Athias

"Race", "culture" and "narratives" are only social constructs, as are all words, and as such, they have meaning.

Arguments tend to involve opposing views.

Just look past the socially constructed categories and recognize that everyone is an individual.

You could not differentiate a black man a white man a Chinese man or any man that speaks proper English with proper diction.

Oh pulease,  this country is polarized between black and white culturally, 

and definitions and semantics don't change the reality of the situation,

and  if we are going to get along, we need to recognize, understand, and accept that reality.  

If one can identify various physical aspects with race, skin color, voice quality,

Then I'd 'think one could identify certain psychological tendencies as well,

But even 'with nurture, if an entire race had higher testosterone, even with nurture,

There would be, expected social outcomes of their behavior,

Not 'certainties, but tendencies.

Not that I'm saying human races are like dog breeds,

Dogs are 'way too intentionally bred to compare to human races (I think).

Take some humans with mental disabilities (Not a race)

Nurture can do quite a bit, but that nature is always there.

but as it relates to race, being black in America is a very different experience than being white

A group of people, assumably with closer/shared/similar genetics to each other, than some other location.

While I 'do think psychology is formed by experience, I also think that nature plays a role.

Yes, I do. Different races have different experiential realities that result in different perspectives and different psychological tendencies.

Out of curiosity, do you view races to have different psychological tendencies, than one another?

I don't disagree with the conclusion that geographic longstanding groups of people have various tendencies myself.

It 'would be difficult to test psychology I'd think,

I finished reading it real fast just so I can read your comment. Thanks for the summary 

The biggest thing I changed my mind about was that either American political party uniquely stands for any issue. I now realize both parties at different times will endorse or deny the same policies, meaning they are essentially a unified party playing good cop bad cop on the American public.

2.) Stopped believing the market we see is determined by productivity and started believing in an international cabal of war mongers operating a loosely associated machine made of large corporations that use government force to stay on top and governments that use these large corporations to steer public opinion and economics, i.e. the deep state AKA the military industrial complex AKA the original gangsta fascist economic theory

• But if we widen the parameters over several years (a couple of decades even,) I can tell you that I went from, ideologically, a Libertarian minarchist to an Anarchist/AnarchoCapitalist. My subscription to anarchism hasn't changed much over the last 20+ years.
  
• I used to be "Pro-Life," but it presented a contradiction with my subscription to individualist philosophy. So I'm Pro-Choice.
  
• I believe cartels for labor like the Teamsters, American Medical Association, etc. should be abolished.
  
• The United Nations as well as the Council of Foreign Relations should be abolished.
  
• I once "flirted" with Atheism until I realized it didn't make me "smarter."
  
• The CIA program known as "Project MK Ultra" was never discontinued.
  
• I believe, for lack of a better term, the "Elite" are a group of Kabbalists, Wiccan, NeoPagan, Druid, Saturnian, Masonic, Satanist, Luciferian Pansexuals who have carefully placed their ranks in positions of influence from the Papacy, to the Presidency of the United States, to Hollywood executives, even to your local doctor who you may have noticed has the caduceus staff monogrammed on his/her lab coat for no explicable reason. The "Illuminati" is merely a smokescreen.
  

There doesn’t need to be a huge overarching plot. Like I said the earlier seasons I enjoyed. 

I don’t know. Just a storyline following a different group of characters within the Fringe universe. Doesn’t need to be the exact same formula.

Were you a fan of the show?

Lol, "they can't rape you if you consent fast enough"

If the threat of violence still loomed he was raped.

I'm interested to know how hispanics sound. How is it? 😆

Was the main character raped or not?

And do we agree then, that it is the right of the pregnant female to decide, (except where it is agreed that she is intellectually incapable of making such a decision). Within agreed limits.

Would you believe that some people still say that the Earth is flat.

I've been through public school recently, I haven't been SUPER indoctrinated.

They said political things here and there, but that's free speech.

The only things I can remember is when they were trying to be more pro LGBT and when they were trying to pain the GOP as racist.

But some parents can't. 

A no tax policy is not pragmatic.

It wasn't,

No, but the government isn't the mafia.

And some people pay little in taxes

so having those people pay for education directly is going to make education unaffordable for them

so their kids don't get ANY education (private or homeschooling) and the kids become idiots when they are adults.

But other parents can't, so if they don't get help, their kids become uneducated and this increases the welfare state down the line and reduces the amount of tax revenue the government can collect since salaries would be much lower.

Without public school, America becomes a 3rd world country

because many 3rd world countries don't offer public school to their people.

And some children can't get homeschooled or private schooled. 

But then we get less effective drugs.

Companies cal sell placebos that don't really work in the long run to make a profit.

Patents only last 20 years,

We would get worse quality drugs if the FDA didn't exist.

Sort of my point.

That it is your assumption,  (which is probably based upon your own assumed political leanings)  that all "left wing" are pro-choice.

I've come across many of those who are pro-choice, and happen to be left-wing, who are very inconsistent when it comes to their stance.

What ever "left-wing" might be in your mind.

Is it simply the self opinionated folk down the road who didn't vote as you did?

Or is it a pseudo-mythical alternative  life-force, out there somewhere in your dark recesses.

Nonetheless, it's nice to see that your support is wholly in favour of the mother and her choices, irrespective of any assumptions regarding her political leanings.

Which of course, could easily be regarded as a pro-choice and therefore a "left-wing" principle..

Though I would suggest that it is still reasonable for any individual regardless of classification, to formulate an opinion. Given the nature of the beast and it's on-board data processing unit. In fact, I would further suggest that it is nigh on impossible for a fully functioning  data processing unit not to form an opinion.

And selective morality in regard to living matter, is something that 99.9% of the human race suffer from. It's a basic survival strategy.

But then a lot of kids aren't going to be educated and this makes America less prosperous in the long term.

It's like that for every government employee.

Yes; and the electorate is pro public schools.

We should have less troops because soldiers kill people.

Politicians are individuals.  Bernie Sanders is not pro war and this is his idea.  Ron DeSantis is not pro war in Ukraine.  Mike Pence and Joe Biden are.  You can be against the government going to war while also wanting them to educate our kids.

What if the parents can't afford to educate their kid? 

They educate the kids whom the parents can't educate.

I am more pro homeschool than I am pro public school (and if I had kids, they are getting homeschooled),

but some parents can't homeschool their kids, so the kids should get educated by the state with your tax dollars as the alternative is kids being stupid when they grow up.

Why?

If that happens, no private entity is going to make patents and I think if you create something, you should own it unless you sell it (with exceptions like a child).

Why?

The only way teacher salaries are exclusively determined by the market is if we abolish public schools.  Do you support this?  

The taxpayer foots the bill

but it’s paid for by cutting the military budget 5%.

We take better care of the military

which the US military is responsible for 17x more civilian deaths than ISIS in the Middle East

than we do the teachers that enable innovation for the future.

Stop declaring a war on teachers!

Roe v Wade tried to draw the line at 20 weeks. Modern leftists tried to redraw the line at 9 months. What's to say the next line wont be 10 months. Or 10 years.

Often works like that Mr A.

Though I will pontificate from a distance and suggest that with regard to the duration a nine month pregnancy, it is intellectually reasonable to vary ones own  moral and ethical appreciation of the developing mass.

Pro-choice with limits is perhaps more reasonable than pro-choice without limits.

Though I would further suggest that in terms of selective morality, there is very little difference between extreme left and extreme right.

My final suggestion to you would be, that the left to right spectrum is broader than we might give it credit for here at Debateart, where more clearly defined contentions tend to arise.

Skin cells still have human DNA.  I fail to see the relevance of the DNA being unique or not.  If there was a human with my exact DNA, they are a seperate human being. 

If a new cell is created in my right arm with unique human DNA, that’s not a human being.

Sorry it was so long I had to put it into two posts lol. 

YOU LITERALLY.....................you know what.............................never mind I will just let you look stupid. 

And B, (I am not quoting from your analogy, I am claiming what the actual situation would have to look like in order for your analogy to hold ground) I did not knock on the door for you to let me in. You put me in that house. I had no intention of going to the house, nor did I ever say I wanted to go into the house. Also, I was never in a blizzard before I entered your house, I was never in a dire situation before going into your house. 

And according to how abortions actually work, you wouldn't of just pushed me out of the house, you would have shot me or killed my yourself. 

You put me in that house without my permission then proceeded to kill me for whatever reason. 

That is how the analogy would work if lined up right. 

Your home is your home, but you put me in your home without my consent and then shot me. That is an analogy for the logic of abortions. 

Ok, well in that case, I could argue that the beneficiary the husband who might not want the abortion to happen. 

Listen, your argument is solid, but what you are saying without saying it is that the mother didn't choose for the fetus to exist, the mother didn't give consent whilst having sex to the possibility of getting pregnant, and that abortions are simply just letting a baby survive on its own. These claims are all incorrect and give your argument a disadvantage. 

Well, the excuse that they would have been exactly the statement you brought up. 

"What if they don't know about the consequences of having sex?"

That is not an excuse.

It would be the same as murdering someone based just off of convenience. If you don't like someone in your life and you murder them to get rid of them, that is wrong. Like let's say you have a roommate. You hate them so much and it inconveniences you. They haven't done anything necessarily wrong; you just don't like them. 

In this situation you have no right to kill them, for your own convenience. 

For many reasons:

1.) If you're not ready for a child then you won't be prepared to raise your own child in the best way possible, and given you want the best for them, that won't help you at all if you don't at least have some sort of a plan for what you are doing. 

2.) Finacial reasons, because babies' cost a lot of money, and if you're not financially ready for a baby, then that is going to negatively impact you, your husband (if you have one) and the baby. 

3.) Mental reasons, because taking care of a baby takes a lot of time and effort, and again given you want what's best for your child, you want to be able to provide for them, care for them, love on them, in order to raise them in the best way possible, and if you're not ready to do that, well that's not going to turn out well for you or your child. 

At the moment in some states yes, she is not obligated. What I am arguing or rather stating is that she should be obligated to do so, unless some other factor like rape or incest, because to do otherwise would be murder, which might not hold on to legal standards, but it does by moral ones. 

I am not arguing what the law says, I am arguing what the law should say, and why by moral standards it should say that, and even further enforce it. 

Yes, and part of being an adult is putting your own interests aside in order to grow in society, family or not. 

If you are asking why a mother owes her child anything, then what the hell are you talking about?

A mother owes almost everything to that child. She brought them into this world, the baby did not force itself into this world. It was by a decision she made, that another life was conceived, and that child deserves the right to life.

That is not how abortions work at all. Abortions work by first making a slice through the back of the fetus's head and sucking out all of the brains.

Well, why on earth would you abort it rather than give it up for adoption? It's the least you can do as a biological mother, when you first brought the child into the world. Why wouldn't you at the least give it a chance to live. Giving it up for adoption, or at least leaving it alive, is giving it more of a chance, than literally killing the thing. People who don't give human life a chance to live are the ones who don't care for human life and are the selfish ones. 

Legally she has the right to do that. Morally she has no right to do anything of the sort. How on earth are you going to deny entry to a child the use of your body, when you are the one who put them there in the first place?

So, when you get into your car, you are consenting the possibility that you might get into a crash.

So, if you don't want to crash, and assure that you never get into a crash, then don't drive. Otherwise, be prepared.

Again: WATCH: Women See The Horrific Reality Of Abortion In These Stunning Videos | The Daily Wire

If you kill yourself, (for whatever reason it may be) you are being selfish in that act, because you are putting your pain and suffering before others, and that is wrong.

She consented to herself. She told and agreed with herself to make that decision. Also, to whatever man she had intercourse with. 

1.) Of course, the mother's womb belongs to her. I never said it didn't. What I said was that she gave over her womb when consenting to sex to the possibility of a pregnancy. So, it is her womb, but she gave access to another life. 

LOL!!!! Yeah, they do. They possess the same DNA as every other cell within the same human organism does. FFS girl, what are you smoking!?!

Uh, no it is not. 

False equivalency fallacy.

Gestational development is mutually exclusive from physiological maturation (i.e., growth).

I think that it is safe to say that if someone knows about condoms, sex, etc., then they know about the consequences.

But let's say some don't know. I

Instead of abortion, how about we continue to teach the dangers of sex, in schools when kids become of age.

That way people won't have an excuse. 

What I am saying is that having sex, when you deliberately don't want children, or don't desire children at that time, because you can't afford them, is a stupid decision.

It dies because the woman makes the decision to kill it. 

Thats how it works. 

No, it doesn't. The mother doesn't want the child; therefore, she kills it. 

That is the whole point of abortion. 

Yes, it is here womb, but she is the one who consented to the possibility that a baby will be in her womb. 

So, yea it is her body, but the zygote/embryo/fetus is not a part of her body and is another living human.

Therefore, it would be morally wrong to kill it. 

Is it wrong to kill other humans?

Sometimes it isn't. 

In the case of abortion, the mother took a chance. She got pregnant. Then, she decided to pay a doctor to kill the baby inside of her, that she consented to create, even though the child in her body did nothing to hurt her, and nothing to anyone else. 

You might as well say that we should all stop reproducing with this argument.

The baby isn't claiming the mother's womb. It is using the mother's womb to survive for only 9 months. It did not claim the mother's womb. In order for the baby to claim the mother's womb, it would have to choose to be born then take claim. The baby was put, created in the mother's womb, (not by their own choice). That baby did nothing wrong. It was actually the mother's decision to place that baby in her own womb, so the action that the mother took created a life as well as the father. So, the mother has no right to kill the baby in her belly in the same way that a mother does not have a right to kill her born children. 

You're claiming that the baby took claim of the mother's body, and that is completely false. The mother gave up her womb in order to grow a child, through biological processes. 

Even if what you're saying was true, and the baby did claim the mother's body, you would still be contradicting yourself, because just by the action of claiming something, that child is a living human being with moral value, therefore it would be morally wrong to kill it. 

But it didn't even claim the body, so your argument proves no purpose. 

There doesn't have to be a beneficiairy.

If a homeless man is murdered on the street with no family or friends, is that ok?

Should the murderer just be let free?

The same way human beings can conceive skin cells, hair cells, or sperm cells.  You can have human chromosomes while not being a human being.  But if I believed a zygote was a human being, I would want it to be illegal to kill them.

How did the woman get pregnant?

If she chose to have sex with another man without protection, then she is consenting to unprotected sex, and she knows the consequences. 

If she makes a stupid decision,

she doesn't get to fix it by killing a baby in the womb, which you stated isn't moral. 

A mother who made the stupid decision to have unprotected sex, or sex in general, and then got pregnant, so she decides to kill the baby. 

That is a loss of a human life, without any reason besides convenience. 

Or, the mother gets charged for the abortion, and she gets charged with murder. 

I never said that when she gets charged with murder that she would be put to death. 

I believe that she should be charged with murder, and jailed for life. 

You’re as ignorant as IFound_Lxam in this debate. 

you’re out of your league. 

Oh, and BTW, the proper phrase grammatically is “you and I,” and not “you and me.”

Yes, it does. A liver cell taken from your liver is human. Doesn't make it [a] human being, now does it!

Clown.

An observation =/= an ad hominem response.

They mean it is not [a] human being. That's what is meant.

No, it is not. You are [a] human being. A zygote is not. 

Denialism + Intellectual Cowardice

Are you daft? Reading comprehension problems?

A newborn is not autonomous.

Being able to survive and biologically mature without further gestational development outside the womb =/= autonomy. 

Dunning-Kruger Effect response. 

To address the abortion debate, a debate that centers around human reproduction, as if someone is inferring some other species,

It is NOT!

Actually, they are. They are solely premised upon human biology and physiology. 

Every rational and logically thinking and educated person knows it is human in origin, just not [a] human until fetal viability is achieved. 

The ONLY thing fetal viability "suggests" is the ability of the fetus to survive outside of the womb without further gestational development. That's it. 

Facts do not care about anyone's feelings.

The undeniable fact remains, that without fetal #viability there can be NO actualized "human being."

I don’t believe a zygote or embryo is a human being.

But I think a fetus is a human being.

If Holocaust-denial legislation is made to criminalise thus stigmatise dissent, do you think that would be a stated intent by any party making it so?

I am forced to focus on the desire, not any stated intent or extant proof, in this regard, becase it is simply not a rationale one would admit to. They would, however, state the intent as being to protect individual Jews.

And that is the visible status quo whose integrity I am objecting to with my proposition.

I will however debate anybody else on this topic. including the pedant oromagi, who seems to prefer discussing this and that and picking everything apart to capitalise theoretically on any ambiguity in my diction and implication rather than just being normal and debating the premise: essentially, is it more likely that denial legislation is driven by a will to censor or a will to protect individual Jews from harm? that's it. it's not complicated and you don't need to make it so if my argument is so weak. weak arguments may be destroyed with minimal effort. so prove it and do it instead of acting like it would be so easy to do

but remember the rules of the debate, namely 'no kritiks' and the fking title, read it again and again and again and we must agree on the rules prior to starting (that's in the description)

so if you want to do it please review the rules and come back with objections/suggestions.

Any debate that offers to prove the emotional state or unstated thought process of another human being (i.e. telepathic evidence) deserves to lose.