Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

65
54
True. Wait..., what? No!!!
Debate Score:119
Arguments:120
Total Votes:123
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True. (58)
 
 Wait..., what? No!!! (53)

Debate Creator

jolie(9805) pic



Have you ever noticed how everyone who is for abortion has already been born?

We should make abortions retroactive and then see who's for abortions.

True.

Side Score: 65
VS.

Wait..., what? No!!!

Side Score: 54

Classic liberalism- they are all for you bearing the burden and paying the price, but not them.

Side: True.
1 point

Being alive is requisite to having an opinion. And, being alive, I have a certain bias towards staying that way. But had I been aborted before I lived I never would have known any different and a case could be made we would all be better off that way.

Side: True.
2 points

Unless there is life after death. Then you would be like, WTF?!?! Those bastards just ruined my chance at life!

Side: True.
Jace(5164) Disputed
1 point

That would be no different than life in life. I would not exist to be aware of the purported deprivation.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
FromWithin(8241) Disputed
1 point

So you are saying it is ok to kill a person in a coma, who would never know if we killed them? They are alive just as an unborn baby is alive.

Middle to late term Unborn babies can dream, feel pain, react to music and other stimuli.

But in the sick selfish world of Democrats, killing them is ok.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Jace(5164) Disputed
1 point

I was not making a moral argument either way, merely observing that to be living and pro-abortion is not fundamentally a contradiction in reason. If you have a response to that analysis I will respond, but otherwise I am disinterested in doing so further.

Side: True.
1 point

again - abortion is done in self-defense.

Yes, self-defense is selfish...

Side: True.
Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

This is true. It is better for a baby to be aborted while it is innocent than for it to grow into a bastard who hates God and ends up in eternal dying in Hell's fire.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Jace(5164) Disputed
1 point

You said it.

Side: True.
prisonrev(1) Disputed
1 point

How could a case be made that one would have been better off being aborted? Just who would decide what the standards should be? Wouldn't that decision-making be an exercise in immorality, in and of itself?

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Jace(5164) Disputed
1 point

I never said such a case could be made. I said a general case could be made that life is not a net benefit, so we would all have been better off never existing to experience the net negative. Life predisposes us to a preferential bias for itself, but the common presumptions which people seem to operate upon (that life is a net benefit and/or has value) have never actually been proven. Which is really all one needs in order to make the case that maybe the general pro-life position might be wrong.

If you want to get into particular individuals, which was not my original suggestion, then that would be a complex moral question for a moralizing person. Given that I am not a moralizer but an amoralist egoist, my contention is that the preferential course of action is that which gives the individual the greatest self autonomy which accounts for any loss of autonomy to the individual due to social destabilization.

Side: True.
Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

Because it is better to be aborted as a baby and go to heaven, innocent, than to die in Hell as a sinner forever in the fire. That fact is not an excuse for murdering babies before they are born.

Abortion is always killing an innocent child, it's murder. There's going to be a lot of baby killers burning in Hell forever.

Side: True.
SatintLater(283) Disputed
-1 points

False. Dead ps eht si yhw ftw...acirema fo srehtaf gnidnuof eht .oot snoinipo evah nac elpoecreen ty sllabtihs yloh ?rorre gnidoc fo dnik emos .siht ekil gnip

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

You are starting to put out some thought provoking debates. I might just have to change my first impression of you :)

Yes I have noticed the total selfish mindset of pro abortion people.

Side: True.
Saintnow(3684) Clarified
1 point

I don't read any of this this guy's stuff, I know where he's standing and it's pure evil...I glanced through some of the responses. If you try to team up with this guy on issues, your getting in bed with the devil.

Side: True.
FromWithin(8241) Clarified
1 point

I'm not teaming up with anyone. When a person puts out an argument speaking to the value of an innocent life, I will applaud him.

This does not mean I agree with his other views.

Side: True.
1 point

If the Progressive Left was against abortion then it is true as to how they could have been born !

Side: True.
1 point

That is so true. I am prolife. I think unborn children have the right to live.

Side: True.
1 point

Does a fully grown person who breaks into your house to rape you have the right to live??

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Sitar(3680) Disputed
1 point

This debate is about abortion. Stay on topic..................................................

Side: True.
1 point

A person doesn't abort a fetus. They don't set out with the purpose of killing something that "is not alive." If that was all they were doing no one would make a fuss. No one's going to arrest me if I break a stone. What they are killing is the potential for that fetus to move to the next stage of human life, a baby. Fetuses left alone will not stay fetuses, they turn into children, which is why they are aborted. It's not that people don't want a fetus, it's that they don't want a child. The whole purpose of abortion is built around a pro-life concept. That the fetus will turn into a child the mother doesn't want to have. If a fetus stayed a fetus there wouldn't be a point to abortion in the first place. There wouldn't be any inconveniences or health issues. It is the fact that human fetuses turn into human babies that makes people want to get an abortion. Subconsciously pro-choicers are admitting that that fetus will inconvenience them because it will be most definitely be a living human with a few months, even if it is uncertain whether it is human at the moment. By killing an eagle egg you get the same fine as if you shoot an eagle. It has the same end effect, whether the egg is an eagle or not. A potential life is destroyed. It's the same with abortion. Whether it is a human or not now, a human fetus will become a human. A human with a life, experiences, and memories. The potential human may become pro-choice or pro-life, or not care and smoke weed its whole life, but at least it will get to experience life. By aborting a fetus you are destroying a lifetime of experiences, whether good ones or bad ones.

From high school bio is the seven requirements for life which fetuses match all of except perhaps the seventh, the ability to reproduce. However 3 year olds can't reproduce either so unless you are going to argue that the killing of 3 year olds is ok as well you cannot argue that a fetus is not living. The argument seems to be saying that unless you have experienced all of life, you do not have the capability to be a life. Well is a virgin a human? Again one of the 7 requirements for life is reproduction, something virgins haven't experienced. So why are they human and a fetus isn't? Because they have the capability to reproduce (in most circumstances). This proves the point that it is not experience itself that makes one alive, but rather the capability to one day experience. A fetus can one day experience and is therefore considered a living human.

The human species as a whole fulfills those 7 requirements of life. So it doesn't matter therefore if a fetus or a virgin do not fulfill one of them. A tadpole is still considered the same species frog, though it doesn't have all the capabilities of a frog. Humans, like all animals go through multiple phases of life. Being a fetus is just one of those phases of life. You yourself were a fetus once, and you yourself have already passed that stage of life. Many seem to have this elitist view that as you have already passed that stage of life you are superior to said fetus. That you hold the power of life and death over that child simply because you are no longer in that stage of life. It's similar to when someone assumes they're superior intellectually merely because they are older. In this case however, instead of ending with a stuck up person and an annoyed person, you end up with a dead person and an arrogant person who believes the death was morally justifiable. I will never be pro-choice. Even if there's a chance a fetus isn't a human I'd rather err on the side of life.

"For the mental health of the future child, sometimes abortion is a good option". This is a direct quote from a debate with a pro-choicer. Under that logic, for the "mental health of the future child" I should be able to kill anyone with a mental health problem. The logic is dangerously bordering on the logic of fascist Germany, that those with mental health issues are not human and do not have the same rights as humans. Babies do not have the same mental capacity as a fully grown human either. So under that logic killing babies is fine. It is getting very close to a dangerous ideology in which killing the old and young is ok because they do not have the same abilities as me or you. I have more thoughts and feelings than a baby. A philosopher probably has deeper thoughts than me. Can I morally kill a baby? Can that philosopher morally kill me? It is an odd train of thought. Because someone thinks more does not make them more of a person. A person in a coma thinks at the same levels or even less than a fetus. Can I kill them? No! If they come out again they will have the same feelings I do, and advanced thought. They are still considered human. So how is it different with fetuses? Even if they don't have advanced thought now, they will later. So just like someone in a coma they should be considered a human being. You can't cherry pick. Are people in comas AND fetuses not human? Or, as we should argue, are people in comas and fetuses both human? The latter should be true.

One major argument pro-choicers throw out a lot is that it could inconvenience a mother financially. But the whole "it's too expensive" argument is freaking immoral. No matter what your views are, the question should be whether or not that fetus is a human not whether or not there's enough money to keep it fed and alive. It’s expensive to keep a person in a nursing home too.

So here we must weigh what is important. Are money problems more important than death? Because whether or not a human fetus is a living being, it will one day be a human being and by killing that fetus you are killing that future human being. (S)he hasn't experienced life yet, but it will if you do not abort it. No matter what you say you have to admit that by killing that fetus, you are killing that future human. There is nothing that can be argued in the contrary.

And that future human could be great. They could change the world. Maya Angelou. Malcolm X. Steve Jobs. Bill Clinton. Regina Louise. Dr. Wayne Dyer. Eric Clapton. Dave Pelzer. Tom Monaghan. What do they all have in common? They weren't wanted by their birth parents, they all might have had “terrible lives” (an argument I’ve heard put forth. They might have a bad life if they’re allowed to live. But they might have a great one). But sure they should have all been aborted depriving the world of some of its best.

I must now put another point forward. Let's look at this argument completely from an outside perspective with no opinions or thoughts influencing our decisions. Let's say it is unsure whether a fetus can be considered human. Is it not better to be unsure and abortion free, in case there is even the slightest chance it is a human life? Do you think pregnancy is worse than death? Because even if you don't THINK a fetus a human life, (and there is no objective answer or there wouldn't be a debate on this) you must admit that if your opinion may end pain and discomfort, and mine may end a death, wouldn't you rather (even if you were 99% sure of your opinion) a life potentially saved is worth more than a life potentially set back?

Side: True.
1 point

I think people should avoid the whole - 'it's not human' argument altogether... abortion falls within the woman's right to self-defense to protect herself from the harms of pregnancy. In Florida, you can legally kill a full grown person who breaks into your house to steal your tv - impacting you only financially. A pregnancy impacts a woman in many ways - financially, hormonally/mentally, socially, and, of course, physically - some of the impacts will be permanent. That a person would have the self-defense right to prevent loss of tv, but not the pains of bringing a pregnancy to term is completely illogical and hypocritical.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

I would support the argument that "abortion falls within the woman's right to self-defense to protect herself from the harms of pregnancy" if women to support the notion that "if they get pregnant, and the father does not want the child, they cannot collect child support. They either have to raise the child on their own, or get an abortion."

If this is not palatable to women, then I would still support the argument if women would instead support the notion that "if the father wants the child, then the woman has to carry the fetus for the full term unless her life in danger." In other words, if her life is not in danger, then there's no need to apply the "self-defense" clause. She will be inconvenienced for 9 months but they in turn get to inconvenience a man for 18 years. It may not sound fair but it is better than the raw deal men are currently getting.

If women are not willing to support neither one of those notions, then they just want to have their cake and eat it too. And to the extent that they feel they can get away with it, they will continue to maintain the current status quo.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

Typical liberals just a bunch of pot smoking hypocrites. Fuck em

Side: True.
2 points

have you ever noticed how anything you ever read about or any law passed is written by somebody who has already been born?

SS

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
outlaw60(15375) Disputed
1 point

What was Margret Sanger's view on abortion ? Being you are so well educated you should know right ?

Side: True.
2 points

Well then, go ahead and take a vote right now from all the aborted babies. Raise your hands if you are against abortion....

I don't see any hands. Well then, all the aborted babies must be in favor of abortion then.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

Well, it IS true, but, have you ever noticed how so many that have been born wishes they never were??

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
outlaw60(15375) Disputed
1 point

So you say you are in support of Margret Sanger's views ?

Side: True.