Total Posts:157|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice

SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 9:43:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I understand where pro-life comes from, I do, but everyone has their own opinion. In my opinion, pro-choice is the option that is best at this point in time.

When people eat eggs do they think they are eating Chicken? No, people consider them different. When people mix pancake batter together but haven't heated it up, is it considered a pancake? I do not think so.

At week 22 a fetus has a chance of becoming a premature baby if delivered. This is where I think that a fetus is definitely life. Before that point I believe that it is up to the mother if they want an abortion or not. Why? No one has been able to absolutely determine when a fetus becomes a human being yet.

When we can prove when a fetus becomes a human being then we can make a better decision on the issue, but before that we should not impose personal beliefs on other people. When a fetus becomes life is still an opinion, there is no fact about it. To force your opinion on others is wrong.

Now, this is my opinion, so it is not up for me to decide, but I do not think that pro-life is better than pro-choice before week 22. It should be up to the mother. If we can prove where human life begins then we can make a better decision, but we do not know yet. We don't. I do not think that people should get to involved in the issue.

There have already been bombings at abortion clinics, how is that supposed to show pro-life? What if someone died from those bombings?

I think we need to allow people to make their choices until we can know for sure when human life begins.

If you wish to argue for pro-life then please, go ahead. I just ask that you do so in a nice and civilized manner instead of arguing with hostility.

Thank you for reading,
~SNP1
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 10:31:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At week 22 a fetus has a chance of becoming a premature baby if delivered. This is where I think that a fetus is definitely life. Before that point I believe that it is up to the mother if they want an abortion or not. Why? No one has been able to absolutely determine when a fetus becomes a human being yet.

When we can prove when a fetus becomes a human being then we can make a better decision on the issue, but before that we should not impose personal beliefs on other people. When a fetus becomes life is still an opinion, there is no fact about it. To force your opinion on others is wrong.

Now, this is my opinion, so it is not up for me to decide, but I do not think that pro-life is better than pro-choice before week 22. It should be up to the mother. If we can prove where human life begins then we can make a better decision, but we do not know yet. We don't. I do not think that people should get to involved in the issue.

I think Pro-Life is not a direct opposition to Pro-Choice, it's a subtle, non-equal dichotomy.

A lot of the objections that come on the Pro-Life scale are besides the issue of whether the woman should have right to it choice, for example:

1. 'But adoption is a viable option after delivery'
A. That doesn't address the women's right to choice

2. 'But adoption is known to have xyz consequences on the family'
A. Such knowledge will affect the choice, IF the choice is available,

Anti-choice need to address the women's right to choice as opposed to the negative consequences such a choice might have. If it can be shown that a pro-choice position will violate some other right (the principle angle of attack is right-to-life, then you have a potential case. It's subtle but important.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 10:33:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 9:43:00 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I understand where pro-life comes from, I do, but everyone has their own opinion. In my opinion, pro-choice is the option that is best at this point in time.

When people eat eggs do they think they are eating Chicken? No, people consider them different. When people mix pancake batter together but haven't heated it up, is it considered a pancake? I do not think so.

At week 22 a fetus has a chance of becoming a premature baby if delivered. This is where I think that a fetus is definitely life. Before that point I believe that it is up to the mother if they want an abortion or not. Why? No one has been able to absolutely determine when a fetus becomes a human being yet.

When we can prove when a fetus becomes a human being then we can make a better decision on the issue, but before that we should not impose personal beliefs on other people. When a fetus becomes life is still an opinion, there is no fact about it. To force your opinion on others is wrong.

Now, this is my opinion, so it is not up for me to decide, but I do not think that pro-life is better than pro-choice before week 22. It should be up to the mother. If we can prove where human life begins then we can make a better decision, but we do not know yet. We don't. I do not think that people should get to involved in the issue.

There have already been bombings at abortion clinics, how is that supposed to show pro-life? What if someone died from those bombings?

I think we need to allow people to make their choices until we can know for sure when human life begins.

If you wish to argue for pro-life then please, go ahead. I just ask that you do so in a nice and civilized manner instead of arguing with hostility.

Thank you for reading,
~SNP1

What if it turns out that we discover a fetus really is a person, and then you're wrong? Over 50 million abortions have already been performed in the US. That's about equivalent to the ten largest cities in the US, including the entire teenage population in the US.

If we find out in the future that fetuses are actually people, then we've unintentionally committed genocide in the name of "choice."

Not to mention planned parenthood is a eugenics organization, with the prime purpose of killing all blacks. And to this day, the number one way black people die is in abortion.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 10:36:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 10:31:06 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At week 22 a fetus has a chance of becoming a premature baby if delivered. This is where I think that a fetus is definitely life. Before that point I believe that it is up to the mother if they want an abortion or not. Why? No one has been able to absolutely determine when a fetus becomes a human being yet.

When we can prove when a fetus becomes a human being then we can make a better decision on the issue, but before that we should not impose personal beliefs on other people. When a fetus becomes life is still an opinion, there is no fact about it. To force your opinion on others is wrong.

Now, this is my opinion, so it is not up for me to decide, but I do not think that pro-life is better than pro-choice before week 22. It should be up to the mother. If we can prove where human life begins then we can make a better decision, but we do not know yet. We don't. I do not think that people should get to involved in the issue.

I think Pro-Life is not a direct opposition to Pro-Choice, it's a subtle, non-equal dichotomy.


Pro-life and pro-choice are generally just whether or not people consider abortion moral.

A lot of the objections that come on the Pro-Life scale are besides the issue of whether the woman should have right to it choice, for example:

1. 'But adoption is a viable option after delivery'
A. That doesn't address the women's right to choice


I think they're trying to make the case that it's a better choice. I know guys who are sidewalk counselors, and have dedicated their life to counseling women going in before an abortion.

2. 'But adoption is known to have xyz consequences on the family'
A. Such knowledge will affect the choice, IF the choice is available,

Anti-choice need to address the women's right to choice as opposed to the negative consequences such a choice might have. If it can be shown that a pro-choice position will violate some other right (the principle angle of attack is right-to-life, then you have a potential case. It's subtle but important.

Well pro-lifers hold that the fetus is a human person, and that life is the most fundamental of all rights. All other human rights are parasitic on the right to life. Naturally, the right to life would trump the right to choice then.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 10:41:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 10:33:48 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/3/2014 9:43:00 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I understand where pro-life comes from, I do, but everyone has their own opinion. In my opinion, pro-choice is the option that is best at this point in time.

When people eat eggs do they think they are eating Chicken? No, people consider them different. When people mix pancake batter together but haven't heated it up, is it considered a pancake? I do not think so.

At week 22 a fetus has a chance of becoming a premature baby if delivered. This is where I think that a fetus is definitely life. Before that point I believe that it is up to the mother if they want an abortion or not. Why? No one has been able to absolutely determine when a fetus becomes a human being yet.

When we can prove when a fetus becomes a human being then we can make a better decision on the issue, but before that we should not impose personal beliefs on other people. When a fetus becomes life is still an opinion, there is no fact about it. To force your opinion on others is wrong.

Now, this is my opinion, so it is not up for me to decide, but I do not think that pro-life is better than pro-choice before week 22. It should be up to the mother. If we can prove where human life begins then we can make a better decision, but we do not know yet. We don't. I do not think that people should get to involved in the issue.

There have already been bombings at abortion clinics, how is that supposed to show pro-life? What if someone died from those bombings?

I think we need to allow people to make their choices until we can know for sure when human life begins.

If you wish to argue for pro-life then please, go ahead. I just ask that you do so in a nice and civilized manner instead of arguing with hostility.

Thank you for reading,
~SNP1

What if it turns out that we discover a fetus really is a person, and then you're wrong? Over 50 million abortions have already been performed in the US. That's about equivalent to the ten largest cities in the US, including the entire teenage population in the US.

If we find out in the future that fetuses are actually people, then we've unintentionally committed genocide in the name of "choice."

Not to mention planned parenthood is a eugenics organization, with the prime purpose of killing all blacks. And to this day, the number one way black people die is in abortion.

This. And millions of people would then be guilty of murder from even an atheistic viewpoint. "Choice" is not always a good thing; people choose to ignore the real purpose behind Planned Parenthood, after all.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 10:43:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In my view, sexual morality, abortion, and society are all tied together.

People want to have sex for enjoyment before marriage. So they use contraceptives. Then they accidentally get pregnant. Uh oh. Better get rid of it. Can't afford an abortion? Give birth to the baby, and chuck him in the dumpster.

It all stems from selfishness. I want to have sex before I'm married. I don't want kids. I want to have an abortion so I don't have to be a single mother.

When we place our own desires above innocent life, we're truly a depraved society and are on the path to ruin.

This is partly why it just makes so much more sense in my view to wait until marriage, not use contraceptives, etc. Otherwise human life is regarded as an unwanted unintended consequence... and this has been obviously shown to be true in abortion.

http://liveactionnews.org...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 10:49:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 10:41:08 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 3/3/2014 10:33:48 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/3/2014 9:43:00 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I understand where pro-life comes from, I do, but everyone has their own opinion. In my opinion, pro-choice is the option that is best at this point in time.

When people eat eggs do they think they are eating Chicken? No, people consider them different. When people mix pancake batter together but haven't heated it up, is it considered a pancake? I do not think so.

At week 22 a fetus has a chance of becoming a premature baby if delivered. This is where I think that a fetus is definitely life. Before that point I believe that it is up to the mother if they want an abortion or not. Why? No one has been able to absolutely determine when a fetus becomes a human being yet.

When we can prove when a fetus becomes a human being then we can make a better decision on the issue, but before that we should not impose personal beliefs on other people. When a fetus becomes life is still an opinion, there is no fact about it. To force your opinion on others is wrong.

Now, this is my opinion, so it is not up for me to decide, but I do not think that pro-life is better than pro-choice before week 22. It should be up to the mother. If we can prove where human life begins then we can make a better decision, but we do not know yet. We don't. I do not think that people should get to involved in the issue.

There have already been bombings at abortion clinics, how is that supposed to show pro-life? What if someone died from those bombings?

I think we need to allow people to make their choices until we can know for sure when human life begins.

If you wish to argue for pro-life then please, go ahead. I just ask that you do so in a nice and civilized manner instead of arguing with hostility.

Thank you for reading,
~SNP1

What if it turns out that we discover a fetus really is a person, and then you're wrong? Over 50 million abortions have already been performed in the US. That's about equivalent to the ten largest cities in the US, including the entire teenage population in the US.

If we find out in the future that fetuses are actually people, then we've unintentionally committed genocide in the name of "choice."

Not to mention planned parenthood is a eugenics organization, with the prime purpose of killing all blacks. And to this day, the number one way black people die is in abortion.

This. And millions of people would then be guilty of murder from even an atheistic viewpoint. "Choice" is not always a good thing; people choose to ignore the real purpose behind Planned Parenthood, after all.

Yes. Planned Parenthood is one of the worst organizations out there. Lots of examples of people going in undercover pretending to be minors with 30 year old boyfriends, and the PP workers are like "Oh, don't tell us his age." It's a money making business more than anything else.

Claiming PP cares about women is like claiming Hitler was being loving to the Jews. Absolute bullsh*t.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 10:57:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 10:33:48 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/3/2014 9:43:00 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I understand where pro-life comes from, I do, but everyone has their own opinion. In my opinion, pro-choice is the option that is best at this point in time.

When people eat eggs do they think they are eating Chicken? No, people consider them different. When people mix pancake batter together but haven't heated it up, is it considered a pancake? I do not think so.

At week 22 a fetus has a chance of becoming a premature baby if delivered. This is where I think that a fetus is definitely life. Before that point I believe that it is up to the mother if they want an abortion or not. Why? No one has been able to absolutely determine when a fetus becomes a human being yet.

When we can prove when a fetus becomes a human being then we can make a better decision on the issue, but before that we should not impose personal beliefs on other people. When a fetus becomes life is still an opinion, there is no fact about it. To force your opinion on others is wrong.

Now, this is my opinion, so it is not up for me to decide, but I do not think that pro-life is better than pro-choice before week 22. It should be up to the mother. If we can prove where human life begins then we can make a better decision, but we do not know yet. We don't. I do not think that people should get to involved in the issue.

There have already been bombings at abortion clinics, how is that supposed to show pro-life? What if someone died from those bombings?

I think we need to allow people to make their choices until we can know for sure when human life begins.

If you wish to argue for pro-life then please, go ahead. I just ask that you do so in a nice and civilized manner instead of arguing with hostility.

Thank you for reading,
~SNP1

What if it turns out that we discover a fetus really is a person, and then you're wrong? Over 50 million abortions have already been performed in the US. That's about equivalent to the ten largest cities in the US, including the entire teenage population in the US.

I'm fairly sure a foetus is a human being. Person is an interesting choice. Emotive language to invoke pathos is a common technique, but not one I applaud. Like when people use "baby" instead of "f(o)etus".

If we find out in the future that fetuses are actually people, then we've unintentionally committed genocide in the name of "choice."

So, since no one I know argues that foetus = human, you're arguing that human =/= person? What's the difference?


Not to mention planned parenthood is a eugenics organization, with the prime purpose of killing all blacks. And to this day, the number one way black people die is in abortion.

Umm...I got nothing.
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 11:02:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 10:41:08 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 3/3/2014 10:33:48 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/3/2014 9:43:00 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I understand where pro-life comes from, I do, but everyone has their own opinion. In my opinion, pro-choice is the option that is best at this point in time.

When people eat eggs do they think they are eating Chicken? No, people consider them different. When people mix pancake batter together but haven't heated it up, is it considered a pancake? I do not think so.

At week 22 a fetus has a chance of becoming a premature baby if delivered. This is where I think that a fetus is definitely life. Before that point I believe that it is up to the mother if they want an abortion or not. Why? No one has been able to absolutely determine when a fetus becomes a human being yet.

When we can prove when a fetus becomes a human being then we can make a better decision on the issue, but before that we should not impose personal beliefs on other people. When a fetus becomes life is still an opinion, there is no fact about it. To force your opinion on others is wrong.

Now, this is my opinion, so it is not up for me to decide, but I do not think that pro-life is better than pro-choice before week 22. It should be up to the mother. If we can prove where human life begins then we can make a better decision, but we do not know yet. We don't. I do not think that people should get to involved in the issue.

There have already been bombings at abortion clinics, how is that supposed to show pro-life? What if someone died from those bombings?

I think we need to allow people to make their choices until we can know for sure when human life begins.

If you wish to argue for pro-life then please, go ahead. I just ask that you do so in a nice and civilized manner instead of arguing with hostility.

Thank you for reading,
~SNP1

What if it turns out that we discover a fetus really is a person, and then you're wrong? Over 50 million abortions have already been performed in the US. That's about equivalent to the ten largest cities in the US, including the entire teenage population in the US.

If we find out in the future that fetuses are actually people, then we've unintentionally committed genocide in the name of "choice."

Not to mention planned parenthood is a eugenics organization, with the prime purpose of killing all blacks. And to this day, the number one way black people die is in abortion.

This. And millions of people would then be guilty of murder from even an atheistic viewpoint. "Choice" is not always a good thing; people choose to ignore the real purpose behind Planned Parenthood, after all.

Here is the thing though, if we prove that it is human life at 22 weeks then pro-lifers will claim that it is still human life before that and that we just haven't found the evidence yet. Pro-life will always be able to say that we do not have enough evidence so we should believe them. If we prove that human life exists before 22 weeks then they are not guilty of murder, not even from an "atheistic" viewpoint. No one knew one way or another, not from ignorance, but from lack of knowledge.

Are we supposed to blame people for abortion when no one, not even scientists and doctors, knew when life began? No, we cannot blame them. That is like saying we should blame those that spread the bubonic plague because they didn't know to cover their faces around others to prevent their coughs and sneezes to spread it around. No one knew about how it spread, so are they guilty? No. Did many people die because they didn't know that? Yes.

It is lack of knowledge among even our most knowledgeable, so we cannot blame people for their actions. We still should not force belief on others either.

If Islam is being pushed on people and they choose not to believe it and die a Christian or an Atheist, were they wrong? No. Can they be blamed for their non-belief in Islam? No. Let's say that tomorrow they are able to prove that Islam is correct, are all those people that died Christians or Atheists wrong? Yes. Can they be blamed for not believing in Islam? No.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 11:03:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 10:43:21 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
In my view, sexual morality, abortion, and society are all tied together.

People want to have sex for enjoyment before marriage. So they use contraceptives. Then they accidentally get pregnant. Uh oh. Better get rid of it. Can't afford an abortion? Give birth to the baby, and chuck him in the dumpster.

It all stems from selfishness. I want to have sex before I'm married. I don't want kids. I want to have an abortion so I don't have to be a single mother.

When we place our own desires above innocent life, we're truly a depraved society and are on the path to ruin.

This is partly why it just makes so much more sense in my view to wait until marriage, not use contraceptives, etc. Otherwise human life is regarded as an unwanted unintended consequence... and this has been obviously shown to be true in abortion.

http://liveactionnews.org...

I'm assuming you're Catholic, from that. Now, what about in the majority of cases, where contraception does work?

*Man 1 walking down the street sees ladder*
*Man 1 walks under ladder*
*Life is good*

**Repeat millions of times**

*Man 2 walking down the street sees ladder*
*Man 2 walks under ladder*
*Ladder falls*
*Man dies*

*Pro-choice vs Pro-life debate on whether ladders should be allowed and used in public streets ensues.*

Contraceptives aren't just for people who want to have a one-night stand, nor for single people. Nor are they just for the west, lest we forget that many people in third-world countries can ONLY raise a small, controllable household due to the effects of contraceptives.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 11:05:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 10:57:10 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 3/3/2014 10:33:48 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/3/2014 9:43:00 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I understand where pro-life comes from, I do, but everyone has their own opinion. In my opinion, pro-choice is the option that is best at this point in time.

When people eat eggs do they think they are eating Chicken? No, people consider them different. When people mix pancake batter together but haven't heated it up, is it considered a pancake? I do not think so.

At week 22 a fetus has a chance of becoming a premature baby if delivered. This is where I think that a fetus is definitely life. Before that point I believe that it is up to the mother if they want an abortion or not. Why? No one has been able to absolutely determine when a fetus becomes a human being yet.

When we can prove when a fetus becomes a human being then we can make a better decision on the issue, but before that we should not impose personal beliefs on other people. When a fetus becomes life is still an opinion, there is no fact about it. To force your opinion on others is wrong.

Now, this is my opinion, so it is not up for me to decide, but I do not think that pro-life is better than pro-choice before week 22. It should be up to the mother. If we can prove where human life begins then we can make a better decision, but we do not know yet. We don't. I do not think that people should get to involved in the issue.

There have already been bombings at abortion clinics, how is that supposed to show pro-life? What if someone died from those bombings?

I think we need to allow people to make their choices until we can know for sure when human life begins.

If you wish to argue for pro-life then please, go ahead. I just ask that you do so in a nice and civilized manner instead of arguing with hostility.

Thank you for reading,
~SNP1

What if it turns out that we discover a fetus really is a person, and then you're wrong? Over 50 million abortions have already been performed in the US. That's about equivalent to the ten largest cities in the US, including the entire teenage population in the US.

I'm fairly sure a foetus is a human being. Person is an interesting choice. Emotive language to invoke pathos is a common technique, but not one I applaud. Like when people use "baby" instead of "f(o)etus".


If a fetus has the exact same rights as people do, why not call it a person? If a fetus is a human being with the right to life, liberty, etc. it sounds alot like a person to me. :P

If we find out in the future that fetuses are actually people, then we've unintentionally committed genocide in the name of "choice."

So, since no one I know argues that foetus = human, you're arguing that human =/= person? What's the difference?


Not to mention planned parenthood is a eugenics organization, with the prime purpose of killing all blacks. And to this day, the number one way black people die is in abortion.

Umm...I got nothing.

"The ministers work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." -Margaret Sanger, founder of PP
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 11:13:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 11:03:30 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 3/3/2014 10:43:21 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
In my view, sexual morality, abortion, and society are all tied together.

People want to have sex for enjoyment before marriage. So they use contraceptives. Then they accidentally get pregnant. Uh oh. Better get rid of it. Can't afford an abortion? Give birth to the baby, and chuck him in the dumpster.

It all stems from selfishness. I want to have sex before I'm married. I don't want kids. I want to have an abortion so I don't have to be a single mother.

When we place our own desires above innocent life, we're truly a depraved society and are on the path to ruin.

This is partly why it just makes so much more sense in my view to wait until marriage, not use contraceptives, etc. Otherwise human life is regarded as an unwanted unintended consequence... and this has been obviously shown to be true in abortion.

http://liveactionnews.org...

I'm assuming you're Catholic, from that. Now, what about in the majority of cases, where contraception does work?


Noooo, my identity has been BLOWN :O ;) Yeah, I'm Catholic. It used to be that pretty much all Christians were against contraceptives, until the Anglicans caved in, and then all the other churches did... The Catholic Church hasn't though, and it won't ever happen.

*Man 1 walking down the street sees ladder*
*Man 1 walks under ladder*
*Life is good*

**Repeat millions of times**


*Man 2 walking down the street sees ladder*
*Man 2 walks under ladder*
*Ladder falls*
*Man dies*

*Pro-choice vs Pro-life debate on whether ladders should be allowed and used in public streets ensues.*

Contraceptives aren't just for people who want to have a one-night stand, nor for single people. Nor are they just for the west, lest we forget that many people in third-world countries can ONLY raise a small, controllable household due to the effects of contraceptives.

Well I view contraceptives as inherently immoral, and think that generally they have negative side-effects. In my view it generally aids the selfish desires of people, and puts sex as an end desirable in itself.

In my opinion, waiting until marriage, loving one woman for my entire life, and having a big family sounds pretty fulfilling...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 11:17:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 11:02:28 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/3/2014 10:41:08 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 3/3/2014 10:33:48 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/3/2014 9:43:00 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I understand where pro-life comes from, I do, but everyone has their own opinion. In my opinion, pro-choice is the option that is best at this point in time.

When people eat eggs do they think they are eating Chicken? No, people consider them different. When people mix pancake batter together but haven't heated it up, is it considered a pancake? I do not think so.

At week 22 a fetus has a chance of becoming a premature baby if delivered. This is where I think that a fetus is definitely life. Before that point I believe that it is up to the mother if they want an abortion or not. Why? No one has been able to absolutely determine when a fetus becomes a human being yet.

When we can prove when a fetus becomes a human being then we can make a better decision on the issue, but before that we should not impose personal beliefs on other people. When a fetus becomes life is still an opinion, there is no fact about it. To force your opinion on others is wrong.

Now, this is my opinion, so it is not up for me to decide, but I do not think that pro-life is better than pro-choice before week 22. It should be up to the mother. If we can prove where human life begins then we can make a better decision, but we do not know yet. We don't. I do not think that people should get to involved in the issue.

There have already been bombings at abortion clinics, how is that supposed to show pro-life? What if someone died from those bombings?

I think we need to allow people to make their choices until we can know for sure when human life begins.

If you wish to argue for pro-life then please, go ahead. I just ask that you do so in a nice and civilized manner instead of arguing with hostility.

Thank you for reading,
~SNP1

What if it turns out that we discover a fetus really is a person, and then you're wrong? Over 50 million abortions have already been performed in the US. That's about equivalent to the ten largest cities in the US, including the entire teenage population in the US.

If we find out in the future that fetuses are actually people, then we've unintentionally committed genocide in the name of "choice."

Not to mention planned parenthood is a eugenics organization, with the prime purpose of killing all blacks. And to this day, the number one way black people die is in abortion.

This. And millions of people would then be guilty of murder from even an atheistic viewpoint. "Choice" is not always a good thing; people choose to ignore the real purpose behind Planned Parenthood, after all.

Here is the thing though, if we prove that it is human life at 22 weeks then pro-lifers will claim that it is still human life before that and that we just haven't found the evidence yet. Pro-life will always be able to say that we do not have enough evidence so we should believe them. If we prove that human life exists before 22 weeks then they are not guilty of murder, not even from an "atheistic" viewpoint. No one knew one way or another, not from ignorance, but from lack of knowledge.

Are we supposed to blame people for abortion when no one, not even scientists and doctors, knew when life began? No, we cannot blame them. That is like saying we should blame those that spread the bubonic plague because they didn't know to cover their faces around others to prevent their coughs and sneezes to spread it around. No one knew about how it spread, so are they guilty? No. Did many people die because they didn't know that? Yes.

It is lack of knowledge among even our most knowledgeable, so we cannot blame people for their actions. We still should not force belief on others either.

If Islam is being pushed on people and they choose not to believe it and die a Christian or an Atheist, were they wrong? No. Can they be blamed for their non-belief in Islam? No. Let's say that tomorrow they are able to prove that Islam is correct, are all those people that died Christians or Atheists wrong? Yes. Can they be blamed for not believing in Islam? No.

The point is that if you're willing to allow something to happen which may be genocide, then that's immoral in the first place.

If you were going to press a button, and honestly didn't know if it would kill billions of people, would you do it? You know it's going to destroy human organisms, but you don't know if it will destroy human beings. It seems to me that the view of holding life in such a low esteem is wrong in and of itself. Even if it turns out that there it isn't killing millions of people, you're still guilty of playing a game of dice over millions of lives.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 11:25:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 11:13:17 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/3/2014 11:03:30 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 3/3/2014 10:43:21 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
In my view, sexual morality, abortion, and society are all tied together.

People want to have sex for enjoyment before marriage. So they use contraceptives. Then they accidentally get pregnant. Uh oh. Better get rid of it. Can't afford an abortion? Give birth to the baby, and chuck him in the dumpster.

It all stems from selfishness. I want to have sex before I'm married. I don't want kids. I want to have an abortion so I don't have to be a single mother.

When we place our own desires above innocent life, we're truly a depraved society and are on the path to ruin.

This is partly why it just makes so much more sense in my view to wait until marriage, not use contraceptives, etc. Otherwise human life is regarded as an unwanted unintended consequence... and this has been obviously shown to be true in abortion.

http://liveactionnews.org...

I'm assuming you're Catholic, from that. Now, what about in the majority of cases, where contraception does work?


Noooo, my identity has been BLOWN :O ;) Yeah, I'm Catholic. It used to be that pretty much all Christians were against contraceptives, until the Anglicans caved in, and then all the other churches did... The Catholic Church hasn't though, and it won't ever happen.

*Man 1 walking down the street sees ladder*
*Man 1 walks under ladder*
*Life is good*

**Repeat millions of times**


*Man 2 walking down the street sees ladder*
*Man 2 walks under ladder*
*Ladder falls*
*Man dies*

*Pro-choice vs Pro-life debate on whether ladders should be allowed and used in public streets ensues.*

Contraceptives aren't just for people who want to have a one-night stand, nor for single people. Nor are they just for the west, lest we forget that many people in third-world countries can ONLY raise a small, controllable household due to the effects of contraceptives.

Well I view contraceptives as inherently immoral, and think that generally they have negative side-effects. In my view it generally aids the selfish desires of people, and puts sex as an end desirable in itself.

In my opinion, waiting until marriage, loving one woman for my entire life, and having a big family sounds pretty fulfilling...

Oh wait no, Margaret Sanger says that having a large family is the most immoral practice possible... whoops. http://www.bartleby.com...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 11:34:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 11:05:21 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/3/2014 10:57:10 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 3/3/2014 10:33:48 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/3/2014 9:43:00 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I understand where pro-life comes from, I do, but everyone has their own opinion. In my opinion, pro-choice is the option that is best at this point in time.

When people eat eggs do they think they are eating Chicken? No, people consider them different. When people mix pancake batter together but haven't heated it up, is it considered a pancake? I do not think so.

At week 22 a fetus has a chance of becoming a premature baby if delivered. This is where I think that a fetus is definitely life. Before that point I believe that it is up to the mother if they want an abortion or not. Why? No one has been able to absolutely determine when a fetus becomes a human being yet.

When we can prove when a fetus becomes a human being then we can make a better decision on the issue, but before that we should not impose personal beliefs on other people. When a fetus becomes life is still an opinion, there is no fact about it. To force your opinion on others is wrong.

Now, this is my opinion, so it is not up for me to decide, but I do not think that pro-life is better than pro-choice before week 22. It should be up to the mother. If we can prove where human life begins then we can make a better decision, but we do not know yet. We don't. I do not think that people should get to involved in the issue.

There have already been bombings at abortion clinics, how is that supposed to show pro-life? What if someone died from those bombings?

I think we need to allow people to make their choices until we can know for sure when human life begins.

If you wish to argue for pro-life then please, go ahead. I just ask that you do so in a nice and civilized manner instead of arguing with hostility.

Thank you for reading,
~SNP1

What if it turns out that we discover a fetus really is a person, and then you're wrong? Over 50 million abortions have already been performed in the US. That's about equivalent to the ten largest cities in the US, including the entire teenage population in the US.

I'm fairly sure a foetus is a human being. Person is an interesting choice. Emotive language to invoke pathos is a common technique, but not one I applaud. Like when people use "baby" instead of "f(o)etus".


If a fetus has the exact same rights as people do, why not call it a person? If a fetus is a human being with the right to life, liberty, etc. it sounds alot like a person to me. :P

I would say two things:
1) A foetus doesn't, though. At least, not until a certain number of weeks.
2) Foetus sounds sooo much cooler and proper.


If we find out in the future that fetuses are actually people, then we've unintentionally committed genocide in the name of "choice."

So, since no one I know argues that foetus = human, you're arguing that human =/= person? What's the difference?


Not to mention planned parenthood is a eugenics organization, with the prime purpose of killing all blacks. And to this day, the number one way black people die is in abortion.

Umm...I got nothing.

"The ministers work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." -Margaret Sanger, founder of PP

I've missed something, then. It's something I'm not familiar with.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 11:36:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 11:13:17 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/3/2014 11:03:30 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 3/3/2014 10:43:21 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
In my view, sexual morality, abortion, and society are all tied together.

People want to have sex for enjoyment before marriage. So they use contraceptives. Then they accidentally get pregnant. Uh oh. Better get rid of it. Can't afford an abortion? Give birth to the baby, and chuck him in the dumpster.

It all stems from selfishness. I want to have sex before I'm married. I don't want kids. I want to have an abortion so I don't have to be a single mother.

When we place our own desires above innocent life, we're truly a depraved society and are on the path to ruin.

This is partly why it just makes so much more sense in my view to wait until marriage, not use contraceptives, etc. Otherwise human life is regarded as an unwanted unintended consequence... and this has been obviously shown to be true in abortion.

http://liveactionnews.org...

I'm assuming you're Catholic, from that. Now, what about in the majority of cases, where contraception does work?


Noooo, my identity has been BLOWN :O ;) Yeah, I'm Catholic. It used to be that pretty much all Christians were against contraceptives, until the Anglicans caved in, and then all the other churches did... The Catholic Church hasn't though, and it won't ever happen.

*Man 1 walking down the street sees ladder*
*Man 1 walks under ladder*
*Life is good*

**Repeat millions of times**


*Man 2 walking down the street sees ladder*
*Man 2 walks under ladder*
*Ladder falls*
*Man dies*

*Pro-choice vs Pro-life debate on whether ladders should be allowed and used in public streets ensues.*

Contraceptives aren't just for people who want to have a one-night stand, nor for single people. Nor are they just for the west, lest we forget that many people in third-world countries can ONLY raise a small, controllable household due to the effects of contraceptives.

Well I view contraceptives as inherently immoral, and think that generally they have negative side-effects. In my view it generally aids the selfish desires of people, and puts sex as an end desirable in itself.

OK. I just don't think you've justified that view point. Also, what about in third world examples? Would you honestly take them away, if you had the power to.

In my opinion, waiting until marriage, loving one woman for my entire life, and having a big family sounds pretty fulfilling...

A false dichotomy, I'm afraid. But, I'd have to agree.
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 11:37:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 11:17:13 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
If you were going to press a button, and honestly didn't know if it would kill billions of people, would you do it? You know it's going to destroy human organisms, but you don't know if it will destroy human beings. It seems to me that the view of holding life in such a low esteem is wrong in and of itself. Even if it turns out that there it isn't killing millions of people, you're still guilty of playing a game of dice over millions of lives.

What if there is a high chance of you dying if you do not press that button? And when you look at what science says it does not know whether or not it will kill human beings or not? Finally, you know that the human beings that would be killed cannot and have not even been able to live by themselves? It is still wrong, why? Because how you set it up you would be making the choice for other people.

This is NOT about making a choice for others, it is about allowing people to make their own choice.

Woman can die from Childbirth, the adoption process is so broken that it is sometimes nearly impossible to adopt your child away, adoption can negatively effect the child, and a child raised in a family that didn't want him/her does not usually turn out that well (have met quite a few).

If my fiance decided to get an abortion, how does that affect you? If she decided to keep it, how does that affect you? Who does it affect you? The would be mother and father. Out of the two of them, who has to go through pregnancy and childbirth? The mother.

So, until we know when human life starts, who should choose if abortion is right or not? Not the government, not others, the would be parents. I think that the would be father should have a say to the would be mother, but not as to whether the abortion should happen or not.

The would be mother should choose whether she wants and abortion or not. I think that she should take the opinion of the would be father into consideration, but she should have the say until we know when human life starts. Week 22 is definitely where life should be considered to start since that is the earliest that a baby can be born and live outside the mother's womb. Before that? We do not know, but the actions that a couple takes does not affect others. It should not be up to other people.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 11:43:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 11:37:39 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/3/2014 11:17:13 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
If you were going to press a button, and honestly didn't know if it would kill billions of people, would you do it? You know it's going to destroy human organisms, but you don't know if it will destroy human beings. It seems to me that the view of holding life in such a low esteem is wrong in and of itself. Even if it turns out that there it isn't killing millions of people, you're still guilty of playing a game of dice over millions of lives.

What if there is a high chance of you dying if you do not press that button? And when you look at what science says it does not know whether or not it will kill human beings or not? Finally, you know that the human beings that would be killed cannot and have not even been able to live by themselves? It is still wrong, why? Because how you set it up you would be making the choice for other people.


Abortion in cases of the mother dying is different. I'm just saying that its immoral to make abortion allowable in all cases if you honestly don't know whether or not it's a person.

This is NOT about making a choice for others, it is about allowing people to make their own choice.


Yes, well, if I'm going to make my own choice, I can't just sit idly by while people destroy innocent life. It's not so much that I believe there shouldn't be abortion, but that I believe there shouldn't be abortion. As such, I will follow my conscience and continue to fight against abortion. (Not physically)

Woman can die from Childbirth, the adoption process is so broken that it is sometimes nearly impossible to adopt your child away, adoption can negatively effect the child, and a child raised in a family that didn't want him/her does not usually turn out that well (have met quite a few).

If my fiance decided to get an abortion, how does that affect you? If she decided to keep it, how does that affect you? Who does it affect you? The would be mother and father. Out of the two of them, who has to go through pregnancy and childbirth? The mother.


If a mother can legally destroy innocent life, no one is safe.

So, until we know when human life starts, who should choose if abortion is right or not? Not the government, not others, the would be parents. I think that the would be father should have a say to the would be mother, but not as to whether the abortion should happen or not.


We should act as if it were human life from conception. Until we know it's not, we shouldn't act as if it isn't. Otherwise we're cheapening life.

The would be mother should choose whether she wants and abortion or not. I think that she should take the opinion of the would be father into consideration, but she should have the say until we know when human life starts. Week 22 is definitely where life should be considered to start since that is the earliest that a baby can be born and live outside the mother's womb. Before that? We do not know, but the actions that a couple takes does not affect others. It should not be up to other people.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 11:47:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 11:34:32 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 3/3/2014 11:05:21 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/3/2014 10:57:10 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 3/3/2014 10:33:48 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/3/2014 9:43:00 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I understand where pro-life comes from, I do, but everyone has their own opinion. In my opinion, pro-choice is the option that is best at this point in time.

When people eat eggs do they think they are eating Chicken? No, people consider them different. When people mix pancake batter together but haven't heated it up, is it considered a pancake? I do not think so.

At week 22 a fetus has a chance of becoming a premature baby if delivered. This is where I think that a fetus is definitely life. Before that point I believe that it is up to the mother if they want an abortion or not. Why? No one has been able to absolutely determine when a fetus becomes a human being yet.

When we can prove when a fetus becomes a human being then we can make a better decision on the issue, but before that we should not impose personal beliefs on other people. When a fetus becomes life is still an opinion, there is no fact about it. To force your opinion on others is wrong.

Now, this is my opinion, so it is not up for me to decide, but I do not think that pro-life is better than pro-choice before week 22. It should be up to the mother. If we can prove where human life begins then we can make a better decision, but we do not know yet. We don't. I do not think that people should get to involved in the issue.

There have already been bombings at abortion clinics, how is that supposed to show pro-life? What if someone died from those bombings?

I think we need to allow people to make their choices until we can know for sure when human life begins.

If you wish to argue for pro-life then please, go ahead. I just ask that you do so in a nice and civilized manner instead of arguing with hostility.

Thank you for reading,
~SNP1

What if it turns out that we discover a fetus really is a person, and then you're wrong? Over 50 million abortions have already been performed in the US. That's about equivalent to the ten largest cities in the US, including the entire teenage population in the US.

I'm fairly sure a foetus is a human being. Person is an interesting choice. Emotive language to invoke pathos is a common technique, but not one I applaud. Like when people use "baby" instead of "f(o)etus".


If a fetus has the exact same rights as people do, why not call it a person? If a fetus is a human being with the right to life, liberty, etc. it sounds alot like a person to me. :P

I would say two things:
1) A foetus doesn't, though. At least, not until a certain number of weeks.
2) Foetus sounds sooo much cooler and proper.


Haha. ;)


If we find out in the future that fetuses are actually people, then we've unintentionally committed genocide in the name of "choice."

So, since no one I know argues that foetus = human, you're arguing that human =/= person? What's the difference?


Not to mention planned parenthood is a eugenics organization, with the prime purpose of killing all blacks. And to this day, the number one way black people die is in abortion.

Umm...I got nothing.

"The ministers work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." -Margaret Sanger, founder of PP

I've missed something, then. It's something I'm not familiar with.

Well yeah, it's controversial. There's still mal-practice in PP constantly. It's pretty obvious the abortion clinic near where I live sells body parts illegally. There was a court hearing just recently where the PP representative said that if a baby were accidentally delivered, then they would leave the choice up to the mother of whether or not it lived. That's infanticide. Not to mention Kermit Gosnell who would kill babies that were delivered by cutting their spine with a scissors. Apparently he joked "That baby was so big he could walk to the bus stop." http://cnsnews.com...

PP is a shady business, as are nearly all abortion clinics. I know a woman who found aborted fetuses in dumpsters outside clinics.

Imo, some f*cked up sh*t.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 11:51:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 11:36:12 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 3/3/2014 11:13:17 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/3/2014 11:03:30 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 3/3/2014 10:43:21 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
In my view, sexual morality, abortion, and society are all tied together.

People want to have sex for enjoyment before marriage. So they use contraceptives. Then they accidentally get pregnant. Uh oh. Better get rid of it. Can't afford an abortion? Give birth to the baby, and chuck him in the dumpster.

It all stems from selfishness. I want to have sex before I'm married. I don't want kids. I want to have an abortion so I don't have to be a single mother.

When we place our own desires above innocent life, we're truly a depraved society and are on the path to ruin.

This is partly why it just makes so much more sense in my view to wait until marriage, not use contraceptives, etc. Otherwise human life is regarded as an unwanted unintended consequence... and this has been obviously shown to be true in abortion.

http://liveactionnews.org...

I'm assuming you're Catholic, from that. Now, what about in the majority of cases, where contraception does work?


Noooo, my identity has been BLOWN :O ;) Yeah, I'm Catholic. It used to be that pretty much all Christians were against contraceptives, until the Anglicans caved in, and then all the other churches did... The Catholic Church hasn't though, and it won't ever happen.

*Man 1 walking down the street sees ladder*
*Man 1 walks under ladder*
*Life is good*

**Repeat millions of times**


*Man 2 walking down the street sees ladder*
*Man 2 walks under ladder*
*Ladder falls*
*Man dies*

*Pro-choice vs Pro-life debate on whether ladders should be allowed and used in public streets ensues.*

Contraceptives aren't just for people who want to have a one-night stand, nor for single people. Nor are they just for the west, lest we forget that many people in third-world countries can ONLY raise a small, controllable household due to the effects of contraceptives.

Well I view contraceptives as inherently immoral, and think that generally they have negative side-effects. In my view it generally aids the selfish desires of people, and puts sex as an end desirable in itself.

OK. I just don't think you've justified that view point. Also, what about in third world examples? Would you honestly take them away, if you had the power to.


No, I haven't. I'm not sure what I would do in that situation.

In my opinion, waiting until marriage, loving one woman for my entire life, and having a big family sounds pretty fulfilling...

A false dichotomy, I'm afraid. But, I'd have to agree.

Lol, well, you're a guy ;)
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Fox-McCloud
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 11:57:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 11:13:17 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/3/2014 11:03:30 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 3/3/2014 10:43:21 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
In my view, sexual morality, abortion, and society are all tied together.

People want to have sex for enjoyment before marriage. So they use contraceptives. Then they accidentally get pregnant. Uh oh. Better get rid of it. Can't afford an abortion? Give birth to the baby, and chuck him in the dumpster.

It all stems from selfishness. I want to have sex before I'm married. I don't want kids. I want to have an abortion so I don't have to be a single mother.

When we place our own desires above innocent life, we're truly a depraved society and are on the path to ruin.

This is partly why it just makes so much more sense in my view to wait until marriage, not use contraceptives, etc. Otherwise human life is regarded as an unwanted unintended consequence... and this has been obviously shown to be true in abortion.

http://liveactionnews.org...

I'm assuming you're Catholic, from that. Now, what about in the majority of cases, where contraception does work?


Noooo, my identity has been BLOWN :O ;) Yeah, I'm Catholic. It used to be that pretty much all Christians were against contraceptives, until the Anglicans caved in, and then all the other churches did... The Catholic Church hasn't though, and it won't ever happen.

*Man 1 walking down the street sees ladder*
*Man 1 walks under ladder*
*Life is good*

**Repeat millions of times**


*Man 2 walking down the street sees ladder*
*Man 2 walks under ladder*
*Ladder falls*
*Man dies*

*Pro-choice vs Pro-life debate on whether ladders should be allowed and used in public streets ensues.*

Contraceptives aren't just for people who want to have a one-night stand, nor for single people. Nor are they just for the west, lest we forget that many people in third-world countries can ONLY raise a small, controllable household due to the effects of contraceptives.

Well I view contraceptives as inherently immoral, and think that generally they have negative side-effects. In my view it generally aids the selfish desires of people, and puts sex as an end desirable in itself.

In my opinion, waiting until marriage, loving one woman for my entire life, and having a big family sounds pretty fulfilling...

Aids is a funny word to use there, considering contraceptive practice is the number one aids preventer.
Abortion Is Generally Morally Reprehensible: http://www.debate.org...

The instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves - Archibald Alison

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven! - William Wordsworth
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 12:02:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 11:57:31 AM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
At 3/3/2014 11:13:17 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/3/2014 11:03:30 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 3/3/2014 10:43:21 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
In my view, sexual morality, abortion, and society are all tied together.

People want to have sex for enjoyment before marriage. So they use contraceptives. Then they accidentally get pregnant. Uh oh. Better get rid of it. Can't afford an abortion? Give birth to the baby, and chuck him in the dumpster.

It all stems from selfishness. I want to have sex before I'm married. I don't want kids. I want to have an abortion so I don't have to be a single mother.

When we place our own desires above innocent life, we're truly a depraved society and are on the path to ruin.

This is partly why it just makes so much more sense in my view to wait until marriage, not use contraceptives, etc. Otherwise human life is regarded as an unwanted unintended consequence... and this has been obviously shown to be true in abortion.

http://liveactionnews.org...

I'm assuming you're Catholic, from that. Now, what about in the majority of cases, where contraception does work?


Noooo, my identity has been BLOWN :O ;) Yeah, I'm Catholic. It used to be that pretty much all Christians were against contraceptives, until the Anglicans caved in, and then all the other churches did... The Catholic Church hasn't though, and it won't ever happen.

*Man 1 walking down the street sees ladder*
*Man 1 walks under ladder*
*Life is good*

**Repeat millions of times**


*Man 2 walking down the street sees ladder*
*Man 2 walks under ladder*
*Ladder falls*
*Man dies*

*Pro-choice vs Pro-life debate on whether ladders should be allowed and used in public streets ensues.*

Contraceptives aren't just for people who want to have a one-night stand, nor for single people. Nor are they just for the west, lest we forget that many people in third-world countries can ONLY raise a small, controllable household due to the effects of contraceptives.

Well I view contraceptives as inherently immoral, and think that generally they have negative side-effects. In my view it generally aids the selfish desires of people, and puts sex as an end desirable in itself.

In my opinion, waiting until marriage, loving one woman for my entire life, and having a big family sounds pretty fulfilling...

Aids is a funny word to use there, considering contraceptive practice is the number one aids preventer.

Haha, good one. ;) You forgot about Aids Lincoln though...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Fox-McCloud
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 12:12:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 10:31:06 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At week 22 a fetus has a chance of becoming a premature baby if delivered. This is where I think that a fetus is definitely life. Before that point I believe that it is up to the mother if they want an abortion or not. Why? No one has been able to absolutely determine when a fetus becomes a human being yet.

When we can prove when a fetus becomes a human being then we can make a better decision on the issue, but before that we should not impose personal beliefs on other people. When a fetus becomes life is still an opinion, there is no fact about it. To force your opinion on others is wrong.

Now, this is my opinion, so it is not up for me to decide, but I do not think that pro-life is better than pro-choice before week 22. It should be up to the mother. If we can prove where human life begins then we can make a better decision, but we do not know yet. We don't. I do not think that people should get to involved in the issue.

I think Pro-Life is not a direct opposition to Pro-Choice, it's a subtle, non-equal dichotomy.

A lot of the objections that come on the Pro-Life scale are besides the issue of whether the woman should have right to it choice, for example:

1. 'But adoption is a viable option after delivery'
A. That doesn't address the women's right to choice

2. 'But adoption is known to have xyz consequences on the family'
A. Such knowledge will affect the choice, IF the choice is available,

Anti-choice need to address the women's right to choice as opposed to the negative consequences such a choice might have. If it can be shown that a pro-choice position will violate some other right (the principle angle of attack is right-to-life, then you have a potential case. It's subtle but important.

I fully agree. To often this subtlety is overlooked which makes the debate really moot. In my opinion the argumentation of the pro-life side is often badly presented, which make the position look weak. I think that a good case can be made in defense of the fetus' right to life. However, I am far removed from certainty as this remains a highly difficult problem.
Abortion Is Generally Morally Reprehensible: http://www.debate.org...

The instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves - Archibald Alison

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven! - William Wordsworth
Fox-McCloud
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 12:25:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 9:43:00 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I understand where pro-life comes from, I do, but everyone has their own opinion. In my opinion, pro-choice is the option that is best at this point in time.

When people eat eggs do they think they are eating Chicken? No, people consider them different. When people mix pancake batter together but haven't heated it up, is it considered a pancake? I do not think so.

At week 22 a fetus has a chance of becoming a premature baby if delivered. This is where I think that a fetus is definitely life. Before that point I believe that it is up to the mother if they want an abortion or not. Why? No one has been able to absolutely determine when a fetus becomes a human being yet.

When we can prove when a fetus becomes a human being then we can make a better decision on the issue, but before that we should not impose personal beliefs on other people. When a fetus becomes life is still an opinion, there is no fact about it. To force your opinion on others is wrong.

Now, this is my opinion, so it is not up for me to decide, but I do not think that pro-life is better than pro-choice before week 22. It should be up to the mother. If we can prove where human life begins then we can make a better decision, but we do not know yet. We don't. I do not think that people should get to involved in the issue.

There have already been bombings at abortion clinics, how is that supposed to show pro-life? What if someone died from those bombings?

I think we need to allow people to make their choices until we can know for sure when human life begins.

If you wish to argue for pro-life then please, go ahead. I just ask that you do so in a nice and civilized manner instead of arguing with hostility.

Thank you for reading,
~SNP1

Actually, the well established scientific consensus is that human life begins at conception. http://www.westchesterinstitute.net... this ofcourse says nothing about the rights of the fetus.

I tend to agree with zmikecuber. You are assuming that if all the present pro-life arguments fail your moral deliberations are at an end. I think this view is mistaken. This is because the mere risk that one of those arguments succeeds can generate a moral reason that counts against the act. Risk-based considerations generate an important (but not necessarily) reason to avoid abortion.
Abortion Is Generally Morally Reprehensible: http://www.debate.org...

The instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves - Archibald Alison

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven! - William Wordsworth
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 6:29:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 9:43:00 AM, SNP1 wrote:
No one has been able to absolutely determine when a fetus becomes a human being yet.

I disagree, brain scans show they feel pain at 20 weeks.
SeventhProfessor
Posts: 5,097
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 6:43:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think whether or not a fetus is alive, or even human, is irrelevant. When it develops sapience is when we should draw the line. Even then, if both the mother and baby will die, it's a real life trolley problem. Do you not do anything and let both die, or actively kill one to let the other live?
#UnbanTheMadman

#StandWithBossy

#BetOnThett

"bossy r u like 85 years old and have lost ur mind"
~mysteriouscrystals

"I've honestly never seen seventh post anything that wasn't completely idiotic in a trying-to-be-funny way."
~F-16

https://docs.google.com...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 6:45:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I find Don Marquis' (an atheist philosopher) argument against abortion interesting. I think it can be summarized...

P1: Destroying an organism with a meaningful future like ours is immoral.
P2: Abortion destroys an organism with a meaningful future like ours.
C: Abortion is immoral.

http://faculty.polytechnic.org...

Anyone else have a better rendition of the argument? I feel as if I'm not quite hitting the nail on the head with the above syllogism.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 6:47:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 6:43:10 PM, SeventhProfessor wrote:
I think whether or not a fetus is alive, or even human, is irrelevant. When it develops sapience is when we should draw the line. Even then, if both the mother and baby will die, it's a real life trolley problem. Do you not do anything and let both die, or actively kill one to let the other live?

What about people who are in comas, or are mentally retarded?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
SeventhProfessor
Posts: 5,097
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 6:51:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 6:47:25 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/3/2014 6:43:10 PM, SeventhProfessor wrote:
I think whether or not a fetus is alive, or even human, is irrelevant. When it develops sapience is when we should draw the line. Even then, if both the mother and baby will die, it's a real life trolley problem. Do you not do anything and let both die, or actively kill one to let the other live?

What about people who are in comas, or are mentally retarded?

People in comas, but may be revived, can regain sapience while still having memories of loved ones, who have also gotten to know them. Killing them would hurt the families greatly. If they were no chance of recovery, killing them would save the family emotional turmoil and help them get over the death, which has already happened. Define "mentally retarded".
#UnbanTheMadman

#StandWithBossy

#BetOnThett

"bossy r u like 85 years old and have lost ur mind"
~mysteriouscrystals

"I've honestly never seen seventh post anything that wasn't completely idiotic in a trying-to-be-funny way."
~F-16

https://docs.google.com...
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 8:30:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 11:02:28 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/3/2014 10:41:08 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 3/3/2014 10:33:48 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/3/2014 9:43:00 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I understand where pro-life comes from, I do, but everyone has their own opinion. In my opinion, pro-choice is the option that is best at this point in time.

When people eat eggs do they think they are eating Chicken? No, people consider them different. When people mix pancake batter together but haven't heated it up, is it considered a pancake? I do not think so.

At week 22 a fetus has a chance of becoming a premature baby if delivered. This is where I think that a fetus is definitely life. Before that point I believe that it is up to the mother if they want an abortion or not. Why? No one has been able to absolutely determine when a fetus becomes a human being yet.

When we can prove when a fetus becomes a human being then we can make a better decision on the issue, but before that we should not impose personal beliefs on other people. When a fetus becomes life is still an opinion, there is no fact about it. To force your opinion on others is wrong.

Now, this is my opinion, so it is not up for me to decide, but I do not think that pro-life is better than pro-choice before week 22. It should be up to the mother. If we can prove where human life begins then we can make a better decision, but we do not know yet. We don't. I do not think that people should get to involved in the issue.

There have already been bombings at abortion clinics, how is that supposed to show pro-life? What if someone died from those bombings?

I think we need to allow people to make their choices until we can know for sure when human life begins.

If you wish to argue for pro-life then please, go ahead. I just ask that you do so in a nice and civilized manner instead of arguing with hostility.

Thank you for reading,
~SNP1

What if it turns out that we discover a fetus really is a person, and then you're wrong? Over 50 million abortions have already been performed in the US. That's about equivalent to the ten largest cities in the US, including the entire teenage population in the US.

If we find out in the future that fetuses are actually people, then we've unintentionally committed genocide in the name of "choice."

Not to mention planned parenthood is a eugenics organization, with the prime purpose of killing all blacks. And to this day, the number one way black people die is in abortion.

This. And millions of people would then be guilty of murder from even an atheistic viewpoint. "Choice" is not always a good thing; people choose to ignore the real purpose behind Planned Parenthood, after all.

Here is the thing though, if we prove that it is human life at 22 weeks then pro-lifers will claim that it is still human life before that and that we just haven't found the evidence yet. Pro-life will always be able to say that we do not have enough evidence so we should believe them. If we prove that human life exists before 22 weeks then they are not guilty of murder, not even from an "atheistic" viewpoint. No one knew one way or another, not from ignorance, but from lack of knowledge.

Are we supposed to blame people for abortion when no one, not even scientists and doctors, knew when life began? No, we cannot blame them. That is like saying we should blame those that spread the bubonic plague because they didn't know to cover their faces around others to prevent their coughs and sneezes to spread it around. No one knew about how it spread, so are they guilty? No. Did many people die because they didn't know that? Yes.

It is lack of knowledge among even our most knowledgeable, so we cannot blame people for their actions. We still should not force belief on others either.

If Islam is being pushed on people and they choose not to believe it and die a Christian or an Atheist, were they wrong? No. Can they be blamed for their non-belief in Islam? No. Let's say that tomorrow they are able to prove that Islam is correct, are all those people that died Christians or Atheists wrong? Yes. Can they be blamed for not believing in Islam? No.

But the thing is that genocide and murder are crimes universally. We're all free to believe whatever religion we want, but the pro-choice people are still making a very risky gambit that they could be murdering babies.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson