Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I love abortion........

illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 1:26:41 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Debates.

http://www.debate.org...

Looking to refine various arguments, so I will be doing quite a few of them. So if you miss out don't worry more are coming.
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 1:29:22 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Let me know if your interested, so when I set up another abortion debate I can just send you the debate.
Sipiri
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 3:34:57 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
I'm prepared to support the position that abortion ought to be unrestricted and legal at any point in any pregnancy, at any time, by any licensed doctor or PA under a doctor's supervision - subject to consent from the mother, of course.

Mind you, my position would not be that late term abortions are moral- only that they ought to be legal.

Would this be a topic you would be interested in?
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 3:55:56 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 3:34:57 AM, Sipiri wrote:
I'm prepared to support the position that abortion ought to be unrestricted and legal at any point in any pregnancy, at any time, by any licensed doctor or PA under a doctor's supervision - subject to consent from the mother, of course.

Mind you, my position would not be that late term abortions are moral- only that they ought to be legal.

Would this be a topic you would be interested in?

For now I am interested in arguing for a pro choice position.
nonwo
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 6:18:32 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 1:26:41 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Debates.

http://www.debate.org...

Looking to refine various arguments, so I will be doing quite a few of them. So if you miss out don't worry more are coming. : :

Our Creator created all the abortions to confuse the hell out of people who believe they are real.
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 4:24:01 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 1:26:41 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Debates.

http://www.debate.org...

Looking to refine various arguments, so I will be doing quite a few of them. So if you miss out don't worry more are coming.

Got another one up in the challenge period.

http://www.debate.org...
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 4:43:47 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
It's interesting because under religion so to speak abortion shouldn't be done as it would be a form of murder and under an evolutionary view abortion shouldn't be done because your not passing on your genes therby opting to be the unfit voluntarily. Even most animals know better!
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 5:04:35 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 4:43:47 AM, bigotry wrote:
It's interesting because under religion so to speak abortion shouldn't be done as it would be a form of murder and under an evolutionary view abortion shouldn't be done because your not passing on your genes therby opting to be the unfit voluntarily. Even most animals know better!

Suffice to say I disagree that abortion is murder, well at least in the context of early abortions.

Even if it's against evolution it doesn't matter, evolution is a theory about life/biology it's not a moral theory.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 5:16:07 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 5:04:35 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/26/2016 4:43:47 AM, bigotry wrote:
It's interesting because under religion so to speak abortion shouldn't be done as it would be a form of murder and under an evolutionary view abortion shouldn't be done because your not passing on your genes therby opting to be the unfit voluntarily. Even most animals know better!

Suffice to say I disagree that abortion is murder, well at least in the context of early abortions.

Even if it's against evolution it doesn't matter, evolution is a theory about life/biology it's not a moral theory.

That's irrelevant. Either the religion is a reality or evolution is a reality. Your more than welcome to pick a working assumption for the sake of figuring it out in that context but theism would dictate God sees the baby as a person and killing that unborn baby is not your decision to make and the evolutionary view would again dictate whoever is getting the abortion is weak for not passing their genes in to the next generation.
Another point to this is the reactions of would be mothers getting distraught over miscarriages. No woman ever became distraught after having sex and finding out they are pregnant.
Why is that emotion there if not placed by God or by nature? (Depending on the world view)
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 5:19:09 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 4:43:47 AM, bigotry wrote:
It's interesting because under religion so to speak abortion shouldn't be done as it would be a form of murder and under an evolutionary view abortion shouldn't be done because your not passing on your genes therby opting to be the unfit voluntarily. Even most animals know better!

actually it depends on the religion.
the bible contains several verses supporting the killing of the unborn.
as for "animals know better", there are many cases where animals will kill or abandon their offspring because they detect a birth defect.
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 5:24:57 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 5:16:07 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 5:04:35 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/26/2016 4:43:47 AM, bigotry wrote:
It's interesting because under religion so to speak abortion shouldn't be done as it would be a form of murder and under an evolutionary view abortion shouldn't be done because your not passing on your genes therby opting to be the unfit voluntarily. Even most animals know better!

Suffice to say I disagree that abortion is murder, well at least in the context of early abortions.

Even if it's against evolution it doesn't matter, evolution is a theory about life/biology it's not a moral theory.

That's irrelevant. Either the religion is a reality or evolution is a reality. Your more than welcome to pick a working assumption for the sake of figuring it out in that context but theism would dictate God sees the baby as a person

Really ? i'd love to hear Gods criteria for personhood.

I'd love to hear Gods comments how the argument that giving personhood to something on the mere basis of it's material makeup (eg human) isn't refuted by say the intelligent life form counter.

Now if God would actually like to speak for it's self on such matters then I'll welcome it, till then playing the God card doesn't help.

and killing that unborn baby is not your decision to make and the evolutionary view would again dictate whoever is getting the abortion is weak for not passing their genes in to the next generation.

And forcing a women to continue with a pregnancy isn't yours.

Again evolution theory isn't a moral one.

Another point to this is the reactions of would be mothers getting distraught over miscarriages. No woman ever became distraught after having sex and finding out they are pregnant.

Speak to more women.

Also it's a social taboo, your allowed to say how happy you are you are pregnant or have kids, but if you think the other way, society pretty much mandates you shut up, cause if you say your regret having kids look at the feedback some woman get, they are basically seen as worse than Hitler.

Hey at least Hitler loved babies...................non jewish, blue eyed, white skins babies that is.

Why is that emotion there if not placed by God or by nature? (Depending on the world view)

Me thinks your grasping at straws.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 5:46:00 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 5:19:09 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 3/26/2016 4:43:47 AM, bigotry wrote:
It's interesting because under religion so to speak abortion shouldn't be done as it would be a form of murder and under an evolutionary view abortion shouldn't be done because your not passing on your genes therby opting to be the unfit voluntarily. Even most animals know better!

actually it depends on the religion.
the bible contains several verses supporting the killing of the unborn.
as for "animals know better", there are many cases where animals will kill or abandon their offspring because they detect a birth defect.
Oh really? Show me where in the law of Moses or anywhere in the new testament the procedure to undergo killing the unborn?
Show me any study confirming animals can detect birth defects in their young...you know before they pop out of the womb.
Most pregnant animals are some of the most dangerous ones to interact with. Don't use your logic if you see a baby bear in a forest. You gotta think in terms of reality. Not what you might wish to be the case
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 6:07:37 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 5:24:57 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/26/2016 5:16:07 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 5:04:35 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/26/2016 4:43:47 AM, bigotry wrote:
It's interesting because under religion so to speak abortion shouldn't be done as it would be a form of murder and under an evolutionary view abortion shouldn't be done because your not passing on your genes therby opting to be the unfit voluntarily. Even most animals know better!

Suffice to say I disagree that abortion is murder, well at least in the context of early abortions.

Even if it's against evolution it doesn't matter, evolution is a theory about life/biology it's not a moral theory.

That's irrelevant. Either the religion is a reality or evolution is a reality. Your more than welcome to pick a working assumption for the sake of figuring it out in that context but theism would dictate God sees the baby as a person

Really ? i'd love to hear Gods criteria for personhood.
Jeremiah 1:5 before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations
Now here abortion is not addressed as a thing prabobly because it wasn't even a practice of the ancient Jews. But here God is saying he forms people in the womb. And suggest he even has plans for a person before they are even conceived.

I'd love to hear Gods comments how the argument that giving personhood to something on the mere basis of it's material makeup (eg human) isn't refuted by say the intelligent life form counter.
Well I think I addressed this above.

Now if God would actually like to speak for it's self on such matters then I'll welcome it, till then playing the God card doesn't help.
Don't need to play any card. The only card to play is reality.

and killing that unborn baby is not your decision to make and the evolutionary view would again dictate whoever is getting the abortion is weak for not passing their genes in to the next generation.

And forcing a women to continue with a pregnancy isn't yours.
Of course it's not. I could personally care less what some pregnant chick does with her baby just as much as I could care less about a random person I don't know picking up heroin. I think both are bad choices but your responsible for your own actions.

Again evolution theory isn't a moral one.

Doesn't have to be. We are talking about reality not personal feelings.
Another point to this is the reactions of would be mothers getting distraught over miscarriages. No woman ever became distraught after having sex and finding out they are pregnant.

Speak to more women.
So women don't get upset when they have miscarriages?

Also it's a social taboo, your allowed to say how happy you are you are pregnant or have kids, but if you think the other way, society pretty much mandates you shut up, cause if you say your regret having kids look at the feedback some woman get, they are basically seen as worse than Hitler.
Social taboos dont mean anything to reality. Gravity doesn't care how you feel about it. The fact is when anyone gets an abortion they are killing their offspring, thus by removing themselves from future gene pools. Their influence on the human race ends when they die.

Hey at least Hitler loved babies...................non jewish, blue eyed, white skins babies that is.

Why is that emotion there if not placed by God or by nature? (Depending on the world view)

Me thinks your grasping at straws.
So if you hypothetically had a surefire investment in a company to turn 100$ into a million and I came in and stole your investment I guess your position is that it wouldn't affect you at all because you didn't miss out on a million bucks. Just 100.
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 7:15:45 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 6:07:37 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 5:24:57 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/26/2016 5:16:07 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 5:04:35 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/26/2016 4:43:47 AM, bigotry wrote:
It's interesting because under religion so to speak abortion shouldn't be done as it would be a form of murder and under an evolutionary view abortion shouldn't be done because your not passing on your genes therby opting to be the unfit voluntarily. Even most animals know better!

Suffice to say I disagree that abortion is murder, well at least in the context of early abortions.

Even if it's against evolution it doesn't matter, evolution is a theory about life/biology it's not a moral theory.

That's irrelevant. Either the religion is a reality or evolution is a reality. Your more than welcome to pick a working assumption for the sake of figuring it out in that context but theism would dictate God sees the baby as a person

Really ? i'd love to hear Gods criteria for personhood.
Jeremiah 1:5 before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations
Now here abortion is not addressed as a thing prabobly because it wasn't even a practice of the ancient Jews. But here God is saying he forms people in the womb. And suggest he even has plans for a person before they are even conceived.

Your fellow human being claiming God said something doesn't mean God said it. Like I said if God would actually like to speak for it's self on such matters.....

Even if you grant such a thing, that verse is hardly clear cut, it's open to interpretation, you just have happened to interpret in such a way to make it compatible with a pro-life position.

I don't think bible God is going to get you to the pro life position. I refer to to the genesis flood, presumably children, infants and pregnant women who were drowned in such a flood as the story goes.

If such a God can live with such a thing, I think it can get over abortion in the early stages of pregnancy.


I'd love to hear Gods comments how the argument that giving personhood to something on the mere basis of it's material makeup (eg human) isn't refuted by say the intelligent life form counter.
Well I think I addressed this above.

ummm no it didn't. It never confirms or refutes that a certain material make up eg human grants personhoood.


Now if God would actually like to speak for it's self on such matters then I'll welcome it, till then playing the God card doesn't help.
Don't need to play any card. The only card to play is reality.

and killing that unborn baby is not your decision to make and the evolutionary view would again dictate whoever is getting the abortion is weak for not passing their genes in to the next generation.

And forcing a women to continue with a pregnancy isn't yours.
Of course it's not. I could personally care less what some pregnant chick does with her baby just as much as I could care less about a random person I don't know picking up heroin. I think both are bad choices but your responsible for your own actions.

Again evolution theory isn't a moral one.

Doesn't have to be. We are talking about reality not personal feelings.
Another point to this is the reactions of would be mothers getting distraught over miscarriages. No woman ever became distraught after having sex and finding out they are pregnant.

Speak to more women.
So women don't get upset when they have miscarriages?

Also it's a social taboo, your allowed to say how happy you are you are pregnant or have kids, but if you think the other way, society pretty much mandates you shut up, cause if you say your regret having kids look at the feedback some woman get, they are basically seen as worse than Hitler.
Social taboos dont mean anything to reality. Gravity doesn't care how you feel about it. The fact is when anyone gets an abortion they are killing their offspring, thus by removing themselves from future gene pools. Their influence on the human race ends when they die.

So women have to be forced with pregnancy in the name of influencing of human race ? If that's your argument...............

And it's not even true, a woman having the option of abortion doesn't mean they abort every pregnancy.


Hey at least Hitler loved babies...................non jewish, blue eyed, white skins babies that is.

Why is that emotion there if not placed by God or by nature? (Depending on the world view)

Me thinks your grasping at straws.
So if you hypothetically had a surefire investment in a company to turn 100$ into a million and I came in and stole your investment I guess your position is that it wouldn't affect you at all because you didn't miss out on a million bucks. Just 100.

I thinketh in such a position I would be looking to rip your head off.

Now is this suppose to be an argument for forcing women against their will to give birth ?
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 8:07:54 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 7:21:30 AM, film wrote:
illegalcombat - I love abortion

Debates.


you love killing an infant in the womb?
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 8:23:44 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 3:34:57 AM, Sipiri wrote:
I'm prepared to support the position that abortion ought to be unrestricted and legal at any point in any pregnancy, at any time, by any licensed doctor or PA under a doctor's supervision - subject to consent from the mother, of course.

Mind you, my position would not be that late term abortions are moral- only that they ought to be legal.

Not OP (obviously), but would definitely be interested
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 12:10:41 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 5:46:00 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 5:19:09 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 3/26/2016 4:43:47 AM, bigotry wrote:
It's interesting because under religion so to speak abortion shouldn't be done as it would be a form of murder and under an evolutionary view abortion shouldn't be done because your not passing on your genes therby opting to be the unfit voluntarily. Even most animals know better!

actually it depends on the religion.
the bible contains several verses supporting the killing of the unborn.
as for "animals know better", there are many cases where animals will kill or abandon their offspring because they detect a birth defect.
Oh really? Show me where in the law of Moses or anywhere in the new testament the procedure to undergo killing the unborn?

numbers 5:21,22 http://www.biblestudytools.com...
21 then the priest must make the woman utter the curse and say to the woman, "May the LORD make you a curse and a harmful pledge among your people, when the LORD induces a miscarriage and your womb discharges. 22 And may the water that brings these curses enter your stomach and make your womb discharge and make you miscarry." And the woman will say, "I agree, I agree."

Show me any study confirming animals can detect birth defects in their young...you know before they pop out of the womb.

i don't know of any study, i don't even know how i would set up the parameters to conduct such a study, do you?
if you want evidence, just do a internet search for "why do animals kill their offspring?"
there are many accounts of this
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
Most pregnant animals are some of the most dangerous ones to interact with. Don't use your logic if you see a baby bear in a forest. You gotta think in terms of reality. Not what you might wish to be the case
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 2:53:44 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 7:15:45 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/26/2016 6:07:37 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 5:24:57 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/26/2016 5:16:07 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 5:04:35 AM, illegalcombat wrote:


Suffice to say I disagree that abortion is murder, well at least in the context of early abortions.

Even if it's against evolution it doesn't matter, evolution is a theory about life/biology it's not a moral theory.

That's irrelevant. Either the religion is a reality or evolution is a reality. Your more than welcome to pick a working assumption for the sake of figuring it out in that context but theism would dictate God sees the baby as a person

Really ? i'd love to hear Gods criteria for personhood.
Jeremiah 1:5 before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations
Now here abortion is not addressed as a thing prabobly because it wasn't even a practice of the ancient Jews. But here God is saying he forms people in the womb. And suggest he even has plans for a person before they are even conceived.

Your fellow human being claiming God said something doesn't mean God said it. Like I said if God would actually like to speak for it's self on such matters.....

Even if you grant such a thing, that verse is hardly clear cut, it's open to interpretation, you just have happened to interpret in such a way to make it compatible with a pro-life position.
I dont know how many ways anyone can Interpret before I formed you in the woumb, I knew you.

I don't think bible God is going to get you to the pro life position. I refer to to the genesis flood, presumably children, infants and pregnant women who were drowned in such a flood as the story goes.
God is the maker and taker of life. But people are not commanded anywhere to get abortions.

If such a God can live with such a thing, I think it can get over abortion in the early stages of pregnancy.
Live with such a thing? Did Europe find a way to live with such a thing after burning nazi germany to the ground? If a woman is being raped and another man happens upon it and kilks the rapist does he find a way to live with such a thing?


I'd love to hear Gods comments how the argument that giving personhood to something on the mere basis of it's material makeup (eg human) isn't refuted by say the intelligent life form counter.
Well I think I addressed this above.

ummm no it didn't. It never confirms or refutes that a certain material make up eg human grants personhoood.
It never did. Only those that are granted the holy spirit. In the OT it was the house of levi


Now if God would actually like to speak for it's self on such matters then I'll welcome it, till then playing the God card doesn't help.
Don't need to play any card. The only card to play is reality.

and killing that unborn baby is not your decision to make and the evolutionary view would again dictate whoever is getting the abortion is weak for not passing their genes in to the next generation.

And forcing a women to continue with a pregnancy isn't yours.
Of course it's not. I could personally care less what some pregnant chick does with her baby just as much as I could care less about a random person I don't know picking up heroin. I think both are bad choices but your responsible for your own actions.

Again evolution theory isn't a moral one.

Doesn't have to be. We are talking about reality not personal feelings.
Another point to this is the reactions of would be mothers getting distraught over miscarriages. No woman ever became distraught after having sex and finding out they are pregnant.

Speak to more women.
So women don't get upset when they have miscarriages?

Also it's a social taboo, your allowed to say how happy you are you are pregnant or have kids, but if you think the other way, society pretty much mandates you shut up, cause if you say your regret having kids look at the feedback some woman get, they are basically seen as worse than Hitler.
Social taboos dont mean anything to reality. Gravity doesn't care how you feel about it. The fact is when anyone gets an abortion they are killing their offspring, thus by removing themselves from future gene pools. Their influence on the human race ends when they die.

So women have to be forced with pregnancy in the name of influencing of human race ? If that's your argument...............

And it's not even true, a woman having the option of abortion doesn't mean they abort every pregnancy.
Hahahahaha. Ohhh boy. The undisputed FACT I put forward was that no matter which way you want to turn aborion is wrong. Under theism ok, it would be bad. Under evolution. It would be bad. Here in America margret thatcher started planned parenthood as a way of controlling the black population. Far more black babies are being denied a right to life and thats limiting the population under a goverment where voting counts. So since there will be less blacks they will have less influence not just the genetic makeup of americans but also political influence.


Hey at least Hitler loved babies...................non jewish, blue eyed, white skins babies that is.

Why is that emotion there if not placed by God or by nature? (Depending on the world view)

Me thinks your grasping at straws.
So if you hypothetically had a surefire investment in a company to turn 100$ into a million and I came in and stole your investment I guess your position is that it wouldn't affect you at all because you didn't miss out on a million bucks. Just 100.

I thinketh in such a position I would be looking to rip your head off.

Now is this suppose to be an argument for forcing women against their will to give birth ?
No its an argument to show things that certainly could be, are. The fetus is the 100$, the born baby is the million $. Thus a fetus should be looked at as of the same value.
Same analougy could be If You plant a bunch of seeds for a farm you own and some dude comea by and destroys them all. You would be pissed because when you planted the seeds you had an end value in mind
tarantula
Posts: 858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 2:58:45 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
All women should have the absolute right to abort a foetus in the early stages of pregnancy before it is viable. But it is far better to try to prevent getting pregnant in the first place, if you don't want a child, by using effective contraception.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 4:08:47 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 12:10:41 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 3/26/2016 5:46:00 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 5:19:09 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 3/26/2016 4:43:47 AM, bigotry wrote:
It's interesting because under religion so to speak abortion shouldn't be done as it would be a form of murder and under an evolutionary view abortion shouldn't be done because your not passing on your genes therby opting to be the unfit voluntarily. Even most animals know better!

actually it depends on the religion.
the bible contains several verses supporting the killing of the unborn.
as for "animals know better", there are many cases where animals will kill or abandon their offspring because they detect a birth defect.
Oh really? Show me where in the law of Moses or anywhere in the new testament the procedure to undergo killing the unborn?

numbers 5:21,22 http://www.biblestudytools.com...
21 then the priest must make the woman utter the curse and say to the woman, "May the LORD make you a curse and a harmful pledge among your people, when the LORD induces a miscarriage and your womb discharges. 22 And may the water that brings these curses enter your stomach and make your womb discharge and make you miscarry." And the woman will say, "I agree, I agree."
This is actually a misquote...smh these internet arguments get old. The this part is a parternatiy test how do you get miscarridge hahahahaha!

Show me any study confirming animals can detect birth defects in their young...you know before they pop out of the womb.
you
i don't know of any study, i don't even know how i would set up the parameters to conduct such a study, do you?
if you want evidence, just do a internet search for "why do animals kill their offspring?"
there are many accounts of this
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
That doesnt matter. We are not talking about if its wrong to kil your baby after its born. You cant show it because animals dont kill their unborn.
Most pregnant animals are some of the most dangerous ones to interact with. Don't use your logic if you see a baby bear in a forest. You gotta think in terms of reality. Not what you might wish to be the case
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 5:59:08 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 4:08:47 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 12:10:41 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 3/26/2016 5:46:00 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 5:19:09 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 3/26/2016 4:43:47 AM, bigotry wrote:
It's interesting because under religion so to speak abortion shouldn't be done as it would be a form of murder and under an evolutionary view abortion shouldn't be done because your not passing on your genes therby opting to be the unfit voluntarily. Even most animals know better!

actually it depends on the religion.
the bible contains several verses supporting the killing of the unborn.
as for "animals know better", there are many cases where animals will kill or abandon their offspring because they detect a birth defect.
Oh really? Show me where in the law of Moses or anywhere in the new testament the procedure to undergo killing the unborn?

numbers 5:21,22 http://www.biblestudytools.com...
21 then the priest must make the woman utter the curse and say to the woman, "May the LORD make you a curse and a harmful pledge among your people, when the LORD induces a miscarriage and your womb discharges. 22 And may the water that brings these curses enter your stomach and make your womb discharge and make you miscarry." And the woman will say, "I agree, I agree."
This is actually a misquote...smh these internet arguments get old. The this part is a parternatiy test how do you get miscarridge hahahahaha!

i gave you the link so you can look it up for yourself, if you think i'm misquoting the verses in question, then why don't you copy and paste it?


Show me any study confirming animals can detect birth defects in their young...you know before they pop out of the womb.
you
i don't know of any study, i don't even know how i would set up the parameters to conduct such a study, do you?
if you want evidence, just do a internet search for "why do animals kill their offspring?"
there are many accounts of this
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
That doesnt matter. We are not talking about if its wrong to kil your baby after its born. You cant show it because animals dont kill their unborn.
Most pregnant animals are some of the most dangerous ones to interact with. Don't use your logic if you see a baby bear in a forest. You gotta think in terms of reality. Not what you might wish to be the case

that is a logical fallacy known as moving the goal.
you asked for a study about animals killing their young, and i gave evidence for my position.
any other excuses?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 7:46:04 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 5:16:07 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 5:04:35 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Even if it's against evolution it doesn't matter, evolution is a theory about life/biology it's not a moral theory.

That's irrelevant. Either the religion is a reality or evolution is a reality. Your more than welcome to pick a working assumption for the sake of figuring it out in that context but theism would dictate God sees the baby as a person and killing that unborn baby is not your decision to make and the evolutionary view would again dictate whoever is getting the abortion is weak for not passing their genes in to the next generation.

Evolution does not care whether one is weak for not passing on their genes. It is a scientific account of how life formed, not a philosophy for decision making.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 12:04:01 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 5:59:08 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 3/26/2016 4:08:47 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 12:10:41 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 3/26/2016 5:46:00 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 5:19:09 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 3/26/2016 4:43:47 AM, bigotry wrote:

Oh really? Show me where in the law of Moses or anywhere in the new testament the procedure to undergo killing the unborn?

numbers 5:21,22 http://www.biblestudytools.com...
21 then the priest must make the woman utter the curse and say to the woman, "May the LORD make you a curse and a harmful pledge among your people, when the LORD induces a miscarriage and your womb discharges. 22 And may the water that brings these curses enter your stomach and make your womb discharge and make you miscarry." And the woman will say, "I agree, I agree."
This is actually a misquote...smh these internet arguments get old. The this part is a parternatiy test how do you get miscarridge hahahahaha!

i gave you the link so you can look it up for yourself, if you think i'm misquoting the verses in question, then why don't you copy and paste it?

ho hum. the way in which you present the verse its completely dishonest. The whole point of it is this
A man may suspect that his wife has had an affair and has broken faith with him,
13 that a man has had intercourse with her unknown to her husband and that she has defiled herself in secret"even though there are no witnesses and she isn't caught.
14 If jealousy overcomes him and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself, or if jealousy overcomes him and he is jealous of his wife who hasn't defiled herself,
Then when we jump to your part you brought up
then the priest must make the woman utter the curse and say to the woman, "May the LORD make you a curse and a harmful pledge among your people, when the LORD induces a miscarriage and your womb discharges.
22 And may the water that brings these curses enter your stomach and make your womb discharge and make you miscarry." And the woman will say, "I agree, I agree."
23 The priest will write these curses in the scroll and wipe them off into the water of bitterness.
24 Then he will make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse. And the water that brings the curse will enter her, causing bitterness.

27 When he has made her drink the water, if she has defiled herself and has broken faith with her husband, then the water that brings the curse will enter her, causing bitterness, and her womb will discharge and she will miscarry. The woman will be a curse among her people.
28 But if the woman hasn't defiled herself and she is pure, then she will be immune and able to conceive.
29 These are the instructions about jealousy, when a wife has an affair while married to her husband and defiles herself,
30 or when jealousy overcomes a man and he is jealous of his wife. The priest will make the woman stand before the LORD and will follow all these instructions concerning her.
31 The man will be free from guilt, but the woman will bear her guilt.
Firstly there is nothing here suggesting abortion in the way modern society would understand it. This was a test given to women who were under suspicion of adultery. This is not a procedure as I had originally asked for killing the unborn and there actually is no evidence the woman in question is pregnant at the moment. Now I say you have used a horrible version of the bible because I have never even heard of the "common english" translation. However this is what it actually says:

19 And the priest shall put her under oath, and say to the woman, "If no man has lain with you, and if you have not gone astray to uncleanness while under your husband's authority, be free from this bitter water that brings a curse.
20 But if you have gone astray while under your husband's authority, and if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has lain with you"--
21 then the priest shall put the woman under the oath of the curse, and he shall say to the woman--"the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh rot and your belly swell;
22 and may this water that causes the curse go into your stomach, and make your belly swell and your thigh rot." Then the woman shall say, "Amen, so be it."
23 'Then the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall scrape them off into the bitter water.
24 And he shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter her to become bitter.

I dont know why a later translation would jump to the idea of putting the words miscarriage in here at all but this is what happens when secular people like yourself translate the bible with some kind of agenda behind it. Again, get your arguments from scholars, not the internet.

Show me any study confirming animals can detect birth defects in their young...you know before they pop out of the womb.
you
i don't know of any study, i don't even know how i would set up the parameters to conduct such a study, do you?
if you want evidence, just do a internet search for "why do animals kill their offspring?"
there are many accounts of this
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
That doesnt matter. We are not talking about if its wrong to kil your baby after its born. You cant show it because animals dont kill their unborn.
Most pregnant animals are some of the most dangerous ones to interact with. Don't use your logic if you see a baby bear in a forest. You gotta think in terms of reality. Not what you might wish to be the case

that is a logical fallacy known as moving the goal.
you asked for a study about animals killing their young, and i gave evidence for my position.
any other excuses?
At 3/26/2016 4:43:47 AM, bigotry wrote:
It's interesting because under religion so to speak abortion shouldn't be done as it would be a form of murder and under an evolutionary view abortion shouldn't be done because your not passing on your genes therby opting to be the unfit voluntarily. Even most animals know better!
At 3/26/2016 5:46:00 AM, bigotry wrote:
Show me any study confirming animals can detect birth defects in their young...you know before they pop out of the womb.

I never asked for a study on animals killing their young, I asked for a study on animals detecting birth defects in their young and Ill even throw you a bone and ask for a study showing any animals give themselves abortions or intentionally try to kill the young inside the womb in some way.
What you have done here in both instances is whats called dishonest scholarship and you really should be ashamed of yourself.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 12:06:48 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 7:46:04 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/26/2016 5:16:07 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 5:04:35 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Even if it's against evolution it doesn't matter, evolution is a theory about life/biology it's not a moral theory.

That's irrelevant. Either the religion is a reality or evolution is a reality. Your more than welcome to pick a working assumption for the sake of figuring it out in that context but theism would dictate God sees the baby as a person and killing that unborn baby is not your decision to make and the evolutionary view would again dictate whoever is getting the abortion is weak for not passing their genes in to the next generation.

Evolution does not care whether one is weak for not passing on their genes. It is a scientific account of how life formed, not a philosophy for decision making.
It doesnt have to. The result is that the person is weak for not passing on their genes...its the reality of the situation. Only the strong survive.
12_13
Posts: 1,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 12:56:54 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 1:26:41 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
I love abortion........

I would also love abortion, if I would need child sacrifices.
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 12:58:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/27/2016 12:56:54 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 3/25/2016 1:26:41 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
I love abortion........

Debates.


I would also love abortion, if I would need child sacrifices.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 1:46:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/27/2016 12:06:48 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 7:46:04 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/26/2016 5:16:07 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 5:04:35 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Even if it's against evolution it doesn't matter, evolution is a theory about life/biology it's not a moral theory.

That's irrelevant. Either the religion is a reality or evolution is a reality. Your more than welcome to pick a working assumption for the sake of figuring it out in that context but theism would dictate God sees the baby as a person and killing that unborn baby is not your decision to make and the evolutionary view would again dictate whoever is getting the abortion is weak for not passing their genes in to the next generation.

Evolution does not care whether one is weak for not passing on their genes. It is a scientific account of how life formed, not a philosophy for decision making.
It doesnt have to. The result is that the person is weak for not passing on their genes...its the reality of the situation. Only the strong survive.

That's pretty much what I just said. What's your point?