortion, the morning after pill is also another form of abortion. It all eliminates the infant correct? Therefore, my opponent provided another form of abortion that he stated is the solution to pregnancy even though he is supposed to argue against it. Any act of the mother eliminating her child would be classified as abortion only if it is intended by the carrier. Immorality: No, I was not intending it to fall under my opponent's four categories. I was only preventing that from being argued. It may not be relevant to the four types of abortion, but it is relevant to the topic at hand. what is right and wrong?: The people in this world have their own basic concept of what is right or wrong. This can also relate to morality. Every single person shares the same individual mindset, their own gathered ideas and opinions of what is right and wrong. I extend my argument referring to morality with only the slightest question...What is moral in this world? Certainly not shaving. This refers to the Bible. It is absolutely hypocritical for someone who shaves to say abortion is immoral. In addition to my opponent's remark about whether kicking a woman in the stomach is moral or not. Assault is not moral. But then again we are not talking about assault, we are talking about abortion. Why I did not respond to the other three categories of abortion, well that is the thing....I actually did in a general remark. Referring to my previous statements about morality, intentional abortion and teen pregnancy. I extend my previous arguments..... In conclusion, I affirm abortion as a way of preventing further difficulty in life with both the mother and child. Creating problems or preventing them with out the slightest sense of guilt. Thank you!

Health

Abortion/33/

"Abortion is wrong and should be illegal in the USA! Except or rape incest and mothers health but it is a such a low percentage for it to ever get passed i would have to give that up." "Abortion is wrong" is not a valid argument - "should be illegal" renders this debate into the domain of philosophy. A pregnant woman is self-governing - and the only relevant party with rational capacities that make it relevant to regard her as having rights - rights that are solely derived from the unique nature of being human - the ability to be rational. Rights are only applicable to those with this characteristic - based on the reality that the employ of force against others is an unreliable means of gaining values. The rational conclusion to this is to prohibit force from normal interaction with others. Individual rights, define those areas or aspects of action which should be free from force. Forcing a birth is in direct violation of the concept of rights . It violates the mothers rights to her own self as her own property - a punishment for the non-crime of sex. She and she alone is the rational body. She alone has property rights, and the foetus, non-rational, non-rights bearing, is definitely existent as part of the mother's property.

Puck

"Abortion is wrong and should be illegal in the USA! Except or rape incest and mothers health but it is a such a low percentage for it to ever get passed i would have to give that up." "Abortion is wrong" is not a valid argument - "should be illegal" renders this debate into the domain of philosophy. A pregnant woman is self-governing - and the only relevant party with rational capacities that make it relevant to regard her as having rights - rights that are solely derived from the unique nature of being human - the ability to be rational. Rights are only applicable to those with this characteristic - based on the reality that the employ of force against others is an unreliable means of gaining values. The rational conclusion to this is to prohibit force from normal interaction with others. Individual rights, define those areas or aspects of action which should be free from force. Forcing a birth is in direct violation of the concept of rights . It violates the mothers rights to her own self as her own property - a punishment for the non-crime of sex. She and she alone is the rational body. She alone has property rights, and the foetus, non-rational, non-rights bearing, is definitely existent as part of the mother's property.

Politics

Abortion/36/

"Being the caretaker of our species, a woman has a awesome responsibly the sanctity of life." Ambiguous collective fallacy. An individual is responsible for a singular life, their own. No one individual has automatic claim on another. "In fact if her womb is violated against her will by an unwanted perpetrator, prisons throughout our country are full of these criminals." Sentence error - a statement does not follow the premise. "In regards to the rights of a woman, her right to judge the existence of another life ends at the moment of conception." Rights are negative claims on action - judging is a positive action and irrelevant in a discussion of rights. Note that the trait "alive" is your sole sufficient clause. A mosquito is alive, under this premise squashing one would be illegal. "For a woman to determine the unborn life to be any less or more important then her own is unjust in a civilized society." Ambiguous collective - again the trait "alive" is insufficient in the determination of rights - read R1. "Her decision and her right to decide the life of another human being ends when she, the caretaker, voluntarily decides to conceive." Human is a philosophical definition and refers solely to "rational animal" - rationality is the basis of rights, a foetus is not rational so thanks for conceding. A foetus is Homo sapien, not human. "At the moment of conception she relinquishes her rights to be anymore or less important then the life in which she carries, they are of equal value, no life is greater then another." Incorrect. The life she carries is a symbiote of which she has sole controlling interest, sole controlling decision as property holder of it. It is a visitor until such time as she determines she wants it removed from her property at which point it becomes a trespasser. :) By your premise of "trait - alive" a parasitic worm has rights over and above the controlling host human to destroy it - if you are going to be consistent. "To abort this creation from that moment forward for anything less then a life threatening reason is paramount to murder and the suicide of our society and man kind as we know it." Fallacy - slippery slope. Again by your sole trait of "alive" the daily microbial activity in our gut makes us all mass murderers. "In conclusion of this round a wise man once quoted "recently there has been a lot of talk about the merits of abortion right/wrong one side/ the other... but it would seem that human common sense should simply dictate that by purposely taking the life of a purely innocent Being about to embark on life's journey is and should be beyond our comprehension and ability to execute."" Common sense is not a solid foundation for law - it relies on current common perception - which is far from reliable and usually far from valid. Holding slaves was considered good sense. "If man kind has no problem with heinously killing and executing its unborn young then what next?" Fallacy - Appeal to emotion. Hopefully recognising such individual rights will lead to further recognition.

Puck

"Being the caretaker of our species, a woman has a awesome responsibly the sanctity of life." Ambiguous collective fallacy. An individual is responsible for a singular life, their own. No one individual has automatic claim on another. "In fact if her womb is violated against her will by an unwanted perpetrator, prisons throughout our country are full of these criminals." Sentence error - a statement does not follow the premise. "In regards to the rights of a woman, her right to judge the existence of another life ends at the moment of conception." Rights are negative claims on action - judging is a positive action and irrelevant in a discussion of rights. Note that the trait "alive" is your sole sufficient clause. A mosquito is alive, under this premise squashing one would be illegal. "For a woman to determine the unborn life to be any less or more important then her own is unjust in a civilized society." Ambiguous collective - again the trait "alive" is insufficient in the determination of rights - read R1. "Her decision and her right to decide the life of another human being ends when she, the caretaker, voluntarily decides to conceive." Human is a philosophical definition and refers solely to "rational animal" - rationality is the basis of rights, a foetus is not rational so thanks for conceding. A foetus is Homo sapien, not human. "At the moment of conception she relinquishes her rights to be anymore or less important then the life in which she carries, they are of equal value, no life is greater then another." Incorrect. The life she carries is a symbiote of which she has sole controlling interest, sole controlling decision as property holder of it. It is a visitor until such time as she determines she wants it removed from her property at which point it becomes a trespasser. :) By your premise of "trait - alive" a parasitic worm has rights over and above the controlling host human to destroy it - if you are going to be consistent. "To abort this creation from that moment forward for anything less then a life threatening reason is paramount to murder and the suicide of our society and man kind as we know it." Fallacy - slippery slope. Again by your sole trait of "alive" the daily microbial activity in our gut makes us all mass murderers. "In conclusion of this round a wise man once quoted "recently there has been a lot of talk about the merits of abortion right/wrong one side/ the other... but it would seem that human common sense should simply dictate that by purposely taking the life of a purely innocent Being about to embark on life's journey is and should be beyond our comprehension and ability to execute."" Common sense is not a solid foundation for law - it relies on current common perception - which is far from reliable and usually far from valid. Holding slaves was considered good sense. "If man kind has no problem with heinously killing and executing its unborn young then what next?" Fallacy - Appeal to emotion. Hopefully recognising such individual rights will lead to further recognition.

Politics

Abortion/36/

"You covered everything except Soylent Green. Check it out, its right up your ally." Advocating liberty =/= dystopia. "Wrong, again without a woman being responsibly for the sanctity of life we wouldn't have a civilization to discuss." Again ambiguous collective fallacy - there is no construct "society" here that is valid, only individuals. "Sentence correction - prisons throughout this country are full of criminals that have violated the womb of a woman." That relates to abortion being made legal how exactly? The only thing it does it harm your case by the law recognising a woman as her own property and the ability of a trespasser in that property. :) "Fallacy - squashing a mosquito would not be illegal, but killing a human being born or unborn should be." Saying "fallacy" is a useless exercise unless you indicate what one - i.e. how the argument is faulty. All you have done is gone NUHUH! Saying "should be" is the resolution, not an argument. "Wrong, the definition of Homo sapien is a human being, and by your our volition a foetus is Homo sapien, thus a foetus is human being and given time and maturity will have rationally thoughts, if not executed first through a abortion." This a debate on philosophical grounds - Homo sapien is a biological scientific classification - it indicates nothing more than demarcation between species - human is a philosophical one, and specifically means "rational animal." Volition has nothing to do with whether an organism meets a classification criteria. Potentiality argument fails - as a sperm and embryo both have potentials for development into a human - thus under your reasoning making periods and masturbation illegal. "Correction - you consider the life she carries a symbiote. I consider it a unborn human being, that she is a caretaker of, and not to be viewed as a piece of property but as an unborn life." Unborn and symbiote are no exclusive definitions. It is residing on property that the mother has controlling right over - her body. "Incorrect - a parasitic, a worm or any other form of bacteria has no controlling rights over the human it may occupy. A human embryo conceived by two opposite sexed humans does have rights, no more or less then the mother of which conceived it." You still fail to give a basis for what rights are other than "life" - as such all life still has rights under your premise - equally you fail utterly in building a case for the singular rights of a foetus. "Correction of Fallacy - the daily microbial activity of our stomach acid destroying bacteria in our digestive system, cannot be compared to the growth of a human embryo in a mothers womb and its destruction through abortion." Simply making a statement is not an argument. Using your premises. 1. Destruction of life is murder 2. A microbe is alive 3. Killing a microbe is murder "Common Sense is the only basics of law, without it there is no foundation." In America the basis is the constitution - not common sense. Common sense is simply an appeal to popularity - if laws were based on this sole premise then popular vote would need to occur for the creation of each legal decision. Clearly that doesn't occur. Clearly you fail. "No matter what the current common perception. Example the Holocaust was considered acceptable by Nazi Germany but basic human common sense finally deemed it wrong, and a crime against society at the Nuremberg trails." Murder was established as punishable far prior to post WWII. It is not "common sense" that dictates reaction to murder is is based upon the rational premise that force should be void from social actions i.e. the right to life. "The Holocaust was always found fundamentally wrong, as is abortion." Fallacy - weak analogy, abortion =/= WWII genocide. "Sentence error - recognizing spelled wrong" Queen's English. It may be difficult for you to understand, however America is not the origin of the English language. ==

Puck

"You covered everything except Soylent Green. Check it out, its right up your ally." Advocating liberty =/= dystopia. "Wrong, again without a woman being responsibly for the sanctity of life we wouldn't have a civilization to discuss." Again ambiguous collective fallacy - there is no construct "society" here that is valid, only individuals. "Sentence correction - prisons throughout this country are full of criminals that have violated the womb of a woman." That relates to abortion being made legal how exactly? The only thing it does it harm your case by the law recognising a woman as her own property and the ability of a trespasser in that property. :) "Fallacy - squashing a mosquito would not be illegal, but killing a human being born or unborn should be." Saying "fallacy" is a useless exercise unless you indicate what one - i.e. how the argument is faulty. All you have done is gone NUHUH! Saying "should be" is the resolution, not an argument. "Wrong, the definition of Homo sapien is a human being, and by your our volition a foetus is Homo sapien, thus a foetus is human being and given time and maturity will have rationally thoughts, if not executed first through a abortion." This a debate on philosophical grounds - Homo sapien is a biological scientific classification - it indicates nothing more than demarcation between species - human is a philosophical one, and specifically means "rational animal." Volition has nothing to do with whether an organism meets a classification criteria. Potentiality argument fails - as a sperm and embryo both have potentials for development into a human - thus under your reasoning making periods and masturbation illegal. "Correction - you consider the life she carries a symbiote. I consider it a unborn human being, that she is a caretaker of, and not to be viewed as a piece of property but as an unborn life." Unborn and symbiote are no exclusive definitions. It is residing on property that the mother has controlling right over - her body. "Incorrect - a parasitic, a worm or any other form of bacteria has no controlling rights over the human it may occupy. A human embryo conceived by two opposite sexed humans does have rights, no more or less then the mother of which conceived it." You still fail to give a basis for what rights are other than "life" - as such all life still has rights under your premise - equally you fail utterly in building a case for the singular rights of a foetus. "Correction of Fallacy - the daily microbial activity of our stomach acid destroying bacteria in our digestive system, cannot be compared to the growth of a human embryo in a mothers womb and its destruction through abortion." Simply making a statement is not an argument. Using your premises. 1. Destruction of life is murder 2. A microbe is alive 3. Killing a microbe is murder "Common Sense is the only basics of law, without it there is no foundation." In America the basis is the constitution - not common sense. Common sense is simply an appeal to popularity - if laws were based on this sole premise then popular vote would need to occur for the creation of each legal decision. Clearly that doesn't occur. Clearly you fail. "No matter what the current common perception. Example the Holocaust was considered acceptable by Nazi Germany but basic human common sense finally deemed it wrong, and a crime against society at the Nuremberg trails." Murder was established as punishable far prior to post WWII. It is not "common sense" that dictates reaction to murder is is based upon the rational premise that force should be void from social actions i.e. the right to life. "The Holocaust was always found fundamentally wrong, as is abortion." Fallacy - weak analogy, abortion =/= WWII genocide. "Sentence error - recognizing spelled wrong" Queen's English. It may be difficult for you to understand, however America is not the origin of the English language. ==

Politics

Abortion/36/

Abortion is wrong and should be illegal in the USA! Except or rape incest and mothers health but it is a such a low percentage for it to ever get passed i would have to give that up. Anybody wanna start this up!

SlamminSam212

Abortion is wrong and should be illegal in the USA! Except or rape incest and mothers health but it is a such a low percentage for it to ever get passed i would have to give that up. Anybody wanna start this up!

Politics

Abortion/36/

Being the caretaker of our species, a woman has a awesome responsibly the sanctity of life. In fact if her womb is violated against her will by an unwanted perpetrator, prisons throughout our country are full of these criminals. In regards to the rights of a woman, her right to judge the existence of another life ends at the moment of conception. "We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights of which among these being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." For a woman to determine the unborn life to be any less or more important then her own is unjust in a civilized society. Her decision and her right to decide the life of another human being ends when she, the caretaker, voluntarily decides to conceive. At the moment of conception she relinquishes her rights to be anymore or less important then the life in which she carries, they are of equal value, no life is greater then another. To abort this creation from that moment forward for anything less then a life threatening reason is paramount to murder and the suicide of our society and man kind as we know it. Pure unadulterated self destruction of man kind. In conclusion of this round a wise man once quoted "recently there has been a lot of talk about the merits of abortion right/wrong one side/ the other... but it would seem that human common sense should simply dictate that by purposely taking the life of a purely innocent Being about to embark on life's journey is and should be beyond our comprehension and ability to execute." If man kind has no problem with heinously killing and executing its unborn young then what next? Cannibalism, or maybe even Soylent Green? It's just people. Pro-Life or Pro-Death that's the choice.

SlamminSam212

Being the caretaker of our species, a woman has a awesome responsibly the sanctity of life. In fact if her womb is violated against her will by an unwanted perpetrator, prisons throughout our country are full of these criminals. In regards to the rights of a woman, her right to judge the existence of another life ends at the moment of conception. "We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights of which among these being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." For a woman to determine the unborn life to be any less or more important then her own is unjust in a civilized society. Her decision and her right to decide the life of another human being ends when she, the caretaker, voluntarily decides to conceive. At the moment of conception she relinquishes her rights to be anymore or less important then the life in which she carries, they are of equal value, no life is greater then another. To abort this creation from that moment forward for anything less then a life threatening reason is paramount to murder and the suicide of our society and man kind as we know it. Pure unadulterated self destruction of man kind. In conclusion of this round a wise man once quoted "recently there has been a lot of talk about the merits of abortion right/wrong one side/ the other... but it would seem that human common sense should simply dictate that by purposely taking the life of a purely innocent Being about to embark on life's journey is and should be beyond our comprehension and ability to execute." If man kind has no problem with heinously killing and executing its unborn young then what next? Cannibalism, or maybe even Soylent Green? It's just people. Pro-Life or Pro-Death that's the choice.

Politics

Abortion/36/

You covered everything except Soylent Green. Check it out, its right up your ally. "An individual is responsible for a singular life, their own. No one individual has automatic claim on another." Wrong, again without a woman being responsibly for the sanctity of life we wouldn't have a civilization to discuss. Sentence correction - prisons throughout this country are full of criminals that have violated the womb of a woman. "Rights are negative claims on action - judging is a positive action and irrelevant in a discussion of rights. Note that the trait "alive" is your sole sufficient clause. A mosquito is alive, under this premise squashing one would be illegal." Fallacy - squashing a mosquito would not be illegal, but killing a human being born or unborn should be. "Human is a philosophical definition and refers solely to "rational animal" - rationality is the basis of rights, a foetus is not rational so thanks for conceding. A foetus is Homo sapien, not human." Wrong, the definition of Homo sapien is a human being, and by your our volition a foetus is Homo sapien, thus a foetus is human being and given time and maturity will have rationally thoughts, if not executed first through a abortion. "Incorrect. The life she carries is a symbiote of which she has sole controlling interest, sole controlling decision as property holder of it. It is a visitor until such time as she determines she wants it removed from her property at which point it becomes a trespasser. :)" Correction - you consider the life she carries a symbiote. I consider it a unborn human being, that she is a caretaker of, and not to be viewed as a piece of property but as an unborn life. "By your premise of "trait - alive" a parasitic worm has rights over and above the controlling host human to destroy it - if you are going to be consistent." Incorrect - a parasitic, a worm or any other form of bacteria has no controlling rights over the human it may occupy. A human embryo conceived by two opposite sexed humans does have rights, no more or less then the mother of which conceived it. "Fallacy - slippery slope. Again by your sole trait of "alive" the daily microbial activity in our gut makes us all mass murderers." Correction of Fallacy - the daily microbial activity of our stomach acid destroying bacteria in our digestive system, cannot be compared to the growth of a human embryo in a mothers womb and its destruction through abortion. "Common sense is not a solid foundation for law - it relies on current common perception - which is far from reliable and usually far from valid. Holding slaves was considered good sense." Common Sense is the only basics of law, without it there is no foundation. No matter what the current common perception. Example the Holocaust was considered acceptable by Nazi Germany but basic human common sense finally deemed it wrong, and a crime against society at the Nuremberg trails. The Holocaust was always found fundamentally wrong, as is abortion. "Fallacy - Appeal to emotion. Hopefully recognising such individual rights will lead to further recognition." Sentence error - recognizing spelled wrong Human emotion - fortunately we have it, other forms of life do not. That is the salvation of our very existence. Man kind without emotion cannot continue to unjustly kill its young. VOTE CON!

SlamminSam212

You covered everything except Soylent Green. Check it out, its right up your ally. "An individual is responsible for a singular life, their own. No one individual has automatic claim on another." Wrong, again without a woman being responsibly for the sanctity of life we wouldn't have a civilization to discuss. Sentence correction - prisons throughout this country are full of criminals that have violated the womb of a woman. "Rights are negative claims on action - judging is a positive action and irrelevant in a discussion of rights. Note that the trait "alive" is your sole sufficient clause. A mosquito is alive, under this premise squashing one would be illegal." Fallacy - squashing a mosquito would not be illegal, but killing a human being born or unborn should be. "Human is a philosophical definition and refers solely to "rational animal" - rationality is the basis of rights, a foetus is not rational so thanks for conceding. A foetus is Homo sapien, not human." Wrong, the definition of Homo sapien is a human being, and by your our volition a foetus is Homo sapien, thus a foetus is human being and given time and maturity will have rationally thoughts, if not executed first through a abortion. "Incorrect. The life she carries is a symbiote of which she has sole controlling interest, sole controlling decision as property holder of it. It is a visitor until such time as she determines she wants it removed from her property at which point it becomes a trespasser. :)" Correction - you consider the life she carries a symbiote. I consider it a unborn human being, that she is a caretaker of, and not to be viewed as a piece of property but as an unborn life. "By your premise of "trait - alive" a parasitic worm has rights over and above the controlling host human to destroy it - if you are going to be consistent." Incorrect - a parasitic, a worm or any other form of bacteria has no controlling rights over the human it may occupy. A human embryo conceived by two opposite sexed humans does have rights, no more or less then the mother of which conceived it. "Fallacy - slippery slope. Again by your sole trait of "alive" the daily microbial activity in our gut makes us all mass murderers." Correction of Fallacy - the daily microbial activity of our stomach acid destroying bacteria in our digestive system, cannot be compared to the growth of a human embryo in a mothers womb and its destruction through abortion. "Common sense is not a solid foundation for law - it relies on current common perception - which is far from reliable and usually far from valid. Holding slaves was considered good sense." Common Sense is the only basics of law, without it there is no foundation. No matter what the current common perception. Example the Holocaust was considered acceptable by Nazi Germany but basic human common sense finally deemed it wrong, and a crime against society at the Nuremberg trails. The Holocaust was always found fundamentally wrong, as is abortion. "Fallacy - Appeal to emotion. Hopefully recognising such individual rights will lead to further recognition." Sentence error - recognizing spelled wrong Human emotion - fortunately we have it, other forms of life do not. That is the salvation of our very existence. Man kind without emotion cannot continue to unjustly kill its young. VOTE CON!

Politics

Abortion/36/

One Word. 'Bodily Autonomy' -TBR

RobieRX

One Word. 'Bodily Autonomy' -TBR

Health

Abortion/411/

I am against abortion, it is an unhealthy choice. It damages women's bodies and later on in life if they decide that they do happen to want children, there is a major possibility that they can not have a child, because of the previous damage caused from the abortion. There are many great families around the world that are willing to adopt. Murder is a crime, so shouldn't abortion also be a crime, because in both cases a life is being taken away from another person. If a murder gets the death penalty or life in prison for killing someone, why is abortion any different because of the victim's age . Many people always bring up the depressing stages they will go through, and honestly they are right to a certain extent. Although it is a fact that if the adoption parents are honest from day one about their adoption the child won't have as big of a problem with it because they won't feel lied to their entire lives. People also say that they will take their lives after being depressed for a certain amount time, well in that case that is a life lost anyways. so why not let them live a happy life and if they begin to fall into depression, then someone can get them as much help as possible, before it becomes a serious matter. There have been times that the fathers of the babies want their partners to have the babies because they will take full custody of them, but the female has an abortion anyways because it is her body, but you have to realize that it took two people to create this child. A majority of women regret it later. So, why take a life that doesn't belong to you?

mckinnahlynn

I am against abortion, it is an unhealthy choice. It damages women's bodies and later on in life if they decide that they do happen to want children, there is a major possibility that they can not have a child, because of the previous damage caused from the abortion. There are many great families around the world that are willing to adopt. Murder is a crime, so shouldn't abortion also be a crime, because in both cases a life is being taken away from another person. If a murder gets the death penalty or life in prison for killing someone, why is abortion any different because of the victim's age . Many people always bring up the depressing stages they will go through, and honestly they are right to a certain extent. Although it is a fact that if the adoption parents are honest from day one about their adoption the child won't have as big of a problem with it because they won't feel lied to their entire lives. People also say that they will take their lives after being depressed for a certain amount time, well in that case that is a life lost anyways. so why not let them live a happy life and if they begin to fall into depression, then someone can get them as much help as possible, before it becomes a serious matter. There have been times that the fathers of the babies want their partners to have the babies because they will take full custody of them, but the female has an abortion anyways because it is her body, but you have to realize that it took two people to create this child. A majority of women regret it later. So, why take a life that doesn't belong to you?

Health

Abortion/411/

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/

Thank you for challanging me, I always like a debate that is pretty challenging. "I have debated this topic before, twice actually, but when a Christian comes along claiming that homosexuality is not a sin, I simply cannot pass up the opportunity for debate :) This is a topic that I have spent a decent amount of time looking into, and a topic that I feel very strongly about." LOL, no arguement against wanting a good debate about something you feel strongly about. After all isn't that the purpose of debate.org? "You said in your comments earlier that you believe homosexuality is wrong for christians. You also say it is a right for non-christians to be homosexual, and you will defend homosexuality for non-christians." This is true, because if you are a non-christian you have just as many rights as a Cchristian to do anything you want, within the law of the land you are in. Such as The US, and whatever state/county/town you are in. Thus if the law let those marry who wish to be married, who are we to stand in the way? It's not like banning homosexuals from marrying they wont "Lie with another man as thy lieth with a woman", so all arguements against it are void, for the moment unless you can refute that fact. People say "Well homosexuals CAN get marrid...just not to the person they want." Well if that's the case, let's all get an aranged marriage, ho cares if you love her, this is a girl the law says you can marry. See how rediculous that is, that is what homo-phobes sound like trying to keep homosexual couples from marrying? "I say that God speaks out blatently against homosexuality, and that He says in no uncertain terms that it is a blatent sin. Take for example the following scriptures:" Those scriptures may be true, but again we are talking about non-christians, no matter how many scriptures you type up, and show them, they are entitled to their own opinion, and their opinion may very well be that god doesn't exist, thus it wouldn't stop them from doing what they want. In the US man is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happieness. By denying them the right to marry who they want you are not allowing them the pursuit of happieness. Anyway if they get married how will that affect you at all? If your best friend is gay and never told you, and after 6 years of friendship, he tells you are you going to treat him differnetly? Will you not be his friend anymore? Will you recite bible verses to try and stop him from being gay? "I personally dont know how you could argue with that. The only thing you could bring up is that these were given in the Old Testament, and were therefore outdated with the institution of the covanent of grace." LOL, no that gets used to much around here, so I thought I'd use what I use against my father, who is homophbic, he has never come up with an arguement so I want to see the arguement against it. "Some would argue that these laws forbidding homosexuality were abolished with the laws that prohibitted playing with pigskin, wearing cotton-polyester blends, etc., however I do not think this is the case." Maybe so maybe not it doesn't matter, if I remember correcly we are debating no-christians right to marry whoever in the world they want. "In the Old Testament, if you played with pigskin, you were considered "unclean". This meant that nobody could touch you, and people had to generally avoid you. In order to fix this, you would have to go through a waiting period, and then undergo a ritual washing or cleansing. once this cleansing took place you were considered clean again." We are not talking about pigskin are we? On the plus side, I now have an arguement for why I hate football... "Once the covanent of grace (New Testament) replaced the convanent of works (Old Testament), the sacrament of baptism (New Testament) replaced the sacrament of circumcision (Old Testament)." So what you are saying is if you get babtised over and over again you can cleanse all your sins? I believe it is a one time only deal personally. Otherwise, the arguement has no place in this debate. "Once baptism was instituted, it abolished all of the laws that had to do with being "unclean". This is because baptism represents dying with Christ, and being washed in His blood; which is the ultimate cleansing." So are you saying that every time you sin you can just be baptised and be completely clean? Or are you saying that because god said that it is unclean for two men to lie together, that it is erased because of the new testament? I'm now confused on what side you are on. "There were certain laws, however, like the Ten Commandments and the laws concerning homosexuality. Why do I think this? Simply because homosexuality is also spoken against in the New Testament. Take these passages for example:" See now you are making sense. Again, I am not debating bible verses unless they pertain to non-christians, and every non-christian (or the vast majority at least) can agree with it. Thus the versus are void in our debate. If the debate was "Homo-sexuality is wrong for christians" than I would concede your point, but that's not what it is now is it? "I think we both know the defenition of "sodomite", or "sodomy". I think this will do for my opening argument! Thanks a bunch! Renzzy" Yes we both know, as I have said in the comments. I can't wait for your second round arguement.

Im_always_right

Thank you for challanging me, I always like a debate that is pretty challenging. "I have debated this topic before, twice actually, but when a Christian comes along claiming that homosexuality is not a sin, I simply cannot pass up the opportunity for debate :) This is a topic that I have spent a decent amount of time looking into, and a topic that I feel very strongly about." LOL, no arguement against wanting a good debate about something you feel strongly about. After all isn't that the purpose of debate.org? "You said in your comments earlier that you believe homosexuality is wrong for christians. You also say it is a right for non-christians to be homosexual, and you will defend homosexuality for non-christians." This is true, because if you are a non-christian you have just as many rights as a Cchristian to do anything you want, within the law of the land you are in. Such as The US, and whatever state/county/town you are in. Thus if the law let those marry who wish to be married, who are we to stand in the way? It's not like banning homosexuals from marrying they wont "Lie with another man as thy lieth with a woman", so all arguements against it are void, for the moment unless you can refute that fact. People say "Well homosexuals CAN get marrid...just not to the person they want." Well if that's the case, let's all get an aranged marriage, ho cares if you love her, this is a girl the law says you can marry. See how rediculous that is, that is what homo-phobes sound like trying to keep homosexual couples from marrying? "I say that God speaks out blatently against homosexuality, and that He says in no uncertain terms that it is a blatent sin. Take for example the following scriptures:" Those scriptures may be true, but again we are talking about non-christians, no matter how many scriptures you type up, and show them, they are entitled to their own opinion, and their opinion may very well be that god doesn't exist, thus it wouldn't stop them from doing what they want. In the US man is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happieness. By denying them the right to marry who they want you are not allowing them the pursuit of happieness. Anyway if they get married how will that affect you at all? If your best friend is gay and never told you, and after 6 years of friendship, he tells you are you going to treat him differnetly? Will you not be his friend anymore? Will you recite bible verses to try and stop him from being gay? "I personally dont know how you could argue with that. The only thing you could bring up is that these were given in the Old Testament, and were therefore outdated with the institution of the covanent of grace." LOL, no that gets used to much around here, so I thought I'd use what I use against my father, who is homophbic, he has never come up with an arguement so I want to see the arguement against it. "Some would argue that these laws forbidding homosexuality were abolished with the laws that prohibitted playing with pigskin, wearing cotton-polyester blends, etc., however I do not think this is the case." Maybe so maybe not it doesn't matter, if I remember correcly we are debating no-christians right to marry whoever in the world they want. "In the Old Testament, if you played with pigskin, you were considered "unclean". This meant that nobody could touch you, and people had to generally avoid you. In order to fix this, you would have to go through a waiting period, and then undergo a ritual washing or cleansing. once this cleansing took place you were considered clean again." We are not talking about pigskin are we? On the plus side, I now have an arguement for why I hate football... "Once the covanent of grace (New Testament) replaced the convanent of works (Old Testament), the sacrament of baptism (New Testament) replaced the sacrament of circumcision (Old Testament)." So what you are saying is if you get babtised over and over again you can cleanse all your sins? I believe it is a one time only deal personally. Otherwise, the arguement has no place in this debate. "Once baptism was instituted, it abolished all of the laws that had to do with being "unclean". This is because baptism represents dying with Christ, and being washed in His blood; which is the ultimate cleansing." So are you saying that every time you sin you can just be baptised and be completely clean? Or are you saying that because god said that it is unclean for two men to lie together, that it is erased because of the new testament? I'm now confused on what side you are on. "There were certain laws, however, like the Ten Commandments and the laws concerning homosexuality. Why do I think this? Simply because homosexuality is also spoken against in the New Testament. Take these passages for example:" See now you are making sense. Again, I am not debating bible verses unless they pertain to non-christians, and every non-christian (or the vast majority at least) can agree with it. Thus the versus are void in our debate. If the debate was "Homo-sexuality is wrong for christians" than I would concede your point, but that's not what it is now is it? "I think we both know the defenition of "sodomite", or "sodomy". I think this will do for my opening argument! Thanks a bunch! Renzzy" Yes we both know, as I have said in the comments. I can't wait for your second round arguement.

Religion

According-to-the-Bible-Homosexuality-is-a-Sin./1/

Homosexuality may be a sin, but you are never going to convince homosexuals that they are going to Hell, just because they love someone from the same sex. You warned me you would use scriptures to bacxk up your points, but here are my scriptures: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy; but I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.--ST MATTHEW v. 43-48." Which in this case can mean that you thnk you are supposed to hate homosexuals, but in fact you need to love them. It is not up to us to say what can and cannot be. I am not saying that christians should be gay, but they should not have a problem with gay people, and should not lable them or think less of them. It may be true that it is a sin, but think of this, God created all, God thereby created homosexuality, God loves everybody, thus God must love homosexuals. Yes, or no? "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:27" If God created man in his own mage, wouldn't it stand to reason, that God doesn't hate homosexuals? Homosexuality is not an unforgivable sin, it is not even on the top 17 sins, which are the 10 commandments, and the 7 deadly sins, the list of those sins are: And God spoke all these words, saying: 'I am the LORD your God... ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.' TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.' THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.' FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.' FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.' SIX: 'You shall not murder.' SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.' EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.' NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.' TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.' Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity. Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation. Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires. Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body. Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath. Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness. Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work. Which it doesn't make it any better, but it is not a sin: ttp://en.wikipedia.org... According to my resources, homosexuality is not a sin and christians should not interfere with their relationship, and the right to marry. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

Im_always_right

Homosexuality may be a sin, but you are never going to convince homosexuals that they are going to Hell, just because they love someone from the same sex. You warned me you would use scriptures to bacxk up your points, but here are my scriptures: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy; but I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.--ST MATTHEW v. 43-48." Which in this case can mean that you thnk you are supposed to hate homosexuals, but in fact you need to love them. It is not up to us to say what can and cannot be. I am not saying that christians should be gay, but they should not have a problem with gay people, and should not lable them or think less of them. It may be true that it is a sin, but think of this, God created all, God thereby created homosexuality, God loves everybody, thus God must love homosexuals. Yes, or no? "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:27" If God created man in his own mage, wouldn't it stand to reason, that God doesn't hate homosexuals? Homosexuality is not an unforgivable sin, it is not even on the top 17 sins, which are the 10 commandments, and the 7 deadly sins, the list of those sins are: And God spoke all these words, saying: 'I am the LORD your God… ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.' TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.' THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.' FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.' FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.' SIX: 'You shall not murder.' SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.' EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.' NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.' TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.' Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity. Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation. Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires. Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body. Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath. Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness. Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work. Which it doesn't make it any better, but it is not a sin: ttp://en.wikipedia.org... According to my resources, homosexuality is not a sin and christians should not interfere with their relationship, and the right to marry. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

Religion

According-to-the-Bible-Homosexuality-is-a-Sin./1/

Homosexuality is NOT a sin, the bible only talks about MEN lying with other MEN, not woman and woman, therefore, SODOMITES are the real sinners. Not homosexuals.

Im_always_right

Homosexuality is NOT a sin, the bible only talks about MEN lying with other MEN, not woman and woman, therefore, SODOMITES are the real sinners. Not homosexuals.

Religion

According-to-the-Bible-Homosexuality-is-a-Sin./1/

Hello I Am Always Right, and thank you for accepting my debate challenge. I have debated this topic before, twice actually, but when a Christian comes along claiming that homosexuality is not a sin, I simply cannot pass up the opportunity for debate :) This is a topic that I have spent a decent amount of time looking into, and a topic that I feel very strongly about. With that, let the debate begin! I, as PRO, am affirming that: "According to the Bible, Homosexuality is a Sin." I will stick mainly to scripture. It is the backbone of my life, and will therefore be the backbone of my arguments. ------------------------------------------ You said in your comments earlier that you believe homosexuality is wrong for christians. You also say it is a right for non-christians to be homosexual, and you will defend homosexuality for non-christians. I say that God speaks out blatently against homosexuality, and that He says in no uncertain terms that it is a blatent sin. Take for example the following scriptures: LEVITICUS 18:22--- " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.'" LEVITICUS 20:13--- " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.' " I personally dont know how you could argue with that. The only thing you could bring up is that these were given in the Old Testament, and were therefore outdated with the institution of the covanent of grace. Some would argue that these laws forbidding homosexuality were abolished with the laws that prohibitted playing with pigskin, wearing cotton-polyester blends, etc., however I do not think this is the case. When God instituted the convanent of grace, many of the Old Testament laws were abolished. Like I said above, playing with pigskin and wearing cotton-polyester blends were among these laws. First, lets look at what they meant. In the Old Testament, if you played with pigskin, you were considered "unclean". This meant that nobody could touch you, and people had to generally avoid you. In order to fix this, you would have to go through a waiting period, and then undergo a ritual washing or cleansing. once this cleansing took place you were considered clean again. Once the covanent of grace (New Testament) replaced the convanent of works (Old Testament), the sacrament of baptism (New Testament) replaced the sacrament of circumcision (Old Testament). The Greek word for bapism is "bap-TEEZ-mos", or "baptizmos". Translated literally, it means "ritual washing or cleansing". Once baptism was instituted, it abolished all of the laws that had to do with being "unclean". This is because baptism represents dying with Christ, and being washed in His blood; which is the ultimate cleansing. There were certain laws, however, like the Ten Commandments and the laws concerning homosexuality. Why do I think this? Simply because homosexuality is also spoken against in the New Testament. Take these passages for example: 1 TIM. 1:9-10--- "...knowing that th law is not made for the righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for the sinners, for the unholy and profane, for muderers of fathers and muderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, FOR SODOMITES, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine," 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10--- "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved. Neither fornicartors, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor SODOMITES,nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." --- 1 TIM. 1:9-10--- "...knowing that th law is not made for the righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate...FOR SODOMITES, for kidnappers..." I think we both know the defenition of "sodomite", or "sodomy". I think this will do for my opening argument! Thanks a bunch! Renzzy

Renzzy

Hello I Am Always Right, and thank you for accepting my debate challenge. I have debated this topic before, twice actually, but when a Christian comes along claiming that homosexuality is not a sin, I simply cannot pass up the opportunity for debate :) This is a topic that I have spent a decent amount of time looking into, and a topic that I feel very strongly about. With that, let the debate begin! I, as PRO, am affirming that: "According to the Bible, Homosexuality is a Sin." I will stick mainly to scripture. It is the backbone of my life, and will therefore be the backbone of my arguments. ------------------------------------------ You said in your comments earlier that you believe homosexuality is wrong for christians. You also say it is a right for non-christians to be homosexual, and you will defend homosexuality for non-christians. I say that God speaks out blatently against homosexuality, and that He says in no uncertain terms that it is a blatent sin. Take for example the following scriptures: LEVITICUS 18:22--- " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.'" LEVITICUS 20:13--- " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.' " I personally dont know how you could argue with that. The only thing you could bring up is that these were given in the Old Testament, and were therefore outdated with the institution of the covanent of grace. Some would argue that these laws forbidding homosexuality were abolished with the laws that prohibitted playing with pigskin, wearing cotton-polyester blends, etc., however I do not think this is the case. When God instituted the convanent of grace, many of the Old Testament laws were abolished. Like I said above, playing with pigskin and wearing cotton-polyester blends were among these laws. First, lets look at what they meant. In the Old Testament, if you played with pigskin, you were considered "unclean". This meant that nobody could touch you, and people had to generally avoid you. In order to fix this, you would have to go through a waiting period, and then undergo a ritual washing or cleansing. once this cleansing took place you were considered clean again. Once the covanent of grace (New Testament) replaced the convanent of works (Old Testament), the sacrament of baptism (New Testament) replaced the sacrament of circumcision (Old Testament). The Greek word for bapism is "bap-TEEZ-mos", or "baptizmos". Translated literally, it means "ritual washing or cleansing". Once baptism was instituted, it abolished all of the laws that had to do with being "unclean". This is because baptism represents dying with Christ, and being washed in His blood; which is the ultimate cleansing. There were certain laws, however, like the Ten Commandments and the laws concerning homosexuality. Why do I think this? Simply because homosexuality is also spoken against in the New Testament. Take these passages for example: 1 TIM. 1:9-10--- "...knowing that th law is not made for the righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for the sinners, for the unholy and profane, for muderers of fathers and muderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, FOR SODOMITES, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine," 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10--- "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved. Neither fornicartors, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor SODOMITES,nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." --- 1 TIM. 1:9-10--- "...knowing that th law is not made for the righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate...FOR SODOMITES, for kidnappers..." I think we both know the defenition of "sodomite", or "sodomy". I think this will do for my opening argument! Thanks a bunch! Renzzy

Religion

According-to-the-Bible-Homosexuality-is-a-Sin./1/

I am sorry to say that you completely missed the point of my whole argument. That is ok though, because it is kind of a confusing thing to grasp at first. I will try to simplify it a little more in this argument. "...because if you are a non-christian you have just as many rights as a Cchristian to do anything you want, within the law of the land you are in." This is quite true, however we are not talking about the laws of the land, but the laws in the Bible. Remeber the thesis of the debate is: According to the BIBLE, homosexuality is a sin. "Thus if the law let those marry who wish to be married, who are we to stand in the way? It's not like banning homosexuals from marrying they wont "Lie with another man as thy lieth with a woman", so all arguements against it are void, for the moment unless you can refute that fact." We are not arguing whether or not homosexuals CAN marry according to the laws here on earth, but rather whether or not they SHOULD be able to marry according to the laws writen in the Bible. As Christians, we are bound to the laws of the Bible, so we should stand by the fact that God considers homosexuality a sin, and we should oppose it's legality. "...again we are talking about non-christians, no matter how many scriptures you type up, and show them, they are entitled to their own opinion, and their opinion may very well be that god doesn't exist, thus it wouldn't stop them from doing what they want." Again, you missed the point. We are talking about the laws of the Bible in this debate. In the title, I did not say "according to the laws of the land", I said "According to the Bible". Like I said, you as a Christian should be opposed to gay marraige. Why? Because God says it is a sin. Being a non-believer does not give people the right to sin, nor you the right to support them in their sin. "LOL, no that gets used to much around here, so I thought I'd use what I use against my father, who is homophbic, he has never come up with an arguement so I want to see the arguement against it." You very well might, but not in this debate. This debate is not about the laws of the land. We are talking biblically. In this next sction, you COMPLETELY missed the entire point of my argument. This I do not blame you for, because I'm quite sure I did not word it as well as a could, and it is an over all confusing topic. I will try to restate more clearly. What I was trying to do was give examples of sins that were abolished with the institution of the Covanent of Grace, and tell why they were abolished. Law such as touching pigskin were abolished with the institution of baptism because baptism represented the ultimate cleansing, or the once-for-all cleansing in the death of Christ. Homosexuality was not included, and we know this because it is spoken against in the New Testament as well as the Old Testament. I did not go off topic, rather I went into an in-depth explaination. Perhaps more in-depth than was necessary, but I like to close that point right off the start so it is not an issue. "...if I remember correcly we are debating no-christians right to marry whoever in the world they want." Unfortunately you do not remember correctly. We are debating Whether or not homosexuality is a sin, and whether or not Christians should support it. "So what you are saying is if you get babtised over and over again you can cleanse all your sins?" No that is not at all what I am saying. What I am saying is that baptism is symbolic of the cleansing found in the death of Christ. Thus it is a one time thing. I believe that if you are a christian, and you go your whole life without baptism, you will still go to heaven. I also believe that baptism is noting more than a sacrament, and though we are commanded by God to do it as Christians, salvation is not dependant on it. I hope the whole baptism issue is cleared up now. "Again, I am not debating bible verses unless they pertain to non-christians, and every non-christian (or the vast majority at least) can agree with it." Again, we are debating according to the Bible. However, I can provide you with verses that meet those standards if you wish... Jude 7--- "as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after STRANGE flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengance of eternal fire." This verse, being ambiguous on the spiritual state of said people, refers to both Christians and non-christiasns. ROMANS 1:21-27--- "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." This scripture passage refers to people who have never believed in or worshiped God. Besides this, in all of the other verses I have quoted, it does not say "Christian sodomites", but rather refers to sodomites in generl. Having said that, all of my previous arguments still stand. I hope that cleared things up! Thanks! Renzzy

Renzzy

I am sorry to say that you completely missed the point of my whole argument. That is ok though, because it is kind of a confusing thing to grasp at first. I will try to simplify it a little more in this argument. "...because if you are a non-christian you have just as many rights as a Cchristian to do anything you want, within the law of the land you are in." This is quite true, however we are not talking about the laws of the land, but the laws in the Bible. Remeber the thesis of the debate is: According to the BIBLE, homosexuality is a sin. "Thus if the law let those marry who wish to be married, who are we to stand in the way? It's not like banning homosexuals from marrying they wont "Lie with another man as thy lieth with a woman", so all arguements against it are void, for the moment unless you can refute that fact." We are not arguing whether or not homosexuals CAN marry according to the laws here on earth, but rather whether or not they SHOULD be able to marry according to the laws writen in the Bible. As Christians, we are bound to the laws of the Bible, so we should stand by the fact that God considers homosexuality a sin, and we should oppose it's legality. "...again we are talking about non-christians, no matter how many scriptures you type up, and show them, they are entitled to their own opinion, and their opinion may very well be that god doesn't exist, thus it wouldn't stop them from doing what they want." Again, you missed the point. We are talking about the laws of the Bible in this debate. In the title, I did not say "according to the laws of the land", I said "According to the Bible". Like I said, you as a Christian should be opposed to gay marraige. Why? Because God says it is a sin. Being a non-believer does not give people the right to sin, nor you the right to support them in their sin. "LOL, no that gets used to much around here, so I thought I'd use what I use against my father, who is homophbic, he has never come up with an arguement so I want to see the arguement against it." You very well might, but not in this debate. This debate is not about the laws of the land. We are talking biblically. In this next sction, you COMPLETELY missed the entire point of my argument. This I do not blame you for, because I'm quite sure I did not word it as well as a could, and it is an over all confusing topic. I will try to restate more clearly. What I was trying to do was give examples of sins that were abolished with the institution of the Covanent of Grace, and tell why they were abolished. Law such as touching pigskin were abolished with the institution of baptism because baptism represented the ultimate cleansing, or the once-for-all cleansing in the death of Christ. Homosexuality was not included, and we know this because it is spoken against in the New Testament as well as the Old Testament. I did not go off topic, rather I went into an in-depth explaination. Perhaps more in-depth than was necessary, but I like to close that point right off the start so it is not an issue. "...if I remember correcly we are debating no-christians right to marry whoever in the world they want." Unfortunately you do not remember correctly. We are debating Whether or not homosexuality is a sin, and whether or not Christians should support it. "So what you are saying is if you get babtised over and over again you can cleanse all your sins?" No that is not at all what I am saying. What I am saying is that baptism is symbolic of the cleansing found in the death of Christ. Thus it is a one time thing. I believe that if you are a christian, and you go your whole life without baptism, you will still go to heaven. I also believe that baptism is noting more than a sacrament, and though we are commanded by God to do it as Christians, salvation is not dependant on it. I hope the whole baptism issue is cleared up now. "Again, I am not debating bible verses unless they pertain to non-christians, and every non-christian (or the vast majority at least) can agree with it." Again, we are debating according to the Bible. However, I can provide you with verses that meet those standards if you wish... Jude 7--- "as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after STRANGE flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengance of eternal fire." This verse, being ambiguous on the spiritual state of said people, refers to both Christians and non-christiasns. ROMANS 1:21-27--- "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." This scripture passage refers to people who have never believed in or worshiped God. Besides this, in all of the other verses I have quoted, it does not say "Christian sodomites", but rather refers to sodomites in generl. Having said that, all of my previous arguments still stand. I hope that cleared things up! Thanks! Renzzy

Religion

According-to-the-Bible-Homosexuality-is-a-Sin./1/

"Which in this case can mean that you thnk you are supposed to hate homosexuals, but in fact you need to love them. It is not up to us to say what can and cannot be." I never once said I hate homosexuals. I love them just like any other person, and respect them as individuals. I do not hate them, nor am I what you you would call a "homophobe". I do not think Christians are supposed to hate homosexuals, nor do I think we should hate those who kill people or rape children. We are, like this passage says, to love all people. All I sid was that we as Christians should nor be SUPPORTIVE of the homosexual lifestyle. I have presented verses that support my claim, and say homosexuality is a sin. You have neither refuted these verses nor presented any or you own concerning homosexuality. Thebest verses you could present in you favor would be those commanding us to love eachother, but once again this says nothing concerning homosexual love. "...God thereby created homosexuality..." God what? LEVITICUS 18:22--- " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.'" God creaqted homosexuality, but He detests it? This is simply LUDICROUS. I am sorry, but claiming that a perfect God created something He hates is a completely RIDICULOUS thing to say. End of story. "...God loves everybody..." What I am about to say you will only hear from five point Calvinist, Orthodox Presbyterian. It is deffinately not the most popular view to take, but I believe firmly that it is the correct one. If you believe otherwise, feel free to challenge me to a debate. Malachi 1:2-3--- " 'I have loved you,' says the LORD. 'But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' 'Was not Esau Jacob's brother?' the LORD says. 'Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.' " "Esau I have hated..." Wait, God hated somone? Yes He did. As an Orthodox Presbyterian, I firmly believe this passage is literal and true, and that God does not love all people. Does this mean that He hates all homosexuals? No it does not. What it means is that He loves His elect. We do not know who His elect are, so we cannot say for sure that He love all homosexuals, murderers, rapists, or anyone for that matter. If you think I am crazy, and that I have totally skewed God into something bad, read Romans 9. I will explain better than I can. Also, like I said, feel fre to challenge me to a debate. "...thus God must love homosexuals. Yes, or no?" No. "If God created man in his own mage, wouldn't it stand to reason, that God doesn't hate homosexuals?" No it would not. God created man in His own image, yes, but man fell, and therefore seperated himself from God completely. Being created in God's image does not redeem this situation. however, like I said, I cannot say who God loves and does not love, all I can say is that god does not love ALL homosexuals. "Homosexuality is not an unforgivable sin, it is not even on the top 17 sins, which are the 10 commandments, and the 7 deadly sins..." The what? The top 17 sins? There are no "top sins". The ten commandments are not the worst sins, but they were given as the guidline for us to follow. Their purpose was to show God's people that they cannot keep even one of the commandments. Why those ten? Name one sin. any sin you can think of, and it will fall under one of those ten. Hate? It falls under #6. Pornography? It falls under #7. Homosexuality wouls also fall under #7 as a sexual sin. That is why those particular ten were chosen. They are not the "top ten" sins. The "seven deadly sins" are simply, on a general basis, the easiest for humans to fall into, and therefore one we ought to be careful of. not the "worst" sins. Just because homosexuaity does not fall into this list does not mean it is not a sin. Just look at the verses I presented. "According to my resources, homosexuality is not a sin and christians should not interfere with their relationship, and the right to marry." 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10--- "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved. Neither fornicartors, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor SODOMITES,nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." LEVITICUS 20:13--- " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.' " Now tell me it is not a sin. God is quite clear in these verses. Thanks a bunch! It was a good debate! Renzzy

Renzzy

"Which in this case can mean that you thnk you are supposed to hate homosexuals, but in fact you need to love them. It is not up to us to say what can and cannot be." I never once said I hate homosexuals. I love them just like any other person, and respect them as individuals. I do not hate them, nor am I what you you would call a "homophobe". I do not think Christians are supposed to hate homosexuals, nor do I think we should hate those who kill people or rape children. We are, like this passage says, to love all people. All I sid was that we as Christians should nor be SUPPORTIVE of the homosexual lifestyle. I have presented verses that support my claim, and say homosexuality is a sin. You have neither refuted these verses nor presented any or you own concerning homosexuality. Thebest verses you could present in you favor would be those commanding us to love eachother, but once again this says nothing concerning homosexual love. "...God thereby created homosexuality..." God what? LEVITICUS 18:22--- " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.'" God creaqted homosexuality, but He detests it? This is simply LUDICROUS. I am sorry, but claiming that a perfect God created something He hates is a completely RIDICULOUS thing to say. End of story. "...God loves everybody..." What I am about to say you will only hear from five point Calvinist, Orthodox Presbyterian. It is deffinately not the most popular view to take, but I believe firmly that it is the correct one. If you believe otherwise, feel free to challenge me to a debate. Malachi 1:2-3--- " 'I have loved you,' says the LORD. 'But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' 'Was not Esau Jacob's brother?' the LORD says. 'Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.' " "Esau I have hated..." Wait, God hated somone? Yes He did. As an Orthodox Presbyterian, I firmly believe this passage is literal and true, and that God does not love all people. Does this mean that He hates all homosexuals? No it does not. What it means is that He loves His elect. We do not know who His elect are, so we cannot say for sure that He love all homosexuals, murderers, rapists, or anyone for that matter. If you think I am crazy, and that I have totally skewed God into something bad, read Romans 9. I will explain better than I can. Also, like I said, feel fre to challenge me to a debate. "...thus God must love homosexuals. Yes, or no?" No. "If God created man in his own mage, wouldn't it stand to reason, that God doesn't hate homosexuals?" No it would not. God created man in His own image, yes, but man fell, and therefore seperated himself from God completely. Being created in God's image does not redeem this situation. however, like I said, I cannot say who God loves and does not love, all I can say is that god does not love ALL homosexuals. "Homosexuality is not an unforgivable sin, it is not even on the top 17 sins, which are the 10 commandments, and the 7 deadly sins..." The what? The top 17 sins? There are no "top sins". The ten commandments are not the worst sins, but they were given as the guidline for us to follow. Their purpose was to show God's people that they cannot keep even one of the commandments. Why those ten? Name one sin. any sin you can think of, and it will fall under one of those ten. Hate? It falls under #6. Pornography? It falls under #7. Homosexuality wouls also fall under #7 as a sexual sin. That is why those particular ten were chosen. They are not the "top ten" sins. The "seven deadly sins" are simply, on a general basis, the easiest for humans to fall into, and therefore one we ought to be careful of. not the "worst" sins. Just because homosexuaity does not fall into this list does not mean it is not a sin. Just look at the verses I presented. "According to my resources, homosexuality is not a sin and christians should not interfere with their relationship, and the right to marry." 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10--- "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved. Neither fornicartors, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor SODOMITES,nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." LEVITICUS 20:13--- " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.' " Now tell me it is not a sin. God is quite clear in these verses. Thanks a bunch! It was a good debate! Renzzy

Religion

According-to-the-Bible-Homosexuality-is-a-Sin./1/

In the realm of medicine, 'alternative' is defined as a treatment not commonly acknowledged by the medical community. As the Oxford dictionary observes, "Of or relating to behavior that is considered unconventional and is often seen as a challenge to traditional norms" -- <URL>... What is acknowledged my the medical community? (1) Stimulants. These are extremely effective and have not been found to be dangerous. They are effective 75 - 90% of the time <URL>... (2) Diets. Although diets are generally not enough to treat ADHD, they can have some effect. (3) Therapy. Therapy has been found to help cope with changing behavior and decreasing any destructive behavior from ADHD. <URL>... My opponent must find an alternative treatment that works in *adults*. It should be noted "Publications on alternative treatments for ADHD are sparse in the peer-reviewed literature but abound in the popular press and on the Internet." -- <URL>... There is no good evidence in favor of alternative treatment, and modern medical techniques seem to be effective.

16kadams

In the realm of medicine, 'alternative' is defined as a treatment not commonly acknowledged by the medical community. As the Oxford dictionary observes, "Of or relating to behavior that is considered unconventional and is often seen as a challenge to traditional norms" -- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... What is acknowledged my the medical community? (1) Stimulants. These are extremely effective and have not been found to be dangerous. They are effective 75 - 90% of the time http://europepmc.org... (2) Diets. Although diets are generally not enough to treat ADHD, they can have some effect. (3) Therapy. Therapy has been found to help cope with changing behavior and decreasing any destructive behavior from ADHD. http://www.nimh.nih.gov... My opponent must find an alternative treatment that works in *adults*. It should be noted "Publications on alternative treatments for ADHD are sparse in the peer-reviewed literature but abound in the popular press and on the Internet." -- http://www.sciencedirect.com... There is no good evidence in favor of alternative treatment, and modern medical techniques seem to be effective.

Health

Adult-ADHD-and-alternative-treatments/1/

I hope my opponent makes an appearance next round.

16kadams

I hope my opponent makes an appearance next round.

Health

Adult-ADHD-and-alternative-treatments/1/

The ability to complete day to day tasks is not always easy for an adult with ADHD. These adults deal with difficulty paying attention, become easily distracted, inability to finish tasks, making careless mistakes, procrastination and disorganization. Medication to help in treating these symptoms can cause symptoms and reactions of their own that are not ideal. Research has sown that alternative therapies such as Meta-cognitive therapy, coaching therapy, and nutrition can be very effective in treating symptoms. Should medication be the answer or are alternative treatments the way to go?

katiedome

The ability to complete day to day tasks is not always easy for an adult with ADHD. These adults deal with difficulty paying attention, become easily distracted, inability to finish tasks, making careless mistakes, procrastination and disorganization. Medication to help in treating these symptoms can cause symptoms and reactions of their own that are not ideal. Research has sown that alternative therapies such as Meta-cognitive therapy, coaching therapy, and nutrition can be very effective in treating symptoms. Should medication be the answer or are alternative treatments the way to go?

Health

Adult-ADHD-and-alternative-treatments/1/

I would first like to give you my condolences to the fact that you feel as if you are a second class citizen. However I would like to say that the lady whom you've portrayed as an icy interrogator had every right to be suspicious. If i were coming home from a long day of work and i see two shadowy figures in front of my house (which is considered private property) i'd be highly suspicious as well. Her questions were highly appropriate and she did not actually threaten you in any way or make any references to the fact that you were skateboarders. It was an assumption of your part that she was treating you with a sense (if any in reality) of hostility due to the fact that you were skaters, and not the fact that she was merely trying to ask you some questions that would reveal any intentions. It seems to me that your cries of injustice are greatly exaggerated. You claim that skaters are second class citizens how ever i have yet to see anyone decline service or be denied the right to vote or religion, i have yet to see a skater being refused in a public place (if there are rules or laws prohibit skating for safety reason is a different story, how ever if a known skater is not skating within these premises and does not have his board with him and is still refused access this would be a case of civil liberties being disputed, i doubt however the likelihood for such an event to happen). I would like to also bring up the point that using a personal narrative to sway the voters is incoherent, as personal narratives tend to be extremely bias and contain a bare minimum of facts within it's contents, and thus it is the responsibility of the voters to vote according to the facts at hand rather then emotional impulse. I would like to now address the point which you made, stating that the persecution of large groups of people are often condoned by small elements within those groups. There is no disputing this, for man is ignorant and the common man shall remain ignorant because he resists change for he is told when he is young that it is unacceptable to be different or weird. Thus men often persecute those who they do not understand and are unwilling to try and understand far more then they persecute those who are similar in nature and culture to themselves. How ever it is unfair to compare a skaters "suffering" to those of Muslims, Irish or Jews or any other groups similar in nature. Many people who are ignorant see these groups as cancer and feel that they must be irradiated, while at it's height of prejudicial skaters are just seen as a minor nuisance rather then an actual group detrimental to society. Another point i feel that i should raise is that, many of the persecuted groups don't have much of a choice in their way of life. If you are born middle eastern or black or latino, it's not as if you could change your ethnicity on a whim. The same difficulties can be applied when dealing with religious prosecution as well. I am well aware of the police/security-skater disputes in public places that have arose in recent years and has been made quite popular via youtube. Although i will admit that in a few cases that skaters were treated with some form of prejudice, however in most of the cases skaters are repeatedly told to stop skating in the area, and repeatedly the skaters ignore these requests. This it is not the fault of the enforcement since the orders were clear, rather it was the fault of the the receiving party (in this situation the skaters) for not abiding to the rules and authority. As for adults who hold no position in law enforcement, it is their right to intervene in situations where the safety of the general public (such as skating down a sidewalk where a number of people of using, giving reason to believe that a collision is inevitable), or when they believe that liability issues may be at stake (such as skating on private properties such as but not limited to private places of business, parking lots or homes, for if the skaters were injured the private property owner could hold some liability,vice versa if the skaters damages anything they could be held responsible and compensation could be troublesome especially when dealing with minors). If neither of these applies to the adult "policing" the skaters then one of two things could be assumed, that the adult is a very nosy person and has nothing better to do then intruding into other people's affairs and/or the person is a dick. As for the issue of respect, remember that respect is earned. It can never be bought or forced, the best way to earn the respect of you community would to give back to the community. Physically show that the image portrayed of skaters is a false one. Do not idle around complaining about discrimination when you yourself are not contributing to battle such stereotypes. Sure it may seem that this task to pull the skating community together to remake it's image is near insuperable but is nesscarry to escape your "persecution".

OldIronGuts

I would first like to give you my condolences to the fact that you feel as if you are a second class citizen. However I would like to say that the lady whom you've portrayed as an icy interrogator had every right to be suspicious. If i were coming home from a long day of work and i see two shadowy figures in front of my house (which is considered private property) i'd be highly suspicious as well. Her questions were highly appropriate and she did not actually threaten you in any way or make any references to the fact that you were skateboarders. It was an assumption of your part that she was treating you with a sense (if any in reality) of hostility due to the fact that you were skaters, and not the fact that she was merely trying to ask you some questions that would reveal any intentions. It seems to me that your cries of injustice are greatly exaggerated. You claim that skaters are second class citizens how ever i have yet to see anyone decline service or be denied the right to vote or religion, i have yet to see a skater being refused in a public place (if there are rules or laws prohibit skating for safety reason is a different story, how ever if a known skater is not skating within these premises and does not have his board with him and is still refused access this would be a case of civil liberties being disputed, i doubt however the likelihood for such an event to happen). I would like to also bring up the point that using a personal narrative to sway the voters is incoherent, as personal narratives tend to be extremely bias and contain a bare minimum of facts within it's contents, and thus it is the responsibility of the voters to vote according to the facts at hand rather then emotional impulse. I would like to now address the point which you made, stating that the persecution of large groups of people are often condoned by small elements within those groups. There is no disputing this, for man is ignorant and the common man shall remain ignorant because he resists change for he is told when he is young that it is unacceptable to be different or weird. Thus men often persecute those who they do not understand and are unwilling to try and understand far more then they persecute those who are similar in nature and culture to themselves. How ever it is unfair to compare a skaters "suffering" to those of Muslims, Irish or Jews or any other groups similar in nature. Many people who are ignorant see these groups as cancer and feel that they must be irradiated, while at it's height of prejudicial skaters are just seen as a minor nuisance rather then an actual group detrimental to society. Another point i feel that i should raise is that, many of the persecuted groups don't have much of a choice in their way of life. If you are born middle eastern or black or latino, it's not as if you could change your ethnicity on a whim. The same difficulties can be applied when dealing with religious prosecution as well. I am well aware of the police/security-skater disputes in public places that have arose in recent years and has been made quite popular via youtube. Although i will admit that in a few cases that skaters were treated with some form of prejudice, however in most of the cases skaters are repeatedly told to stop skating in the area, and repeatedly the skaters ignore these requests. This it is not the fault of the enforcement since the orders were clear, rather it was the fault of the the receiving party (in this situation the skaters) for not abiding to the rules and authority. As for adults who hold no position in law enforcement, it is their right to intervene in situations where the safety of the general public (such as skating down a sidewalk where a number of people of using, giving reason to believe that a collision is inevitable), or when they believe that liability issues may be at stake (such as skating on private properties such as but not limited to private places of business, parking lots or homes, for if the skaters were injured the private property owner could hold some liability,vice versa if the skaters damages anything they could be held responsible and compensation could be troublesome especially when dealing with minors). If neither of these applies to the adult "policing" the skaters then one of two things could be assumed, that the adult is a very nosy person and has nothing better to do then intruding into other people's affairs and/or the person is a dick. As for the issue of respect, remember that respect is earned. It can never be bought or forced, the best way to earn the respect of you community would to give back to the community. Physically show that the image portrayed of skaters is a false one. Do not idle around complaining about discrimination when you yourself are not contributing to battle such stereotypes. Sure it may seem that this task to pull the skating community together to remake it's image is near insuperable but is nesscarry to escape your "persecution".

Society

Adults-should-stop-policing-skateboarders/1/

Thin-Sliced Why should skaters receive any respect; aren't they just troublemakers? On the contrary, a skateboarder is as much a person as you are and is thus entitled to as much respect as anyone. Nevertheless, skaters are being discriminated against every day. I know this because I am a skater, and I have experienced the almost universal negative reception which skaters receive primarily from adults. The disgusting generalization of skaters as obnoxious and dangerous comes from a lot of fear and hatred. Shame on society. Adults must stop unnecessarily policing skaters because such actions are primitive, offensive, and unjust. It was mid-evening, and the neighborhood streets were already bathed in the pale orange light of the street lamps. Daniel and I cut through the street on our skateboards. We sped down the street on our boards, and then slowed to a stop in a cul-de-sac. "It's a great night for skating," Daniel said, getting off his board. "Yeah, it's cool and quiet," I agreed. We sat on the sidewalk on our boards in front of a house in silence for a moment. "We probably won't get to do this for awhile since school is starting soon," I said. Daniel responded with a nonchalant shrug. "Well," I began, rising to my feet, "let's enjoy it while we can." The two of us had begun to walk away from the sidewalk holding our boards. Just then, headlights pierced through the darkness and rounded the corner into the cul-de-sac slowly. Daniel and I stepped out of the car's way awkwardly as it seemed to approach us like some enigmatic red predator. With an electronic "woosh" the driver's side window sailed down. Inside was a blond woman, probably in her thirties, leveling a cold and questioning stare at us. "Who are you?" Her tone matched her gaze.p\ Daniel and I stopped and stood a couple of feet from the side of her car. "I'm Kevin, and this is Daniel," I said. "Where do you boys live?" she asked scarcely after I had replied. Still I ventured to answer politely, "Daniel lives up the street." "What are you doing here?" she asked. Once again, she almost cut into my reply. I began to feel vexed. This woman didn't care about my answers; she only wanted to interrogate me with disdain. "We're just chilling." "Yup, just cruising around," Daniel chimed in. "You're just chilling? Well what are you doing in front of my house?" she asked. "We were talking, m'am; we didn't even know this was your house," I returned. I had done nothing wrong, so I wasn't going to let a super suspicious woman upset me. She seemed perturbed that we hadn't kowtowed to her imaginary authority. She was also lacking justification for her hostile suspicions. "Well, it's dark out, and I was just wondering why you boys were hanging around my house," she said in her icy tone. I laid down my board and mounted it; Daniel did the same. "Forget about it because we're leaving," I said. And with that, my friend and I skated out of the cul-de-sac and back up his street. I was burning with anger and indignation. Who was this woman to interrogate me with such cold manners and narrow preconceptions? I'd just been subjected to prejudice of the most disgraceful kind, one based solely on a person's image. She was ill disposed to me from the moment she saw me. I had been thin-sliced. When you see someone with a diminutive figure and large glasses, you may automatically categorize them as a "nerd" without any basis for your judgement other than your perception of their appearance. She had seen two teenagers with skateboards and reduced us to troublesome, rowdy, profane, and dangerous youths who had no right to use the space of sidewalk in front of her house. We did not deserve the resentful recognition we had received from her. Her cold hostility resulted from the widely popular idea in communities that skateboarders menace and terrorize society. However, such thinking is archaic and small-minded. For instance, if radical, bloody jihads are caused by Muslims, should we then classify all Muslims everywhere as violent and belligerent human beings? The answer is glaringly obvious. It took much time for me to get over my feelings of anger towards the injustice of being treated like a second class citizen. Eventually I moved on, but I know that this won't be the last time I am marginalized. In conclusion, society, particularly adults, should desist in treating skaters in a way that is demeaning. Treating my kind with disrespect and scorn will accomplish nothing besides causing them to retaliate and attack. Adults commonly and frequently generalize us on the account of their own bias. I admit some of our public reputation was earned, but does that mean we can't earn a better one? The Declaration of Independence states that, "all men are created equal," so don't skateboarders deserve basic human respect? In light of this, the next time you encounter a skater I hope you will accept that skater with an open-mind.

TheSempai

Thin-Sliced Why should skaters receive any respect; aren’t they just troublemakers? On the contrary, a skateboarder is as much a person as you are and is thus entitled to as much respect as anyone. Nevertheless, skaters are being discriminated against every day. I know this because I am a skater, and I have experienced the almost universal negative reception which skaters receive primarily from adults. The disgusting generalization of skaters as obnoxious and dangerous comes from a lot of fear and hatred. Shame on society. Adults must stop unnecessarily policing skaters because such actions are primitive, offensive, and unjust. It was mid-evening, and the neighborhood streets were already bathed in the pale orange light of the street lamps. Daniel and I cut through the street on our skateboards. We sped down the street on our boards, and then slowed to a stop in a cul-de-sac. “It’s a great night for skating,” Daniel said, getting off his board. “Yeah, it’s cool and quiet,” I agreed. We sat on the sidewalk on our boards in front of a house in silence for a moment. “We probably won’t get to do this for awhile since school is starting soon,” I said. Daniel responded with a nonchalant shrug. “Well,” I began, rising to my feet, “let’s enjoy it while we can.” The two of us had begun to walk away from the sidewalk holding our boards. Just then, headlights pierced through the darkness and rounded the corner into the cul-de-sac slowly. Daniel and I stepped out of the car’s way awkwardly as it seemed to approach us like some enigmatic red predator. With an electronic “woosh” the driver’s side window sailed down. Inside was a blond woman, probably in her thirties, leveling a cold and questioning stare at us. “Who are you?” Her tone matched her gaze.p\ Daniel and I stopped and stood a couple of feet from the side of her car. “I’m Kevin, and this is Daniel,” I said. “Where do you boys live?” she asked scarcely after I had replied. Still I ventured to answer politely, “Daniel lives up the street.” “What are you doing here?” she asked. Once again, she almost cut into my reply. I began to feel vexed. This woman didn’t care about my answers; she only wanted to interrogate me with disdain. “We’re just chilling.” “Yup, just cruising around,” Daniel chimed in. “You’re just chilling? Well what are you doing in front of my house?” she asked. “We were talking, m’am; we didn’t even know this was your house,” I returned. I had done nothing wrong, so I wasn’t going to let a super suspicious woman upset me. She seemed perturbed that we hadn’t kowtowed to her imaginary authority. She was also lacking justification for her hostile suspicions. “Well, it’s dark out, and I was just wondering why you boys were hanging around my house,” she said in her icy tone. I laid down my board and mounted it; Daniel did the same. “Forget about it because we’re leaving,” I said. And with that, my friend and I skated out of the cul-de-sac and back up his street. I was burning with anger and indignation. Who was this woman to interrogate me with such cold manners and narrow preconceptions? I’d just been subjected to prejudice of the most disgraceful kind, one based solely on a person’s image. She was ill disposed to me from the moment she saw me. I had been thin-sliced. When you see someone with a diminutive figure and large glasses, you may automatically categorize them as a “nerd” without any basis for your judgement other than your perception of their appearance. She had seen two teenagers with skateboards and reduced us to troublesome, rowdy, profane, and dangerous youths who had no right to use the space of sidewalk in front of her house. We did not deserve the resentful recognition we had received from her. Her cold hostility resulted from the widely popular idea in communities that skateboarders menace and terrorize society. However, such thinking is archaic and small-minded. For instance, if radical, bloody jihads are caused by Muslims, should we then classify all Muslims everywhere as violent and belligerent human beings? The answer is glaringly obvious. It took much time for me to get over my feelings of anger towards the injustice of being treated like a second class citizen. Eventually I moved on, but I know that this won’t be the last time I am marginalized. In conclusion, society, particularly adults, should desist in treating skaters in a way that is demeaning. Treating my kind with disrespect and scorn will accomplish nothing besides causing them to retaliate and attack. Adults commonly and frequently generalize us on the account of their own bias. I admit some of our public reputation was earned, but does that mean we can’t earn a better one? The Declaration of Independence states that, “all men are created equal,” so don’t skateboarders deserve basic human respect? In light of this, the next time you encounter a skater I hope you will accept that skater with an open-mind.

Society

Adults-should-stop-policing-skateboarders/1/

I accept and I must say that the time limit for arguments is quite short. To begin, Adversity can certainly make you stronger and it can make you weaker, but there is definitely a change made. We must realize that there is two moments in which we are affected by adversity, During and After. During the moment we are experiencing Adversity we are reacting to the situation in the way our psychological state is set to react. A mother who has a miscarriage would be distressed immensely. After the moment, we learn more about what could happen to us or others and our psychological state changes to either react positively or negatively toward the same situation. The same mother might never try to get pregnant again and could view the process to be a source of sorrow, or she could learn that pregnancy is fragile and that she needs to take better care of herself and her growing child.

Atmas

I accept and I must say that the time limit for arguments is quite short. To begin, Adversity can certainly make you stronger and it can make you weaker, but there is definitely a change made. We must realize that there is two moments in which we are affected by adversity, During and After. During the moment we are experiencing Adversity we are reacting to the situation in the way our psychological state is set to react. A mother who has a miscarriage would be distressed immensely. After the moment, we learn more about what could happen to us or others and our psychological state changes to either react positively or negatively toward the same situation. The same mother might never try to get pregnant again and could view the process to be a source of sorrow, or she could learn that pregnancy is fragile and that she needs to take better care of herself and her growing child.

Miscellaneous

Adversity-makes-you-stronger/1/

To further extrapolate, that same woman could get pregnant again and her previous psychological change would have an effect on how she treats her second miscarriage. If she took it to mean she was not doing her job correctly, and she had a second miscarriage, it might make her give up and revert to the mindset that it will never work. If she sees the process as a source of sorrow, getting pregnant again might make her worry far too much and do irrational things. If she had a miscarriage again, she might delve deeper into a pit of sorrow that she might never recover from. Adversity is what changes us, otherwise we are stagnate. Unfortunately, it is that which doesn't kill us that makes us stronger, or at least, different.

Atmas

To further extrapolate, that same woman could get pregnant again and her previous psychological change would have an effect on how she treats her second miscarriage. If she took it to mean she was not doing her job correctly, and she had a second miscarriage, it might make her give up and revert to the mindset that it will never work. If she sees the process as a source of sorrow, getting pregnant again might make her worry far too much and do irrational things. If she had a miscarriage again, she might delve deeper into a pit of sorrow that she might never recover from. Adversity is what changes us, otherwise we are stagnate. Unfortunately, it is that which doesn't kill us that makes us stronger, or at least, different.

Miscellaneous

Adversity-makes-you-stronger/1/

Yes, you are almost correct. Our true hidden character shows it's hideous face when we are forced to deal with a stressful situation, but they can also be reacting in ways that they would have never reacted and will never react again. A loving father who spends years trying to get an unruly child to listen to his words and respect his command could eventually react out of his growing anger and spank the child. That doesn't necessarily reveal that he has anger issues, we all have our slip ups, it only shows that even the most patient person can be overcome with stress. It happens to the best of us. Afterward, he might feel incredibly guilty for his actions and might vow to never hit the child again, no matter how stressed he feels. Would he hold true to that promise? Maybe not, it depends. He might also like the new discipline measure, if it makes the child settle down and listen, and the father would have a negative feedback of using physical force to create false obedience. It's impossible to tell if that is the father's true character, only that he experienced a change in his psyche, for better or worse.

Atmas

Yes, you are almost correct. Our true hidden character shows it's hideous face when we are forced to deal with a stressful situation, but they can also be reacting in ways that they would have never reacted and will never react again. A loving father who spends years trying to get an unruly child to listen to his words and respect his command could eventually react out of his growing anger and spank the child. That doesn't necessarily reveal that he has anger issues, we all have our slip ups, it only shows that even the most patient person can be overcome with stress. It happens to the best of us. Afterward, he might feel incredibly guilty for his actions and might vow to never hit the child again, no matter how stressed he feels. Would he hold true to that promise? Maybe not, it depends. He might also like the new discipline measure, if it makes the child settle down and listen, and the father would have a negative feedback of using physical force to create false obedience. It's impossible to tell if that is the father's true character, only that he experienced a change in his psyche, for better or worse.

Miscellaneous

Adversity-makes-you-stronger/1/

Adversity does not make you stronger; it reveals who you were all along. Many say that adversity brings out the worst in people. The truth of the matter is that that's who they were the whole time. Some people break down completely when faced with hardships. All this means is that they were never a stable person to begin with.

tw18

Adversity does not make you stronger; it reveals who you were all along. Many say that adversity brings out the worst in people. The truth of the matter is that that's who they were the whole time. Some people break down completely when faced with hardships. All this means is that they were never a stable person to begin with.

Miscellaneous

Adversity-makes-you-stronger/1/

I apologize for the short argument time; I'm new to this site. I agree that we do learn something after the fact, but during is when our true character is revealed. People tend to mask who they really are around others. When faced with adversity, that mask is torn off. Hardships make people lose control. They're normally able to control their reactions to life events, but when adversity strikes, they have no clue what to do. They're not use to it and it differs from routine.

tw18

I apologize for the short argument time; I'm new to this site. I agree that we do learn something after the fact, but during is when our true character is revealed. People tend to mask who they really are around others. When faced with adversity, that mask is torn off. Hardships make people lose control. They're normally able to control their reactions to life events, but when adversity strikes, they have no clue what to do. They're not use to it and it differs from routine.

Miscellaneous

Adversity-makes-you-stronger/1/

Note: this debate is only about standardized testing; not any other type of affirmative action These days, the principles of affirmative action have infiltrated the education system. The SAT gives out all kinds of bonuses and even deductions based solely on what race you are. This is not justified. If you are black, you get a 200 point boost. If you are Asian, you get a 50 point deduction. Does this seem fair? If you have one white kid and one black kid, both with the same grades and credentials, and both get the same (pre-adjusted) score, the black kid has a better chance of getting in to the college of his/her choosing, even though the white kids worked just as hard his whole life. This isn't only unfair, but, it's actually racist. What is more racist than saying, "Hey, you can't do this on your own, because you're black. You need this point boost." Or even, "Hey, you are too smart to take this exam. Minus 50 points!" This is basically what College Board is doing. Changing test scores based only on race is unfair, racist, and plain stupid. I will elaborate in the upcoming rounds. Good luck!

FunkeeMonk91

Note: this debate is only about standardized testing; not any other type of affirmative action These days, the principles of affirmative action have infiltrated the education system. The SAT gives out all kinds of bonuses and even deductions based solely on what race you are. This is not justified. If you are black, you get a 200 point boost. If you are Asian, you get a 50 point deduction. Does this seem fair? If you have one white kid and one black kid, both with the same grades and credentials, and both get the same (pre-adjusted) score, the black kid has a better chance of getting in to the college of his/her choosing, even though the white kids worked just as hard his whole life. This isn't only unfair, but, it's actually racist. What is more racist than saying, "Hey, you can't do this on your own, because you're black. You need this point boost." Or even, "Hey, you are too smart to take this exam. Minus 50 points!" This is basically what College Board is doing. Changing test scores based only on race is unfair, racist, and plain stupid. I will elaborate in the upcoming rounds. Good luck!

Education

Affirmative-Action-Specifically-Standardized-Testing/1/

While I did mention the college application process, I was not using that as a separate topic. I was using that as justification for my standardized testing argument (in this case, and probably most of the debate), namely about the SAT. I was saying that the SAT is a huge part of the college admission process. Therefore, to have a bias SAT influence results of admission, creates an unfair system based solely on race. Although I cannot speak for all standardized tests, the SAT does, in fact, award point raises to certain ethnic groups. I read this on in a College Board article, but I can't seem to find it. Once I find it, I will post the link in a later round, so, voters, do not penalize me for that just yet. Your rebuttal about optional compliance with the race questionnaire is true, but irrelevant. Just because someone could, theoretically, select a race different to their own and gain any point boosts, doesn't make it any more justified. Your point about Gratz v. Bollinger only helps me. It is unconstitutional, that is my contention. However, if you are arguing that because it was found unconstitutional, College Board wouldn't do that, then that still doesn't work. That ruling only applied to university admissions. Michigan's scale system was not based on testing, but rather, it was based on an overall ranking given to a n applicant based on their resume. No, that is not what I'm referring to. I'm specifically talking about SAT adjustment based on ethnicity. It is both unconstitutional, and by definition, racist. However, as we get into Affirmative Action in this debate (which isn't the topic, but could lend itself to the argument at hand) I do want to clarify that I'm not necessarily referring to whatever laws related to Affirmative Action, but rather the reasoning or the philosophy behind it. But universities do foster diversity. Just because one university is prominently white, doesn't mean that it is breeding segregation amongst minorities. Anyone is able to apply and go to any school. Isn't that enough? I'm sure that the principles of affirmative would not be implemented in a previously-all black college. Why isn't diversity fostered like it is in other places? Again, off topic, but I'd like to see a source of your claim of white affirmative action in early education programs. Because, I'm pretty sure they don't give preference to whites for preschool. Affirmative Action is racist, by definition: "A policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment." The whole principle of it is based on making up for racism in the past. That sounds nice, but it isn't reasonable for two reasons. 1) This country was founded on the notion that you didn't have to be held back by what your family did; you could advance your situation and start fresh. Sure, the things that happened to minorities over the last 400 years is awful, and we need to remember what happened. But why are people today being castigated because of things that they have no control over? 2) Affirmative action only builds barriers between groups. It gives people the impression that minorities need to be helped, and that they are not capable of doing it on their own. Sometimes, I think that many minorities themselves feel that way to a degree. In an equal country, everyone needs to be equal. White, black, Native American, Asian, or Latino, all people deserve a truly equal chances, specifically college. P.S. They don't even have a Middle eastern bubble on the SAT. Talk about "promoting diversity."

FunkeeMonk91

While I did mention the college application process, I was not using that as a separate topic. I was using that as justification for my standardized testing argument (in this case, and probably most of the debate), namely about the SAT. I was saying that the SAT is a huge part of the college admission process. Therefore, to have a bias SAT influence results of admission, creates an unfair system based solely on race. Although I cannot speak for all standardized tests, the SAT does, in fact, award point raises to certain ethnic groups. I read this on in a College Board article, but I can't seem to find it. Once I find it, I will post the link in a later round, so, voters, do not penalize me for that just yet. Your rebuttal about optional compliance with the race questionnaire is true, but irrelevant. Just because someone could, theoretically, select a race different to their own and gain any point boosts, doesn't make it any more justified. Your point about Gratz v. Bollinger only helps me. It is unconstitutional, that is my contention. However, if you are arguing that because it was found unconstitutional, College Board wouldn't do that, then that still doesn't work. That ruling only applied to university admissions. Michigan's scale system was not based on testing, but rather, it was based on an overall ranking given to a n applicant based on their resume. No, that is not what I'm referring to. I'm specifically talking about SAT adjustment based on ethnicity. It is both unconstitutional, and by definition, racist. However, as we get into Affirmative Action in this debate (which isn't the topic, but could lend itself to the argument at hand) I do want to clarify that I'm not necessarily referring to whatever laws related to Affirmative Action, but rather the reasoning or the philosophy behind it. But universities do foster diversity. Just because one university is prominently white, doesn't mean that it is breeding segregation amongst minorities. Anyone is able to apply and go to any school. Isn't that enough? I'm sure that the principles of affirmative would not be implemented in a previously-all black college. Why isn't diversity fostered like it is in other places? Again, off topic, but I'd like to see a source of your claim of white affirmative action in early education programs. Because, I'm pretty sure they don't give preference to whites for preschool. Affirmative Action is racist, by definition: "A policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment." The whole principle of it is based on making up for racism in the past. That sounds nice, but it isn't reasonable for two reasons. 1) This country was founded on the notion that you didn't have to be held back by what your family did; you could advance your situation and start fresh. Sure, the things that happened to minorities over the last 400 years is awful, and we need to remember what happened. But why are people today being castigated because of things that they have no control over? 2) Affirmative action only builds barriers between groups. It gives people the impression that minorities need to be helped, and that they are not capable of doing it on their own. Sometimes, I think that many minorities themselves feel that way to a degree. In an equal country, everyone needs to be equal. White, black, Native American, Asian, or Latino, all people deserve a truly equal chances, specifically college. P.S. They don't even have a Middle eastern bubble on the SAT. Talk about "promoting diversity."

Education

Affirmative-Action-Specifically-Standardized-Testing/1/

1) Maybe the SAT isn't a huge factor at Michigan, but many schools find it to be very important in admissions. However, I do agree with the fact that the new trend is to make extra curriculars the priority. But that does not mean that the SAT isn't a big part of the admissions process. 2) I got it! This article outlines a study done and talks about SAT adjustment. Some of the statistics I gave were a little off, but still, the point boots they give are significant. Also, it says the boosts are given at "Elite Universities," so they aren't given at every college. But nonetheless, it is still unfair. <URL>... 3) My source above negates your third point, since even though it is optional, they do it anyway. 4) Once I reread the article, I realized that the points are not given from College Board, so that was my mistake. They are given from the university. And yes, it is unconstitutional. That is why I am against it. Maybe its not happening at Michigan, but it's still going on. 5) I'm not quite sure I understand your point here. But I will say this: it's unfair to allow something like race or gender become the kind of thing that you would put in your resume with your other credentials. In the application process into any institution, your admission should be solely based on the content of your character, and nothing else. Do you not agree with the scenario I proposed earlier (two students, one white, one black, same credentials, but the black guy gets excepted because of the color of his skin)? Yes, the African American population is not as affluent as some of the other demographic groups. But that does not give anyone the right to deny someone a chance at a great school, just because of that persons ethnicity. 6) AA only promotes social inequity. It sends out a message that minorities can't do this on their own and that they need federal help. This isn't a good message. In a truly equal society, there wouldn't be a debate about Affirmative Action because people will be looked at as students and employees; not as white students and black employees. Everyone will be so unconcerned about which race gets what and what is fair and unfair because people won't be thinking in terms of groups of races. They will be thinking in terms of people as people regardless of color. Does that make sense? It's been a long day, so I hope I was clear. 7) Well, there's on problem with this point. The only reason why men are being so sought after in nursing and education is that there is such a shortage in women. Since the number of women interested in those fields is dropping, they are trying to expand their interest demographic, so that more people will go into those fields. Also, those sources never said anything about men being given preference over women. All they talked about was getting more men involved, because there are so few people in those programs (both men and women). Those articles were merely explaining how the nursing and education programs are increasing their (for lack of a better word) fan base. 8. I never said that without AA there would be no racism. I basically have the same conjecture as you, but mine is that a sans AA society would, slowly but surely, (nearly) remove discrimination from the country. As I stated above, AA gives the impression that minorities are inferior and can only get in schools/jobs if they are helped by the government. Also, it can be argued that AA even creates more resentment because of the white guy that is turned down for the job, even though he was just as qualified or more than the other guy/girl of another ethnicity. I know it's a movie, but a great example is the movie Crash, where Matt Dillon's character's father went out of business because of policies that resulted from affirmative action. As a result, Dillon's character carried that prejudice with him his whole life. I'm not saying we should do nothing about past discrimination. But it is unjust and unfair to do it at the expense of people whom had nothing to do with it. 9). Yes, the founding fathers were hypocritical, but that doesn't make what a lot of what they said wrong. The idea that all men and women should have a chance at success started with them. It is irrelevant whether they followed that or not. For example, I could say never to play hop scotch on the free way, but do it anyway. That wouldn't make the first statement false. So, you don't believe that all people are created equal and have inalienable rights, just because those things were written so long ago? The time of a document's birth has no relevance when discussing the truth behind it. I'm not being disadvantaged. In fact, I gain a lot from Affirmative Action, because I am Latino. But that doesn't justify AA at all. But your claim that AA has increased college attendance is completely false. I think a more reasonably explanation would be the rise in education standards all over the country. I mean, that's almost a 50 year span. I mean, 1960 was only 6 years after Brown vs. Board of Education which over turned the "separate but equal" clause. 1960 is hardly a decent reference point, since things have changed so drastically. 10) Your claim that Michigan is the most racist state is no more valid than mine about barriers. You can't measure racism with statistics, so neither of our points can be proved empirically. However, I proved circumstantially that AA does build barriers. Cases like the police officer in Crash are everywhere. AA is building barriers for sure. PS. Middle Eastern is not a race, but they have other ethnicities on that test as well. I have not taken a College Board test in a while, but I have seen ethnicities like Chicano/Mexican, Non-Mexican Latino, Pacific Islander (could be argued as race), and I think I even saw Carribean once. Of course, I have no way to prove that, but I know that they don't only have options for race on that test. The reason I mentioned that is becuase my good Persian friend hates how there isn't an option for him. He can't put Asian, because of the point reduction, so he has to put other, which is basically the same as putting white.

FunkeeMonk91

1) Maybe the SAT isn't a huge factor at Michigan, but many schools find it to be very important in admissions. However, I do agree with the fact that the new trend is to make extra curriculars the priority. But that does not mean that the SAT isn't a big part of the admissions process. 2) I got it! This article outlines a study done and talks about SAT adjustment. Some of the statistics I gave were a little off, but still, the point boots they give are significant. Also, it says the boosts are given at "Elite Universities," so they aren't given at every college. But nonetheless, it is still unfair. http://opr.princeton.edu... 3) My source above negates your third point, since even though it is optional, they do it anyway. 4) Once I reread the article, I realized that the points are not given from College Board, so that was my mistake. They are given from the university. And yes, it is unconstitutional. That is why I am against it. Maybe its not happening at Michigan, but it's still going on. 5) I'm not quite sure I understand your point here. But I will say this: it's unfair to allow something like race or gender become the kind of thing that you would put in your resume with your other credentials. In the application process into any institution, your admission should be solely based on the content of your character, and nothing else. Do you not agree with the scenario I proposed earlier (two students, one white, one black, same credentials, but the black guy gets excepted because of the color of his skin)? Yes, the African American population is not as affluent as some of the other demographic groups. But that does not give anyone the right to deny someone a chance at a great school, just because of that persons ethnicity. 6) AA only promotes social inequity. It sends out a message that minorities can't do this on their own and that they need federal help. This isn't a good message. In a truly equal society, there wouldn't be a debate about Affirmative Action because people will be looked at as students and employees; not as white students and black employees. Everyone will be so unconcerned about which race gets what and what is fair and unfair because people won't be thinking in terms of groups of races. They will be thinking in terms of people as people regardless of color. Does that make sense? It's been a long day, so I hope I was clear. 7) Well, there's on problem with this point. The only reason why men are being so sought after in nursing and education is that there is such a shortage in women. Since the number of women interested in those fields is dropping, they are trying to expand their interest demographic, so that more people will go into those fields. Also, those sources never said anything about men being given preference over women. All they talked about was getting more men involved, because there are so few people in those programs (both men and women). Those articles were merely explaining how the nursing and education programs are increasing their (for lack of a better word) fan base. 8. I never said that without AA there would be no racism. I basically have the same conjecture as you, but mine is that a sans AA society would, slowly but surely, (nearly) remove discrimination from the country. As I stated above, AA gives the impression that minorities are inferior and can only get in schools/jobs if they are helped by the government. Also, it can be argued that AA even creates more resentment because of the white guy that is turned down for the job, even though he was just as qualified or more than the other guy/girl of another ethnicity. I know it's a movie, but a great example is the movie Crash, where Matt Dillon's character's father went out of business because of policies that resulted from affirmative action. As a result, Dillon's character carried that prejudice with him his whole life. I'm not saying we should do nothing about past discrimination. But it is unjust and unfair to do it at the expense of people whom had nothing to do with it. 9). Yes, the founding fathers were hypocritical, but that doesn't make what a lot of what they said wrong. The idea that all men and women should have a chance at success started with them. It is irrelevant whether they followed that or not. For example, I could say never to play hop scotch on the free way, but do it anyway. That wouldn't make the first statement false. So, you don't believe that all people are created equal and have inalienable rights, just because those things were written so long ago? The time of a document's birth has no relevance when discussing the truth behind it. I'm not being disadvantaged. In fact, I gain a lot from Affirmative Action, because I am Latino. But that doesn't justify AA at all. But your claim that AA has increased college attendance is completely false. I think a more reasonably explanation would be the rise in education standards all over the country. I mean, that's almost a 50 year span. I mean, 1960 was only 6 years after Brown vs. Board of Education which over turned the "separate but equal" clause. 1960 is hardly a decent reference point, since things have changed so drastically. 10) Your claim that Michigan is the most racist state is no more valid than mine about barriers. You can't measure racism with statistics, so neither of our points can be proved empirically. However, I proved circumstantially that AA does build barriers. Cases like the police officer in Crash are everywhere. AA is building barriers for sure. PS. Middle Eastern is not a race, but they have other ethnicities on that test as well. I have not taken a College Board test in a while, but I have seen ethnicities like Chicano/Mexican, Non-Mexican Latino, Pacific Islander (could be argued as race), and I think I even saw Carribean once. Of course, I have no way to prove that, but I know that they don't only have options for race on that test. The reason I mentioned that is becuase my good Persian friend hates how there isn't an option for him. He can't put Asian, because of the point reduction, so he has to put other, which is basically the same as putting white.

Education

Affirmative-Action-Specifically-Standardized-Testing/1/

Whenever a college or university chooses an ethnic, foreign, or minority student to receive one of the limited number of acceptances for that academic year, that school is simultaneously and necessarily creating less opportunity for a student from a majority cultural group (ex. a Caucasian) to get into that school. The choice is made, admittedly so when speaking of Affirmative Action, on the basis of race or ethnicity or gender. Therefore, you are depriving the Caucasian in that example the same advantage the institution is handing to the other student. That, clearly, is discrimination. The definition of "discriminate" makes this obvious and undeniable. Attempting to rectify the discrimination of the past by counter-discriminating is hypocritical, and does not serve the notion of equality. Affirmative action should illegal.

quickrob

Whenever a college or university chooses an ethnic, foreign, or minority student to receive one of the limited number of acceptances for that academic year, that school is simultaneously and necessarily creating less opportunity for a student from a majority cultural group (ex. a Caucasian) to get into that school. The choice is made, admittedly so when speaking of Affirmative Action, on the basis of race or ethnicity or gender. Therefore, you are depriving the Caucasian in that example the same advantage the institution is handing to the other student. That, clearly, is discrimination. The definition of "discriminate" makes this obvious and undeniable. Attempting to rectify the discrimination of the past by counter-discriminating is hypocritical, and does not serve the notion of equality. Affirmative action should illegal.

Politics

Affirmative-Action-is-immoral-and-should-be-against-the-law-because-it-is-a-form-of-discrimination/1/

This is my first time using this website, I am new to this. Did you just agree with me, though? It seems like you pretty much did. Why would I re-submit my debate? Should it be asked differently?

quickrob

This is my first time using this website, I am new to this. Did you just agree with me, though? It seems like you pretty much did. Why would I re-submit my debate? Should it be asked differently?

Politics

Affirmative-Action-is-immoral-and-should-be-against-the-law-because-it-is-a-form-of-discrimination/1/

round is acceptance

HaileyL

round is acceptance

Politics

Affirmative-Action/46/

I would like to thank the pro for accepting this debate. 1) "Justified discrimination" Affirmative action is simply a euphemism for discrimination. AA solves nothing it simply creates the same problem all over again. We should be trying to fix institutionalized discrimination, not adjusting ourselves to it. AA allows for the reverse of a preexisting problem.

HaileyL

I would like to thank the pro for accepting this debate. 1) "Justified discrimination" Affirmative action is simply a euphemism for discrimination. AA solves nothing it simply creates the same problem all over again. We should be trying to fix institutionalized discrimination, not adjusting ourselves to it. AA allows for the reverse of a preexisting problem.

Politics

Affirmative-Action/46/

And therefore anyone who supports affirmative action supports rascism Affirmatiave action-The policy of legally requiring institutions to favor individuals who are a member of a group/race which the government has deemed to be in need of special assistance. Promote-To encourage, stand in favor of Racism-Discrimination against an individual or group based soley upon race. By accepting this debate the contender agrees that these definitions are valid. If you would like a different set of definitions feel free to propose a change and I will consider it.

Discipulus_Didicit

And therefore anyone who supports affirmative action supports rascism Affirmatiave action-The policy of legally requiring institutions to favor individuals who are a member of a group/race which the government has deemed to be in need of special assistance. Promote-To encourage, stand in favor of Racism-Discrimination against an individual or group based soley upon race. By accepting this debate the contender agrees that these definitions are valid. If you would like a different set of definitions feel free to propose a change and I will consider it.

Politics

Affirmative-action-promotes-rascism./1/