- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Why not put the child up for adoption?
Because people don't just get abortions because they don't want to raise a child. Simply being pregnant can totally screw up a life. It can make you lose your job, your health, your friends, your money, and your independence. Abortion is an option. So is adoption. They solve different problems.
I don't know. When everyone was getting mad at Hillary Clinton for having an armed guard, they were ignoring the fact that she has never advocated for a universally anti-gun position.
Also, I do think those arguments are somewhat ridiculous in their own right. If I'm anti-gun, but not having an armed guard means I'll die because the place I live in has guns, it's not hypocritical to have an armed guard.
I think this is really funny. Liberals say "I don't want to ban guns, I want people to be able to own guns, but have regulations." Republicans say "LIAR! You're just trying to ban all guns in baby steps." Liberals say, "No, look, I have a gun." Republicans say "Hypocrite! You don't match what I said you believe!"
It's crap because each step is based on an accident and because the end result of all those accidents is sentient life.
You seem to misunderstand what evolution is trying to explain. You're saying evolution is a bunch of crap because it account for the beginning of sentience. The theory of evolution doesn't claim to account for the beginning of sentience.