Total Posts:137|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abortion..

GOP
Posts: 453
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 4:27:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have heard that many people say that they don't know whether the unborn child is a person or not, thus "justifying" that it is okay to do an abortion.

If you are one of those people, then I would like to ask you this:

If you don't know, then shouldn't you avoid killing the child since he/she very well may be a person?
maxtr
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 4:41:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/9/2013 4:27:11 PM, GOP wrote:
I have heard that many people say that they don't know whether the unborn child is a person or not, thus "justifying" that it is okay to do an abortion.

If you are one of those people, then I would like to ask you this:

If you don't know, then shouldn't you avoid killing the child since he/she very well may be a person?

I myself am anti abortion. Yet one thing to keep in mind about the answers you get. And that is to take note of the motives of those that advocate abortion and those that are against it.
Even so, consider that some people champion a womans choice over a babies right to live! Somewhat duplicitous.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 4:52:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/9/2013 4:27:11 PM, GOP wrote:
I have heard that many people say that they don't know whether the unborn child is a person or not, thus "justifying" that it is okay to do an abortion.

If you are one of those people, then I would like to ask you this:

If you don't know, then shouldn't you avoid killing the child since he/she very well may be a person?

I've never heard of this claim before. Can you cite an example?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
GOP
Posts: 453
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 5:14:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/9/2013 4:52:30 PM, drhead wrote:
At 8/9/2013 4:27:11 PM, GOP wrote:
I have heard that many people say that they don't know whether the unborn child is a person or not, thus "justifying" that it is okay to do an abortion.

If you are one of those people, then I would like to ask you this:

If you don't know, then shouldn't you avoid killing the child since he/she very well may be a person?

I've never heard of this claim before. Can you cite an example?

It's somewhere in a scene from the "180" movie here. I forgot which specific part, though. I wish I remembered.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 5:40:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/9/2013 4:27:11 PM, GOP wrote:
I have heard that many people say that they don't know whether the unborn child is a person or not, thus "justifying" that it is okay to do an abortion.

If you are one of those people, then I would like to ask you this:

If you don't know, then shouldn't you avoid killing the child since he/she very well may be a person?

It's an argument from ignorance fallacy no matter which way you use it.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 6:01:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/9/2013 5:14:29 PM, GOP wrote:
At 8/9/2013 4:52:30 PM, drhead wrote:
At 8/9/2013 4:27:11 PM, GOP wrote:
I have heard that many people say that they don't know whether the unborn child is a person or not, thus "justifying" that it is okay to do an abortion.

If you are one of those people, then I would like to ask you this:

If you don't know, then shouldn't you avoid killing the child since he/she very well may be a person?

I've never heard of this claim before. Can you cite an example?

It's somewhere in a scene from the "180" movie here. I forgot which specific part, though. I wish I remembered.



So is it supposed to come as a surprise that a documentary written by a Christian evangelist in order to attempt to change people's position on abortion by comparing it to the Holocaust (a very common tactic) only contains pro-choice arguments that are either poorly made arguments that no serious debater would use or are outright strawmen shamelessly added in order to spice things up? Because I don't find it particularly surprising.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 6:30:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/9/2013 4:27:11 PM, GOP wrote:
I have heard that many people say that they don't know whether the unborn child is a person or not, thus "justifying" that it is okay to do an abortion.

If you are one of those people, then I would like to ask you this:

If you don't know, then shouldn't you avoid killing the child since he/she very well may be a person?

It's a womans choice what she should/shouldn't do with her body and anything inside of it. It shouldn't be the choice of the community she lives in. If the community doesn't like abortion it should create better alternatives to sway the womens decision.
Regardless of the options available, abortion should still be a choice.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 8:16:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/9/2013 4:27:11 PM, GOP wrote:
I have heard that many people say that they don't know whether the unborn child is a person or not, thus "justifying" that it is okay to do an abortion.

You heard wrong, I don't think anybody uses "I don't know" as justification for abortion, it' a polarized issue and nobody states their position in that way.

If you are one of those people, then I would like to ask you this:

If you don't know, then shouldn't you avoid killing the child since he/she very well may be a person?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 6:51:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/9/2013 6:30:57 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 8/9/2013 4:27:11 PM, GOP wrote:
I have heard that many people say that they don't know whether the unborn child is a person or not, thus "justifying" that it is okay to do an abortion.

If you are one of those people, then I would like to ask you this:

If you don't know, then shouldn't you avoid killing the child since he/she very well may be a person?

It's a womans choice what she should/shouldn't do with her body and anything inside of it. It shouldn't be the choice of the community she lives in. If the community doesn't like abortion it should create better alternatives to sway the womens decision.
Regardless of the options available, abortion should still be a choice.

But we aren't talking about her body.

That annoys me... The fetus isn't her body. Genetically, it's completely different from her.

If the child is alive, than it's murder... So, until you know it isn't alive, possible murder shouldn't be an option.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 6:54:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If we find it is alive, than it has it's on Bodily Autonomy, and may not be touched without it's permission regardless of if it can physically give you permission or not. I read the entire UN article on Bodily Autonomy...
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 4:59:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To be honest, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they "don't know" whether a fetus is a person. "Person" isn't actually a real concept, it's a label we give based on our own reasoning and sometimes arbitrary criteria.

So maybe you heard people say they "don't know" whether a fetus should be considered a person.

I certainly don't class it as a person in the early stages - sorry conservatives, but no brain and no functioning nervous system = no feeling or thought. We classify someone as dead once all higher brain function has ceased, therefore we can't classify someone as alive until bran function has started.

I do oppose termination in the later stages of pregnancy though.
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 9:47:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 6:54:38 PM, donald.keller wrote:
If we find it is alive, than it has it's on Bodily Autonomy, and may not be touched without it's permission regardless of if it can physically give you permission or not. I read the entire UN article on Bodily Autonomy...

1) It's a parasite feeding off of another persons body unless that person chooses to consider it otherwise.

2) It's a liberty that will be infringed upon that society has no right to determine for the woman.

3) The American government should not be trusted with our reproductive choices. They do not always follow what the majorities of its citizens want. (Marijuana is a great example)
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 12:54:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 9:47:12 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 8/10/2013 6:54:38 PM, donald.keller wrote:
If we find it is alive, than it has it's on Bodily Autonomy, and may not be touched without it's permission regardless of if it can physically give you permission or not. I read the entire UN article on Bodily Autonomy...

1) It's a parasite feeding off of another persons body unless that person chooses to consider it otherwise.

What it is is irrelevant. Its genetically human. What type of organism something has nothing to do with this at all. If it's human, it's human, period.
This argument you gave only shows who is more human between the two of you, but that's irrelevant also.

2) It's a liberty that will be infringed upon that society has no right to determine for the woman.

That's bull and you know it. The woman has no right to determine for that baby.
The UN grants all humans, of any stage of Development, regardless of differences, Bodily Autonomy. If we have to void this right, it must be voided for the person who will suffer more if not voided..

If voided for the woman, the baby DIES.
If voided for the baby, the woman is inconvenienced...

Therefore it is the woman who has her right voided in this scenario.

I don't have to right to kill someone because I don't want to deal with them.

3) The American government should not be trusted with our reproductive choices. They do not always follow what the majorities of its citizens want. (Marijuana is a great example)

The Government can, however, be trusted with guarding our life's... ALL of them.
Our rights (Right to Live) do not stop where someone's convenience is concerned...
Our rights (Right to privacy or whatever) do stop where a more serious right (Right to Live) is infringed upon.

You also used the slippery sloop fallacy, a bad example too.

We are a Constitutional Republic, which means no matter how much the people want to, they can not murder someone on the crime of being inconvenient.

You talk a lot about rights, but only YOUR rights. You don't give two s***s about the Babies rights granted by the United Nations and the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't grant the right to murder someone because you can't be bothered, but the doesn't grant the right to not BE murdered.

And before you bring up the it's not born, the Constitution doesn't only apply to born citizens... I can't kill an illegal immigrant even though he's not a born citizen...
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 1:04:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Watch out guys! I'm a woman, I can kill you if you inconvenience me! I have the liberty to, I'm special, my child is property, can't infringe on my rights while I infringe on yours!"

Sorry, I've always wanted to make fun of that. No I'm not attacking a person, I'm making a joke towards the argument.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 2:47:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 12:54:50 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/12/2013 9:47:12 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 8/10/2013 6:54:38 PM, donald.keller wrote:
If we find it is alive, than it has it's on Bodily Autonomy, and may not be touched without it's permission regardless of if it can physically give you permission or not. I read the entire UN article on Bodily Autonomy...

1) It's a parasite feeding off of another persons body unless that person chooses to consider it otherwise.

What it is is irrelevant. Its genetically human. What type of organism something has nothing to do with this at all. If it's human, it's human, period.
This argument you gave only shows who is more human between the two of you, but that's irrelevant also.

According to your opinion we should save sperm organisms as well because they are potential humans. That would also mean condoms and contraceptives should be banned. As well as anyone who wastes sperm be imprisoned.

2) It's a liberty that will be infringed upon that society has no right to determine for the woman.

That's bull and you know it. The woman has no right to determine for that baby.
The UN grants all humans, of any stage of Development, regardless of differences, Bodily Autonomy. If we have to void this right, it must be voided for the person who will suffer more if not voided..

If it was bull you wouldn't have responded and I wouldn't have stated it. The woman has every right to determine how the baby is developed. Just because we are part of the UN does not mean we have to do what they tell us. The UN approves of limiting our liberties which is unamerican.

If voided for the woman, the baby DIES.
If voided for the baby, the woman is inconvenienced...

People tend to retaliate when they are inconvenienced in a restraining manner. You try keeping a woman from having an abortion when that is what she wants and that baby will suffer worse consequences than death. I promise you that.

The Ukraine and other European countries shows what happens to unwanted children and the capacity at which government can handle orphaned children.

Therefore it is the woman who has her right voided in this scenario.

I don't have to right to kill someone because I don't want to deal with them.

Death penalty.

3) The American government should not be trusted with our reproductive choices. They do not always follow what the majorities of its citizens want. (Marijuana is a great example)

The Government can, however, be trusted with guarding our life's... ALL of them.
Our rights (Right to Live) do not stop where someone's convenience is concerned...
Our rights (Right to privacy or whatever) do stop where a more serious right (Right to Live) is infringed upon.

LOL, I don't trust the government with my life. Look at all the police brutality going on. Look at our prisons growing for non-violent offenses. That is not something I will trust. I trust if I follow their rules I will be one of the lucky people to survive outside of the judicial system. That doesn't mean I trust them, it just means I know how to abide by the rules.

You also used the slippery sloop fallacy, a bad example too.

It's only a slippery slope if you trust the government, which many of us don't.

We are a Constitutional Republic, which means no matter how much the people want to, they can not murder someone on the crime of being inconvenient.

Death penalty.

You talk a lot about rights, but only YOUR rights. You don't give two s***s about the Babies rights granted by the United Nations and the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't grant the right to murder someone because you can't be bothered, but the doesn't grant the right to not BE murdered.

That baby doesn't have any liberties whilst it is inside of its mother, therefore it has no rights. If the UN claims the baby has rights; it better redefine the definitions of rights and liberties. As far as I knew you need liberties to have rights.

And before you bring up the it's not born, the Constitution doesn't only apply to born citizens... I can't kill an illegal immigrant even though he's not a born citizen...

It might not only apply to "naturally born citizens" but it does only apply to "currently living, breathing, comprehensive people".
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 2:51:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 1:04:18 PM, donald.keller wrote:
"Watch out guys! I'm prolife, I can imprison you if you disagree with me! I have the no knowledge of liberty to, I'm special, my child is your responsibility, because you can't infringe on my rights while I infringe on yours!"

Sorry, I've always wanted to make fun of that. No I'm not attacking a person, I'm making a joke towards the argument.

Yea, good one.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 2:53:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@Donald, you should look up the definition of republic as well. The people can decide who lives or dies as long as it's voted and agreed upon by the majorities. Unfortunately our government doesn't always work that way.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 2:58:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 2:47:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 8/12/2013 12:54:50 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/12/2013 9:47:12 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 8/10/2013 6:54:38 PM, donald.keller wrote:
If we find it is alive, than it has it's on Bodily Autonomy, and may not be touched without it's permission regardless of if it can physically give you permission or not. I read the entire UN article on Bodily Autonomy...

1) It's a parasite feeding off of another persons body unless that person chooses to consider it otherwise.

What it is is irrelevant. Its genetically human. What type of organism something has nothing to do with this at all. If it's human, it's human, period.
This argument you gave only shows who is more human between the two of you, but that's irrelevant also.

According to your opinion we should save sperm organisms as well because they are potential humans. That would also mean condoms and contraceptives should be banned. As well as anyone who wastes sperm be imprisoned.

Sperm and Eggs only have half the Chromosomes, so they aren't human.


2) It's a liberty that will be infringed upon that society has no right to determine for the woman.

That's bull and you know it. The woman has no right to determine for that baby.
The UN grants all humans, of any stage of Development, regardless of differences, Bodily Autonomy. If we have to void this right, it must be voided for the person who will suffer more if not voided..

If it was bull you wouldn't have responded and I wouldn't have stated it. The woman has every right to determine how the baby is developed. Just because we are part of the UN does not mean we have to do what they tell us. The UN approves of limiting our liberties which is unamerican.

No. Only the Baby has that right over it's body, even if it can not make a decision. You need to read that article...

And it's not 'unamerican'. The very Constitutions allows for limited freedom, it's how they can give out patents, and how Lincoln could disband Habeas Corpus.


If voided for the woman, the baby DIES.
If voided for the baby, the woman is inconvenienced...

People tend to retaliate when they are inconvenienced in a restraining manner. You try keeping a woman from having an abortion when that is what she wants and that baby will suffer worse consequences than death. I promise you that.

Slipper Sloop fallacy.

The Ukraine and other European countries shows what happens to unwanted children and the capacity at which government can handle orphaned children.

Therefore it is the woman who has her right voided in this scenario.

http://www.npr.org...

The US is not the Ukraine or Europe. Most children in the American Foster Care service is happy, despite what movie's show you for drama and storyline.


I don't have to right to kill someone because I don't want to deal with them.

Death penalty.

Criminal =/= innocent baby.

3) The American government should not be trusted with our reproductive choices. They do not always follow what the majorities of its citizens want. (Marijuana is a great example)

The Government can, however, be trusted with guarding our life's... ALL of them.
Our rights (Right to Live) do not stop where someone's convenience is concerned...
Our rights (Right to privacy or whatever) do stop where a more serious right (Right to Live) is infringed upon.

LOL, I don't trust the government with my life. Look at all the police brutality going on. Look at our prisons growing for non-violent offenses. That is not something I will trust. I trust if I follow their rules I will be one of the lucky people to survive outside of the judicial system. That doesn't mean I trust them, it just means I know how to abide by the rules.

You also used the slippery sloop fallacy, a bad example too.

It's only a slippery slope if you trust the government, which many of us don't.

We are a Constitutional Republic, which means no matter how much the people want to, they can not murder someone on the crime of being inconvenient.

Death penalty.

You talk a lot about rights, but only YOUR rights. You don't give two s***s about the Babies rights granted by the United Nations and the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't grant the right to murder someone because you can't be bothered, but the doesn't grant the right to not BE murdered.

That baby doesn't have any liberties whilst it is inside of its mother, therefore it has no rights. If the UN claims the baby has rights; it better redefine the definitions of rights and liberties. As far as I knew you need liberties to have rights.

Wrong. The UN claims ALL humans have these rights. It says any and all 'human beings' and doesn't limit it to age, citizenship, or any birth... Just Human, and since a baby is genetically human, it has those freedoms, even if it inconveniences you.

And before you bring up the it's not born, the Constitution doesn't only apply to born citizens... I can't kill an illegal immigrant even though he's not a born citizen...

It might not only apply to "naturally born citizens" but it does only apply to "currently living, breathing, comprehensive people".

A baby is both living and it breaths. Not the same way as you, but does. And being comprehensive is irrelevant. I could be completely brain dead, and only I have the right to pull the plug, even if I can't choose to.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 3:03:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 2:53:25 PM, pozessed wrote:
@Donald, you should look up the definition of republic as well. The people can decide who lives or dies as long as it's voted and agreed upon by the majorities. Unfortunately our government doesn't always work that way.

Wrong. Only in a full Democracy... Not in a Constitutional Republic. That was fallacious to cherry pick one word (Republic), and leave out my full statement (Constitutional Republic.)

So if everyone votes on murdering OJ Simpson, we still wouldn't be allowed to. And I don't see what's so unfortunate about that. Blacks would still be Slaves and Female would have no rights if it worked that way..
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 3:07:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 2:51:23 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 8/12/2013 1:04:18 PM, donald.keller wrote:
"Watch out guys! I'm prolife, I can imprison you if you murder a baby! I feel babies have liberty too, I'm special, Your child is your responsibility to protect, not kill, because you can't infringe on a babies rights because they inconvenience yours!"

Sorry, I've always wanted to make fun of that. No I'm not attacking a person, I'm making a joke towards the argument.

edited for correction.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Mrs.lynch
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 5:47:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/9/2013 6:30:57 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 8/9/2013 4:27:11 PM, GOP wrote:
I have heard that many people say that they don't know whether the unborn child is a person or not, thus "justifying" that it is okay to do an abortion.

If you are one of those people, then I would like to ask you this:

If you don't know, then shouldn't you avoid killing the child since he/she very well may be a person?

It's a womans choice what she should/shouldn't do with her body and anything inside of it. It shouldn't be the choice of the community she lives in. If the community doesn't like abortion it should create better alternatives to sway the womens decision.
Regardless of the options available, abortion should still be a choice.

Ya but why is a persons choice more important than a babies life? If I choose to kill a guy on the street, its okay because it is my choice?
Mrs.lynch
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 5:48:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 1:04:18 PM, donald.keller wrote:
"Watch out guys! I'm a woman, I can kill you if you inconvenience me! I have the liberty to, I'm special, my child is property, can't infringe on my rights while I infringe on yours!"

Sorry, I've always wanted to make fun of that. No I'm not attacking a person, I'm making a joke towards the argument.

Word.
Mrs.lynch
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 5:52:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 9:47:12 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 8/10/2013 6:54:38 PM, donald.keller wrote:
If we find it is alive, than it has it's on Bodily Autonomy, and may not be touched without it's permission regardless of if it can physically give you permission or not. I read the entire UN article on Bodily Autonomy...

1) It's a parasite feeding off of another persons body unless that person chooses to consider it otherwise.

How is it a parasite? It's a living person, nurturing itself from it mothers. This is part of nature! There is no "considering it otherwise". I can say I consider you not to be a human, and suddenly your just some parasite that I have the right to kill?

2) It's a liberty that will be infringed upon that society has no right to determine for the woman.

What about the liberty infringed on from the childs view?!?!? :/

3) The American government should not be trusted with our reproductive choices.

If it means killing humans, yes it should.

They do not always follow what the majorities of its citizens want. (Marijuana is a great example)

Marijuana is unhealthy, and can leads to death of ones self, and others. Government has the peoples best interests. Also look at all the crime that is caused from drugs!!!
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 9:46:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 2:58:43 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/12/2013 2:47:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 8/12/2013 12:54:50 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/12/2013 9:47:12 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 8/10/2013 6:54:38 PM, donald.keller wrote:
If we find it is alive, than it has it's on Bodily Autonomy, and may not be touched without it's permission regardless of if it can physically give you permission or not. I read the entire UN article on Bodily Autonomy...

1) It's a parasite feeding off of another persons body unless that person chooses to consider it otherwise.

What it is is irrelevant. Its genetically human. What type of organism something has nothing to do with this at all. If it's human, it's human, period.
This argument you gave only shows who is more human between the two of you, but that's irrelevant also.

According to your opinion we should save sperm organisms as well because they are potential humans. That would also mean condoms and contraceptives should be banned. As well as anyone who wastes sperm be imprisoned.

Sperm and Eggs only have half the Chromosomes, so they aren't human.

It's an organism that has the potential to be a human. You're picking and choosing now.


2) It's a liberty that will be infringed upon that society has no right to determine for the woman.

That's bull and you know it. The woman has no right to determine for that baby.
The UN grants all humans, of any stage of Development, regardless of differences, Bodily Autonomy. If we have to void this right, it must be voided for the person who will suffer more if not voided..

If it was bull you wouldn't have responded and I wouldn't have stated it. The woman has every right to determine how the baby is developed. Just because we are part of the UN does not mean we have to do what they tell us. The UN approves of limiting our liberties which is unamerican.

No. Only the Baby has that right over it's body, even if it can not make a decision. You need to read that article...

That article is not a law in the USA, if it was I'd care what it has to say. The UN can not force it's position as law into our country. That would be unconstitutional.

And it's not 'unamerican'. The very Constitutions allows for limited freedom, it's how they can give out patents, and how Lincoln could disband Habeas Corpus.

You're reaching pretty far out there. You are pretty much comparing women to proprietorial inventions and terrorists.


If voided for the woman, the baby DIES.
If voided for the baby, the woman is inconvenienced...

People tend to retaliate when they are inconvenienced in a restraining manner. You try keeping a woman from having an abortion when that is what she wants and that baby will suffer worse consequences than death. I promise you that.

Slipper Sloop fallacy.

Keep thinking that.

The Ukraine and other European countries shows what happens to unwanted children and the capacity at which government can handle orphaned children.

Therefore it is the woman who has her right voided in this scenario.

http://www.npr.org...

The US is not the Ukraine or Europe. Most children in the American Foster Care service is happy, despite what movie's show you for drama and storyline.

Most children in any orphanage is happier than a homeless orphaned one. You have no idea what you're arguing against. Do some research.


I don't have to right to kill someone because I don't want to deal with them.

Death penalty.

Criminal =/= innocent baby.

If the people vote to kill someone and the majority agrees, it is our right to do so in the manner that is agreed upon. Learn something about what a "constitutional republic" means.

3) The American government should not be trusted with our reproductive choices. They do not always follow what the majorities of its citizens want. (Marijuana is a great example)

The Government can, however, be trusted with guarding our life's... ALL of them.
Our rights (Right to Live) do not stop where someone's convenience is concerned...
Our rights (Right to privacy or whatever) do stop where a more serious right (Right to Live) is infringed upon.

LOL, I don't trust the government with my life. Look at all the police brutality going on. Look at our prisons growing for non-violent offenses. That is not something I will trust. I trust if I follow their rules I will be one of the lucky people to survive outside of the judicial system. That doesn't mean I trust them, it just means I know how to abide by the rules.

You also used the slippery sloop fallacy, a bad example too.

It's only a slippery slope if you trust the government, which many of us don't.

We are a Constitutional Republic, which means no matter how much the people want to, they can not murder someone on the crime of being inconvenient.

Death penalty.

You talk a lot about rights, but only YOUR rights. You don't give two s***s about the Babies rights granted by the United Nations and the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't grant the right to murder someone because you can't be bothered, but the doesn't grant the right to not BE murdered.

That baby doesn't have any liberties whilst it is inside of its mother, therefore it has no rights. If the UN claims the baby has rights; it better redefine the definitions of rights and liberties. As far as I knew you need liberties to have rights.

Wrong. The UN claims ALL humans have these rights. It says any and all 'human beings' and doesn't limit it to age, citizenship, or any birth... Just Human, and since a baby is genetically human, it has those freedoms, even if it inconveniences you.

The UN does not control America thank God. We have to mutually agree with what the UN proposes. Which in a "constitutional republic" the citizens of America have to vote on it before it becomes part of our constitution. Otherwise it is not a republic.

And before you bring up the it's not born, the Constitution doesn't only apply to born citizens... I can't kill an illegal immigrant even though he's not a born citizen...

It might not only apply to "naturally born citizens" but it does only apply to "currently living, breathing, comprehensive people".

A baby is both living and it breaths. Not the same way as you, but does. And being comprehensive is irrelevant. I could be completely brain dead, and only I have the right to pull the plug, even if I can't choose to.

Fun fact: Brain death is a legal occurrence in America and not all states need your approval to consider you legally dead if you meet the criteria.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 9:55:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 3:03:39 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/12/2013 2:53:25 PM, pozessed wrote:
@Donald, you should look up the definition of republic as well. The people can decide who lives or dies as long as it's voted and agreed upon by the majorities. Unfortunately our government doesn't always work that way.

Wrong. Only in a full Democracy... Not in a Constitutional Republic. That was fallacious to cherry pick one word (Republic), and leave out my full statement (Constitutional Republic.)

So if everyone votes on murdering OJ Simpson, we still wouldn't be allowed to. And I don't see what's so unfortunate about that. Blacks would still be Slaves and Female would have no rights if it worked that way..

A constitution limits the power of the government, not the people. I don't see where you come up with your bogus definitions or ideas on how America is ran, but your very ignorant on a lot of things.
Please don't confuse what I say as calling you an ignorant person, just ignorant of what you are arguing about now.

To be clear a constitution is a law the government must follow and should only be put in place if the republic agrees to it. Not the other way around as it has been.

We are supposed to be a country with a government not a government with a country.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 10:01:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 3:07:52 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/12/2013 2:51:23 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 8/12/2013 1:04:18 PM, donald.keller wrote:
"Watch out guys! I'm prolife, I can imprison you if you believe you have rights and liberties over your own body. I feel babies have liberty too, even though they are a slave to it's mothers decisions. I'm special, Your child is your responsibility to protect, but we can not prevent you from destroying it so we we'll spend more money on taking away a mothers rights and liberties so we can protect the child inside her, because she can't infringe on a babies rights because they inconvenience hers!"

Sorry, I've always wanted to make fun of that. No I'm not attacking a person, I'm making a joke towards the argument.

edited for correction.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 10:02:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 5:52:45 AM, Mrs.lynch wrote:
At 8/12/2013 9:47:12 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 8/10/2013 6:54:38 PM, donald.keller wrote:
If we find it is alive, than it has it's on Bodily Autonomy, and may not be touched without it's permission regardless of if it can physically give you permission or not. I read the entire UN article on Bodily Autonomy...

1) It's a parasite feeding off of another persons body unless that person chooses to consider it otherwise.

How is it a parasite? It's a living person, nurturing itself from it mothers. This is part of nature! There is no "considering it otherwise". I can say I consider you not to be a human, and suddenly your just some parasite that I have the right to kill?

How does he fit the definition of a parasite?


2) It's a liberty that will be infringed upon that society has no right to determine for the woman.

What about the liberty infringed on from the childs view?!?!? :/

The liberty of the cells?


3) The American government should not be trusted with our reproductive choices.

If it means killing humans, yes it should.

Is a cell a human?


They do not always follow what the majorities of its citizens want. (Marijuana is a great example)

Marijuana is unhealthy, and can leads to death of ones self, and others. Government has the peoples best interests. Also look at all the crime that is caused from drugs!!!

Death? Making drugs illegal promotes crime, but making them legal in a stupid way does the same. But to be honest I was rather cannabis was legal the same silly way that alcohol is rather than illegal.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 10:03:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 5:47:41 AM, Mrs.lynch wrote:
At 8/9/2013 6:30:57 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 8/9/2013 4:27:11 PM, GOP wrote:
I have heard that many people say that they don't know whether the unborn child is a person or not, thus "justifying" that it is okay to do an abortion.

If you are one of those people, then I would like to ask you this:

If you don't know, then shouldn't you avoid killing the child since he/she very well may be a person?

It's a womans choice what she should/shouldn't do with her body and anything inside of it. It shouldn't be the choice of the community she lives in. If the community doesn't like abortion it should create better alternatives to sway the womens decision.
Regardless of the options available, abortion should still be a choice.

Ya but why is a persons choice more important than a babies life? If I choose to kill a guy on the street, its okay because it is my choice?

Why do we feel it's ok to kill if we feel our livelihood is threatened? If that guy threatened your life you do.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 10:05:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 5:47:41 AM, Mrs.lynch wrote:
At 8/9/2013 6:30:57 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 8/9/2013 4:27:11 PM, GOP wrote:
I have heard that many people say that they don't know whether the unborn child is a person or not, thus "justifying" that it is okay to do an abortion.

If you are one of those people, then I would like to ask you this:

If you don't know, then shouldn't you avoid killing the child since he/she very well may be a person?

It's a womans choice what she should/shouldn't do with her body and anything inside of it. It shouldn't be the choice of the community she lives in. If the community doesn't like abortion it should create better alternatives to sway the womens decision.
Regardless of the options available, abortion should still be a choice.

Ya but why is a persons choice more important than a babies life? If I choose to kill a guy on the street, its okay because it is my choice?

It's not a baby, and it relies on the mother's body.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!