frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Very rare for an innocent man to be executed. Abortion executes 100% innocent lives!

Debate Information

Since 1973, there has been an approximate average of 33 executions per year in America. For all the people on death row, there are quite a few exoneration's from the death penalty due to possible mistakes and appeals. They have no idea how many actual innocent people have been executed in that time frame, but it is rare.

Do you know how many innocent unborn babies have been executed in that same time frame? Approximately 50 MILLION innocent babies have been executed since 1973 and Roe V Wade.

Do the math! For all you Pro abortion Democrats who worry so about the very rare chance of an innocent man getting the death penalty, why do you say nothing while viable babies are being executed? Where are your midnite vigils outside the abortion clinics?

Tell us why 50 MILLION innocent babies, even viable babies, executed since Roe V Wade does not bother you in the least? You gleefully vote for Politicians who keep No Restriction abortions legal.

What kind of compassion and humanity is that to care so little for innocent unborn lives, while fighting to stop the execution of mass murderers!

Do you now understand why Conservatives get nauseated when trying to have an intelligent conversation with people whose priorities are so misplaced?

Look in the mirror and ask yourself why you care so for a mass murderer, or the rare chance of an innocent person being executed, while caring nothing for 50 MILLION innocent lives? Why not try fighting to make sure the death penalty is only given out when there is 100% assurance of guilt?

Ok, now start talking about zygotes, and masses of cells, to try and deflect the fact that you support aborting viable babies for any reason when voting Democrat.

I MEAN COME ON!
Blastcat
«1345



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    You never answered my question from the other day...

    Let me re-hash it:

    Surely, if it is reprehensible for an illegal immigrant to break into someones house and steal their blood and organs, if someone break into a person's body, and steals their vital nutrients, leaving scars and damage on the way out then it should be illegal for a non-citizen to do the same thing.

    Most conservatives would jump at the opportunity to detain an invader in their own home, but not an invader in their own body.

    I own my body and get to decide what to do with it, and so should everyone else protected under the US laws.
    SkepticalOnePlaffelvohfenpiloteerWe_are_accountableAlofRI
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    ***** Do you know how many innocent unborn babies have been executed in that same time frame? Approximately 50 MILLION innocent babies have been executed since 1973 and Roe V Wade.

    That figure is disgraceful we need to get it up ......Any suggestions?
    piloteerPlaffelvohfenWe_are_accountableAlofRIBlastcat
  • @We_are_accountable

    Women’s health 
     
    When comparing countries with the most restrictive laws (banned or allowed only when a woman’s life is endangered) with those with the least restrictive abortion laws, we find that there is virtually no difference in abortion frequency - 37 and 34 per 1,000 women, respectively. [3]   So what effect does more restrictions on abortion yield? According to Guttmacher institute, “in 14 developing countries where unsafe abortion is prevalent, 40% of women who have an abortion develop complications that require medical attention”. [3] Additionally, Guttmacher finds that “Of all abortions, an estimated 55% are safe (i.e., done using a recommended method and by an appropriately trained provider); 31% are less safe (meet either method or provider criterion); and 14% are least safe (meet neither criterion). The more restrictive the legal setting, the higher the proportion of abortions that are least safe—ranging from less than 1% in the least-restrictive countries to 31% in the most-restrictive countries. [3] Furthermore, legal abortion encourages women to seek abortion earlier making the process safer. Before Roe V Wade (1970) 25% of abortions were done after 13 weeks, and afterwards (1980) 10% were done after 13 weeks.  Additionally, more than 50% of abortions (1980) were done at 8 weeks or earlier. [4] 

    In summary, prohibition and restrictive laws do not appear to reduce the frequency of abortion overall, but they do decrease women’s health in a society by forcing women to reluctantly seek necessary medical treatment (at later stages when more complications can occur) without the oversight provided by government regulation. Undeniably, legal abortion avoids complications and deaths that would occur with heavy restriction and prohibition. In other words: Outlawing abortion endangers women while doing nothing to solve the perceived problem.   
     
    Human rights 

    “A pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life. It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire family life.” Sarah Weddington – Wade Attorney 
     
    Freedom, justice, and peace rests on fundamental human rights such as ‘freedom from slavery, freedom from torture, equality, and the right to life. Disallowing abortion violates every single one of these. If a woman does not consent to pregnancy and has no choice but to give birth, then she has become a slave to pregnancy. A woman being forced to give birth against her will is being subjected to torture. A woman being denied the same reproductive freedom as a man is receiving unequal treatment.  This is a challenge to ‘right to life’ overall as liberty and bodily autonomy are being denied. Every person has the right to control their own body. When this is denied, human rights are being attacked. Abortion is necessary for women to reach their full potential, and severe restrictions stand in the way. 

    **This is from a current debate of mine - I encourage everyone to read, objectively consider the arguments, and vote! Voting begins in a week or so...

    https://www.debateart.com/debates/1667/abortion-should-be-legal

    piloteerPlaffelvohfenWe_are_accountableAlofRI
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5971 Pts   -  
    Do you know how many innocent bacteria you execute every day just by breathing, walking and eating? More than innocent: some of those bacteria are actually extremely altruistic beings, the whole point of whose lives is to merge into a different living being and make it a little bit healthier!

    Makes one think about the circle of life, does it not?
    PlaffelvohfenpiloteerWe_are_accountablePiggoAlofRIBlastcat
  • I'm still waiting for you to provide the scientific documents that state life begins at conception. There is no shame in conceding you made a factual error the other day stating that life begins at conception. The only other person I've heard say that life begins at conception was Ben Shapiro but he was factually incorrect.
    PlaffelvohfenpiloteerAlofRI



  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne

    Nicely done. I couldn't agree more. Good luck in your debate, but as far as I'm concerned, you gotta solid argument. I have profile on Dart also. I look forward to reading your discussion.   
    PlaffelvohfenSkepticalOne
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Fetuses are as innocent as bacteria or a fungus and I don't see you crying about them.

    Put together a coherent logical or moral position about why abortion is wrong and maybe people will listen to you.
    PlaffelvohfenWe_are_accountableAlofRIBlastcat
  • @We_are_accountable ;

    Female specific amputation is not a pregnancy abortion, a birth abortion and pregnancy abortion are united by a simplified identification of abortion . Lethal force is not a murder and can generalize  both intentional or accidental force which is lethal, ending life. The Royal we does not apply to matters of human reproduction unless you are the participant in a process which extended a life. 

    Roe Vs Wade stated simply Texas law was written incorrectly to safely and legally regulate female specific amputation. Keep that in mind while as a group abortion has been conducted illegally for quite a long time, longer then the United States has been a Nation.

    piloteer
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    @We_are_accountable

    Excellent correlation oriented post:

    "Very rare for an innocent man to be executed."

    "Abortion executes 100% innocent lives!"


    You might find the pro criminal, and the pro abortion crowd, at odds with each over, in regards to how a life is viewed through the stark contrast of your questions.

    I'm pro Adoption.


    We_are_accountable
  • @TKDB ;
    "I'm pro Adoption."
    And also criminal...

    We_are_accountable
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @TKDB

    I'm pro-criminal and pro-abortion. I'm not at all at odds with the premise of this debate.  
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @piloteer

    Good for you. 
  • @piloteer ;
    I am pro-Abortion as well.

    The problem occurs when the basic principle of when something can be officially stop by only the powers granted a woman by her creator pregnancy might take place. A woman officially stops life by not having sex. It is not any more complicated then that, saying no to sex is a pregnancy abortion conducted by any woman who by fertility can bear a child. Due to complex issues that take place in regards to pregnancy as a creator in equality between all woman female specific amputation abolishes the state in principle created by false claims designed to create prejudice between woman.

    Adoption can be a noble crime....  making it unworthy of public pursuits.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    I do not think that an unborn baby is an innocent life. For a start, it's not a life, and cannot be considered one until birth. Anyway, if we do consider it a life for the purpose of the debate, it's unlikely to be innocent if it needs an abortion. Abortions normally happen as a result of rape. Is rape innocent? No!
    We_are_accountableVaulk
  • @Happy_Killbot

    Every analogy you just made has nothing to do with abortion...

    Fitst you use the analogy that an illegal immigrant BREAKS into a house. NO, two people CHOSE to have unprotected sex, and a baby was DRAGGED into the woman's house against it's will.

    Second you talk about having an invader detained if he should break into your house. Detaining a person for breaking into your house is not KILLING the person as abortion does.

    Third, the intruder did not permanently steal their vital nutrients, he borrowed them and they will be returned. He did not permanently damage their home, it will repair itself. None of these offenses deserve the death penalty.

    You have no right to kill the other person inside your home because he never purposely broke in. You created the situation where he had no choice but to come into your own home.

    It's not the intruder's body you own, it is your own body that you own.

    Now please stop with the analogies because they do not fit in the least bit.
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfen
  • @SkepticalOne

    It truly amazes me the excuses pro abortion people make when keeping the inhumanity of abortion legal (except for extreme cases such as life of mother).

    What you always leave out in your excuses is that we are talking about innocent lives. If someone used your same excuses for killing innocent people after birth, you would scream at the barbarity of making it legal.

    If someone like you compared the statistics on the frequency of murders in nations where it was legal to murder, and where it was against the law, you would say we must always protect innocent life after birth regardless if laws have no effect.

    I'm sure it would be much safer to murder someone if it were legal!
    I'm sure if murder were legal, people would seek it out in earlier stages of life, such as two and three years old. The victim could not fight back as much and it would be much safer.

    In summary, restrictive laws on murder do not appear to reduce the frequency, but they do decrease the chances of the killer getting hurt.
    Undeniably, legal murder avoids many complications and deaths that might occur with heavy restriction on it's legality and prohibition. In other words: Outlawing murder endangers the killer while doing nothing to solve the perceived problem.   
     
    If a pregnancy disrupts her body, disrupts her education, disrupts her employment, and often disrupts her entire family life, I would think a rational person would use birth control, or not engaging in sex before chooosing to take those risks. That of course would be the common sense wise thing to do if such a person were concerned with the ramifications of their actions.

    What's so sick about all the pro abortion excuses (other than extreme cases), they never admit the simple fact that an innocent life (even viable innocent lives) are being taken for mere convenience and choice. You never make these excuses after they are born! After they are born, you say innocent life must be protected at all costs. For prolife people, innocent life is no different before or after it travels down that birth canal!
  • @ZeusAres42

    Here is your proof, but I am sure you could not care less!

    https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/
  • @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Here is the proof of when life begins...

    https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

    If you truly think that most abortions are done because of extreme cases such as rape or life of mother, you are so in denial it truly unbelievable.

    The VAST VAST VAST majority of abortions are done purely for convenience with no medical or extreme case reasoning at all.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @We_are_accountable
    @Happy_Killbot

    Every analogy you just made has nothing to do with abortion...

    Fitst you use the analogy that an illegal immigrant BREAKS into a house. NO, two people CHOSE to have unprotected sex, and a baby was DRAGGED into the woman's house against it's will.

    Second you talk about having an invader detained if he should break into your house. Detaining a person for breaking into your house is not KILLING the person as abortion does.

    Third, the intruder did not permanently steal their vital nutrients, he borrowed them and they will be returned. He did not permanently damage their home, it will repair itself. None of these offenses deserve the death penalty.

    You have no right to kill the other person inside your home because he never purposely broke in. You created the situation where he had no choice but to come into your own home.

    It's not the intruder's body you own, it is your own body that you own.

    Now please stop with the analogies because they do not fit in the least bit.

    I don't need to use an analogy to ask this question, I choose to do so because it makes the question easier to understand, not because it is a direct analogy.

    There are several ways I could argue with you analysis of the analogy, such as presenting how castle laws make no reservation for if a person was trespassing intentionally, to how not all pregnancies are consensual (rape) and of course how nutrients are not returned to the body, and in fact irreversible bodily damage can happen due to giving birth (not suitable content for this site) and the nutrients are never returned (unless you ask fetus muncher in which case I would agree)

    I don't need to make these points however, because even though you are wrong by technicality on all of them, they are not important to this discussion.

    You agree that "it is your body that you own" so then why don't you accept that pregnancy is a violation of a woman's body by another?

    In no way is pregnancy not a violation of the body. You have mentioned before that you have children yourself, so I can conclude that either you are a mother yourself and are intimately familiar with what happens during pregnancy, or you are a father and should know what happens to your wife during pregnancy (assuming you are a good husband)  I can prove all of this scientifically, and I am sure that you would not deny any of this.

    So where is the disconnect then? If someone is violating your body for a second (let alone for months) you have the right to do something about it, but you will not except such recourse in the event of abortion.

    At the very least you should accept abortion as an option for rape, incest, and the mother's life because in all of those instances the question has a clear answer, the fetus is not there by intention, or it is a threat to the mothers life or the health of society.
    We_are_accountableAlofRI
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @xlJ_dolphin_473. Did you just day the majority of abortions are the result of rape...its closer to 1%.  Also the fetus is still innocemt as it didnt rape the mother.

    @Happy_Killbot. I disagree with you saying there is forced organ donation, as that would imply they would permanently no longer be in use by the original host.  For one they keep those organs and two those organs still function to help the mother.

    The fetus doesnt break in, the mother lets it in.  Her choices created it. And its not stealing vital nutrients, i.e the mother isnt dying because of the stealing.
    We_are_accountable
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    Maybe I shouldn't use analogies if people get caught up in the analogy instead of the underlying concept.

    Pregnancy can and does cause permanent bodily damage, I don't care to talk about the specifics for reasons that should be obvious. Not all the organs are kept during pregnancy, the placenta for example, is formed and then eventually is rejected after birth.

    Even if you let someone into your house willingly, that does not give them free reign to do as they please in your home, you can still ask them to leave should you decide they shouldn't be there. In the case of abortion, this just happens to be lethal.

    The point of the analogy is to demonstrate that bodily autonomy should be considered in the same way that property is. The government should not be allowed to legislate what happens to someone's body against their will. If this is acceptable, then why shouldn't taking blood or non-vital organs from strangers be acceptable to save the life of someone else? It would have exactly the same arguments from the pro-life crowd to support it. Conversely, the pro-choice crowd would have exactly the same arguments against it.

    For the record, I am neither pro-choice nor pro-life, I forged my own stance which opposes both in favor of an actual solution, which would come not from politics but rather from technological development.
    PlaffelvohfenDee
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @MichaelElpers

    **** The fetus doesnt break in, the mother lets it in.  

    The fetus is there mostly by permission , you’re saying this permission cannot be withdrawn

    ****Her choices created it. 

    Yes , that’s right you say HER choices which you’re fine with to the point where you deny her choices if it goes against your subjective views which to be frank are not your business 

    ****And its not stealing vital nutrients

    It’s not stealing them correct ,  it’s granted them by permission which again you think cannot be withdrawn which is to grant the unborn a right denied the woman 


    Blastcat
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot. For one like you said the placenta is formes during the pregnancy, it has no benefit to a woman in her daily life.  She is not losing anything of importance.

    Also however in property rights if you made a choice/contract to allowing someone to live in your house for 9 months you cant kick them out for doing normal things.

    If someone harmed or created a situation in which another individual needed a blood donation from them to live, I 100% think they shoukd be forced to do so.
    Happy_Killbot
  • Time and time again I have heard the remark a baby is innocent of a crime.

    1.       Roe vs Wade describes the minor also known as oocyte, zygote, morula, blastocyst, baby losing a privacy along with the mother the way abortion law was written in Texas.

    2.       A human embryo would require a transition made from minor to adult states for all woman and clearly what is being attempted is a emancipation. Science does not ever describe how a person before birth is an adult.

    3.       Pregnancy abortion is using and dependent on the admission made by a woman when agreeing to a word abortion. No matter how well hidden this statement official stopping life is made by her, it is made. At no point is the possibility the child’s existence itself is to blame for the lethal force.

    4.       It is not the fact a child breaks into a woman in basic principle the fact of crime is a baby breaks out of a woman. When breaking out the mother becomes a witness to a possible crime. As the crime is only possible it does not constitutional address the lethal force that also may be occurring.

    5.       A understanding that a hospital birth is a safer birth then home provides all evidence in understanding a pregnancy can become of form of attempted murder of only woman. This means that all woman are created by a creator pregnancy as equals in this danger.

    Information that can be used in the ascertain a life is preserved knowingly to be extended till a later time by science. I would not consider this information to be evidence as it has nothing to do with the violation and crime exposed in civil litigations of Roe vs Wade. The information comes from a fertility clinic and though not told to abort any children do in fact perform pregnancy abortions. There is a distancing that takes place on a professional level that does not address all woman of the same prejudice. A woman’s constitutional common defense created by their creator pregnancy is female specific amputation. This is simple the first common defense to the general welfare of woman as placed in this united states. It is not to be considered the last common defense created by creator establishing all woman as equal by their creator.

    EGG FREEZING (OOCYTE CRYOPRESERVATION)

    Oocyte Cryopreservation, the scientific name for egg freezing, is the preservation of mature eggs following hormone stimulation to achieve pregnancy at a later time. It is currently offered to women who are interested in preserving their fertility or delaying pregnancy electively, or for those women with a diagnosis of cancer at risk of losing their egg reserve and the potential to have a child due to surgery, chemotherapy or radiation. Egg reserve decreases significantly with the increasing reproductive age therefore, egg freezing is a smart option for women who want to possibly have children later in life, but just can’t right now.

    The process for egg freezing is quite simple.  First the patient will be given hormone treatments for 8-10 days, which is followed by aspiration of eggs under anesthesia in the office setting and eggs are then frozen for fertility preservation purposes (eggs can be frozen for up to 12 years and still be viable for implanting into the patient).

    https://redrockfertility.com/egg-sperm-embryo-freezing/

  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @Dee. Yes im saying the permission cant be withdrawn because the consequences are known.  I consider it like a verbal contract, if you entered into a bad agreement that is your fault.

    I deny her choice to so something I believe has justification of being extremely immoral.  Just like society does with lots of things.

    Back when we had no way to remove tattoos would the woman be able to sue a tattoo artist if she no longer wanted it on her body.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @MichaelElpers So I can just come in and take your blood whenever I please then?

    There are dying people, I need it to save their lives.

    There is no contract between a fetus and the mother. The fetus doesn't even have citizenship or any ID whatsoever, and it never signed any documents to certify such. Therefore, it is illegally present.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne Gold Premium Member 1628 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    Excellent. I'm glad to see you've engaged. Let us aim to have a reasonable discussion rather than an emotional one.

    Viewing abortion as merely "taking innocent lives" is a gross oversimplification and mostly dubious. 'Innocent' is being used in a way that creates absurdities like "innocent cancer" and "innocent teratomas" - especially if applied to the fetus early in the pregnancy where there is no conception of the world, no conception of self. In fact, there is not the ability to conceive or even the substrate necessary for this to occur. In short, I think innocent can only meaningfully be applied to volitional beings.

    I get how someone might apply innocent to the unborn late in the pregancy (because their might be the capacity for consciousness), but you have allowed for abortion when "the mother's life is endanger". What you don't seem to know is that abortions late in the pregnancy are typically only done only when the woman's life is threatened or severe fetal abnormalities. Essentially, you have set up a standard and then made an exception for the only time that is might actually apply. 

    A 13 week old fetus is not "viable". Most abortions occur before 13 weeks of pregnancy. Again, you have built a standard and inappropriately applied it to most abortions and made an exception when it can be applicable. 

    Murder applies to persons. I get that you might want the unborn to be considered a person, but until cogent evidence/argumentation has been submitted, it remains your unsubstantiated opinion. I'm open to allowing personhood might be applicable before pregnancy ends. What I don't understand is how someone who considers abortion to be "murder of innocent viable persons [?]" can make exceptions for it. Your position seems quite incoherent.

    For the time being, I'll keep this short and sweet and give you the opportunity to respond before moving on.
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfenWe_are_accountable
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • @MichaelElpers ;
    Consequence of pregnancy is not known in advance, a result from a action took place, that event is pregnancy. You are now officerly asking me to help a group of prejudice woman invade the privacy of other group of woman. Both of who as of no some 200 years plus have failed to create all woman equal by own their creator pregnancy's. This is only a woman's creator by the act of independence which is sought.


    @ Happy_kilbot 
    Your not just taking her blood you are using it publicly. So, to answer your question yes I can take your blood. All you are doing is asking me to prediction on the justifications that would be need to make people believe that process a legal one. I do not see that as a notable common defense to the general welfare at this time.

    The fetus is a minor, as is the egg. MichaelElpers is trying to emancipate an egg for a mother for simply being fertilized. While you are still not defending the crime taking place presented in Roe Vs Wade. 
  • I stand by everything I said. You keep trying to say that the baby is a purposeful intruder. It is NOT! The mother and father invited this innocent life into their home through irresponsibility, carelessness or intention. Even if we allow your incorrect comparison, the intruder does not deserve the death penalty for his unintentional intrusion!
    Prolife people say the baby should be adopted out to a loving family unable to have their own children. The Illegal immigrant goes back to his nation.

    Every mother I know has come back to complete health after their pregnancy. As always you try to divert the issue back to life of mother abortion or other extreme cases while supporting ALL abortions for any reason when you elect those who keep No Restriction abortions legal.@Happy_Killbot
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @We_are_accountable

    Does it matter if the fetus did so with intention or without? If in a drunken near unconscious stupor you accidentally invade someones house, it is still home invasion.

    Likewise, a fetus is still trespassing in the mother's body unless she chooses to allow the fetus to stay.

    You know that my stance on abortion is not pro-life, we have discussed this before, unless you forgot or are being deliberately ignorant. My stance is pro-freedom and is still an actual solution to the abortion debate, something that your stance can never achieve.

    Coming back to full health is irrelevant, because they still had to sacrifice time and resources so that the baby could be born that they will never get back. Just because say, someone comes back to health after their house burns down doesn't mean they lost nothing. The point is that there is still a sunk resource cost that can never be retrieved. 

    Your extreme anti-abortion stance is, well, extreme if you do not except abortion in the case of rape, incest, and the mother's life, although I suppose you have yet to declare an official stance on this matter.
    We_are_accountable
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot. No because like i mentioned in my scenario, i would have had to be the reason those people needed blood, i would have to cause the scenario.

    Sure its not a normal contract because the fetus wasnt alive beforehand.  But just like a baby doesnt sign any documents, a mother is still obligated to take care of it.  I believe the mother and father are obligated to take care of a life they created, and form that contract when they consent to sex.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Here is the proof of when life begins...

    https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

    If you truly think that most abortions are done because of extreme cases such as rape or life of mother, you are so in denial it truly unbelievable.

    The VAST VAST VAST majority of abortions are done purely for convenience with no medical or extreme case reasoning at all.
    OK. Technically, life begins when the embryo's heart starts beating. But are they accepted as valid human beings? No! Do they have rights? No!
    I think that the mother reserves the right to kill her unborn baby if she chooses to. The mother is the one who has to go to all the trouble to have the baby, refrain from eating certain foods, and experience the tolls on her body, so why should she have to go through all this if she does not want to?
    We_are_accountable
  • @SkepticalOne

    First of all, I make exceptions for life of mother abortions because when a woman's life is in imminent danger, she has a right to save her life. It's a terrible thing to have to sacrifice another life to save one's own life, but if the mother decides to do so, it is her terrible decision to make. Rather then two lives being lost, at least one is saved! Some mothers would rather save the baby! This is her agonizing decision, and thankfully with todays medicine, a very rare situation.

    If we are going to continue this conversation, you need to stop using first trimester abortion excuses and examples. I want to focus on what the Democrat Party supports which is all abortions for any reason!

    It matters not if the majority of abortions are done in early stages. If approximately one to two thousand late term abortions are performed each year, that does not make it ok just because their numbers are less. How many viable babies killed, when not extreme case is too many? The Democrat Party refuses to protect healthy viable babies being aborted for mere convenience. These are the facts so lets stick to them.

    My main focus is late term abortions, to differentiate the Democrat Party from the GOP. It nauseates me when people who support the Democrat Party try to deny their support of viable babies being aborted for any reason.

    I also want you to stop talking about severe fetal abnormalities in late term abortions and be honest about Special Need's babies, who compete in Special Olympics, as being the babies most often aborted in late term.. These Down Syndrome babies make up the biggest percentage of of late term abortions, and do not have some severe fetal abnormalities. They are happy loving children who deserve the right to life, no matter their Special Needs.

    One thing I will not do, is banter words with people using deceptive language.

    I want to talk to people who are honest enough to admit they support all abortions, as does the vast vast majority of the Democrat Party. If you vote for those who vow to keep the abortion of viable babies legal for any reason, then you are culpable.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers I have one question for you:

    Is it the parents causing the pregnancy which makes the fetus a person, or is it the fetus causing the pregnancy that makes it a person?

    There is no contract and can be none, because the fetus is still not a person. The mother has no obligation to take care of something inside her body, the same way you have no obligation to take care of someone in your home, even if you let them in.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @Happy_Killbot

    STOP!

    Does a drunk driver accidentally running into our homes deserve the death penalty? You are going even further down the road to absurdity.

    Stop whie you have lost! Your argument has no bearing on abortion.
    Happy_KillbotAlofRI
  • @MichaelElpers ;
    It the human egg was alive before fertilization by the very act of stating the question and then acting in a legal process on that information of when life begins. So you are clear, you when saying the mother and father are under a contract to be gradian of the minor upon their discovery of that person. You are relieving yourself of any authority if the use of lethal force not murder they as a partnership my find necessary. They under any condition are free to engage in the violation you are taking place in by malpractice of law. The existing malpractice in legal precedent set by Roe Vs Wade set in (1976).

    @Happy_Killbot
    Not only do I not agree with abortion in the case of rape, I would go on to state it is a malpractice of law of its own accord as well as a medical malpractice. A sexual assault that ends in a female pregnancy's is then an attempted murder. It is by choice that the law pursue, by its fear only, in doubt of not receiving a prosecution of that attempt at lethal force by rapist, does not charge the accused rapist with attempted murder. The judicial process ops for the easier to prove, lesser crime of rape so justice can be more easily be sold publicly from the separation of united state in constitution of wrongs themselves. All rape, as sexual assaults' is addressed by female specific amputation not abortion as soon as it is found the woman has become pregnant as result of attack an apparent attack. The woman is not by her creator of this united state of pregnancy any longer equal to conditions of all creation a female pregnancy's held by other woman.

    Again this is an argument to preserve basic principles of both your statements in grievance against a united state created by a creator. Governed wrong.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot. The fetus is a developing human life, that doesnt change entity from conception, with a natural inherent rise to human functions.  Its the single point everyone can trace their existence to.  

    I believe the fetus is a person.

    You still didnt answer why a mother would be obligated to care for her baby, there is no contract their either. Also she should be able to reject breast feeding as that would interfere with bodily autonomy as well.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers If the fetus is a person then, why should it matter how the fetus got there, since it is not the people who put it there who are to blame for it's continued intrusion?

    A mother is not obligated to care for her baby, that is why adoption exists.

    Lots of people reject breast feeding, and as much as 12 - 15% can't do it at all.
    https://www.thecut.com/2018/05/the-truth-about-not-being-able-to-breastfeed.html
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @xlJ_dolphin_473 ;

    OK. Technically, life begins when the embryo's heart starts beating.

    No, medically a life is extended to a longer period of living once a heart is defined as the creator of a longer then normal life expectancy, It should be added it is by a licensed medical institution only granted powers by a state of area in regards to legislated law that makes that even possible. This is a malpractice of law in accordance to Roe Vs Wade and calls into question invasion of privacy to establish rule over lethal force.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @We_are_accountable
    STOP!

    Does a drunk driver accidentally running into our homes deserve the death penalty? You are going even further down the road to absurdity.

    Stop whie you have lost! Your argument has no bearing on abortion.
    If someone drove their vehicle drunk into my home and then said "ok, now that I am here, you have to feed me for the next 9 months, and I'm going to do all sorts of aful things to you, even though I don't mean to"  This person would be forcefully removed by the police as soon as they could get there, "aborted" from my home, and if that happens to kill them for any reason. so be it.

    You still haven't contended with the underlying argument at all, you have only tried to poke holes in the analogy.

    Why should the government be in charge of what happens with someone's body and not the individual?

    DebraAI doesn't seem to think that I am losing here. In an actual debate, if you don't say anything to counter the points made by your interlocutor, the point stands. So far you haven't tried that hard.
    We_are_accountable
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot. It is there blame for the continues intrusion.  Just like a baby is not responsible for its actions the parents are.

    They cant just abandon a baby.  They are responsible for its care until they sign it over to someone elses.

    Back when formula was not a thing you are saying they would be justified in letting the baby die
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers Do you see the conflict in the reasoning here?

    If a fetus is a person, then it is to blame for the pregnancy, and it should have to suffer the consequences of it's trespasses, not the parents.

    If the parents must except the consequences, then the fetus can not be a person and thus it can have no rights.

    Abortion is in a way, signing over the care to someone else, the problem is that that someone else lacks the resources, knowledge, and equipment necessary to properly care for the fetus after removal.

    The universe is impartial to justification.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @Happy_Killbot

    No that is wrong.  A baby is a person but it isnt blamed for its actions.  Youre the one presenting the fallacy.

    Theres a big difference between a baby, a minor, and an adult in how responsible they are for their actions...they are all people.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @Happy_Killbot. The fetus is a developing human life, that doesnt change entity from conception, with a natural inherent rise to human functions.  Its the single point everyone can trace their existence to.  

    I believe the fetus is a person.

    You still didnt answer why a mother would be obligated to care for her baby, there is no contract their either. Also she should be able to reject breast feeding as that would interfere with bodily autonomy as well.
    Call a fetus a person if you want. But a fetus is not a valid human being.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 ;

    OK. Technically, life begins when the embryo's heart starts beating.

    No, medically a life is extended to a longer period of living once a heart is defined as the creator of a longer then normal life expectancy, It should be added it is by a licensed medical institution only granted powers by a state of area in regards to legislated law that makes that even possible. This is a malpractice of law in accordance to Roe Vs Wade and calls into question invasion of privacy to establish rule over lethal force.
    Avoiding 
    I am trying to avoid getting caught up in the scientific minutia here. My point is that an embryo is not a valid human being.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers If this logic is fallacious, you are going to have to be more specific as to how.

    We seem to have a general consensus that the baby is trespassing in the mother if she doesn't want the baby in her body.

    The problem with the argument that the parents should be responsible, is that it would imply that the mother is trespassing in her own body, which just doesn't make any sense.

    Something, somewhere, has to give. All of these assumptions can not be simultaneously true:
    • A developing fetus is a person and has inherent rights and legal protections
    • The Mother has a right to do what she wants with her body
    • The parents are to blame for the fetus's continuing violation of the mothers body
    At least one of these things has to be false.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473. What great reasonings you have.  First you lie then you state something like a fact presenting no arguments.
    xlJ_dolphin_473
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473. What great reasonings you have.  First you lie then you state something like a fact presenting no arguments.
    What fact have I stated without arguments? I will be happy to indulge you with as many arguments as you want on this matter.

  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot.


    I dont consent that the baby is trespassing as i believe the mother consented to it, i agree a mother who wants an abortion. 1. Doesnt want it there. 2. Intends to kill it to avoid caring for it.

    The only one potentially in conflict is the mother can do what she wants with her body. If the parents are to blame for the continuous violation, i would say the mother did what she wanted with her body, and consented to a potential pregnancy.  Now that she has created a person, she cannot undo the consent and harm the fetus

    If someone said press this button because its fun and pleasurable but risks a chance of harming someone else in which you will have to donate your blood/body, and i continue to press it, i deal with those consequences.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers Someone can change their mind can't they? If you let someone into your home, willingly, and then decide that they should not be there you can still ask them to leave, and if they won't you can call the cops.

    In all situations, the fetus did not get the mothers's consent to develop inside the mother's body, because the fetus did not exist to do so. For this reason, I think it is irrelevant if the parents consented to sex which caused the zygote to form.

    If you abandon bodily autonomy, this has consequences which I have alluded to above as a necessity of denying bodily autonomy to the individual. I find this notion repulsive and morally corrupt. The state should not have the right to own anyone's body for any reason.

    Most abortions do not harm the fetus, because it can not feel pain until its neurons are developed and is not consciously aware of that pain until much later after the brain is formed. If anything, this is an argument for banning late term abortions, which I tend to agree with, but not early ones.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch