Bones

1: The Singularity

Many scientists today call use the term singularity to represent what they believe to be the big bang. Now before I go any further, I just want to point out that I do agree with science, and in fact it does prove gods' existence.

Ok back to the singularity.

We hear from scientists that the singularity, means something that popped into existence from nothing. If nothing existed at the start of time, then nothing would be here now. It is impossible for something to pop into existence from nothing. The only way for something to come into existence from nothing, is if something, or someone puts it there.

The big bang defiantly did happen, but God is the one who ignited the match.

2: Design Has to Have a Designer

When you see the various aspects of nature, like birds, dogs, trees, and all of nature itself, and all of the specific roles they play you have to wonder how they got like that. We as humans try to copy nature sometimes with the way that we use technology, aerodynamics etc. 

We see parts of our body that are some of the most advanced things we know of like for instance, the brain. We try to copy and mimic those things by making fake arms and computers and things like that, but we never even get close to a direct copy.

Now this all goes back to the question; well, where does design originate? We'll let me give you an example:

If you have all the parts of a watch in a box, and they aren't put together, you could shake that box forever, but you would never get a watch. Now the human brain for example is way more advanced than a watch, so do you really think that life was just created like that, all shaken up?

3. What Created Life?

Scientists use the term Law of Biogenesis to explain how life works. The way it is explained, is like this:

Law of Biogenesis: "In this material, natural world, life comes from previously existing life of its own kind.

Now scientist nowadays say well, life actually comes from random chemicals and elements. Yet every biological experiment we have done with chemicals and elements, has not produced life or any actual signs of life at all.

So, if life didn't arise from non-living chemicals, then how did life arise? The only explanation is a supernatural being.

4. Moral Law

If some things are objectively morally wrong, and some things are objectively morally right, then there must be a God. 

We don't say that when a dog stole a bone from another dog, that dog broke a moral, law no we don't. But we do when it comes to humans. So, at what point did moral law become important. 

5. Human Reasoning

We humans have the nature to reason, and to wonder why things exist, why we exist, and that's why we have science. Why are we the only species that does this? Animals don't wonder why they exist, they just do? What gave us that need to find out? God did that's who.

I have one question for all of you. Just answer this one question, and I will continue with my argument.

Imagine I draw a circle on a white board. 

The space inside the circle represents all knowledge. 

It contains Physics, Chemistry, etc. 

Even knowledge that we are still trying to find, exists in this circle.

Now I ask you this question. If I gave you a pen, and asked you to fill in how much knowledge you think you have/know in the circle, how much of the circle would you fill in? 

Just answer me that.

1. Significant recognizable intelligence,
   
2. Demonstratable sentience, and
   
3. Awareness of self.
   

I'd raise the example of an adult in a coma.  I would always consider an adult in a coma a PERSON, because they have  a history of demonstrated individuality and humanity even though they no longer demonstrate intelligence, sentience, or self-awareness.

I am yet to see some save an unknown stranger from a third world country over their own child, yet you wouldn’t use this intuition as a means of dehumanising the impoverished would you?

Not sure how you're making that leap.

Zero people know the unborn.

Is it conceivable to you that a woman who has tried her entire life to conceive a child would value their unborn more than some child who she does not know?

I'm not discussing forced abortions against the will of the pregnant women.

In saying this it seems that you are implying that there is some difference between a first trimester and third trimester unborn in terms of moral worth. Could you identify what defines such a difference? If you believe abortion is slavery, shouldn’t you object to it at every stage?

It is not until sometime in the third trimester that a fetus is developed to the point where it could feel pain. That late in, there's at least a discussion to be had on harms potentially experienced.

And I do not believe abortion is slavery. I have been clear that I believe placing women into indentured servitude for use against their will as medical devices is slavery.

I have yet to meet anyone who would stand by their beliefs that the unborn are of equal value and in turn save the greater number of them.

Zero people know the unborn.

For clarity, I am not referring to the exceptionally rare late term abortions. Rather I'm referring to birth control thru the end of the second trimester.

Jumping the gun to Reductio ad Hitlerum, nice to see Godwin's Law in effect.

You're talking about someone literally signing a contract,

with the lives of actual people at stake.

Presumably these kids will eat canned food, rather than being vampires who will feed on their caretaker.

A thought experiment I use is a variety of the trolly problem, in which building catches fire and you have a choice of which to save: The hundreds of fertilized embryos from the fertility clinic, or the half dozen kids in the daycare. Everyone would save the people, and no one would hold them at fault for letting hundreds of human beings die. This exemplifies that it is self evident that personhood and the protection of people is of higher value than the mere fact of humanity.

Semantically killing a human being, sure.

Whereas enslaving women creates a massive harm to them, their families, and society.

I do not have respect on a personal basis for someone who farms debaters to get to the top.

People like Ramshutu Trent Ragnar Oromagi and Semperfortis get my respect as debaters. But I will get called bias so oh well

trans women are biological men

 But with all these scientists claiming that transwomen are women and that trans men are men, 

It would be like if I asked you to define water in a way a 5 year old could understand.  All you can do is get water from a faucet and show it to kids to define water.  If we expect 5 year olds to know the difference between men and women, you need a definition.

Definition of a female: Anyone that is a cis female or trans female. Definition of a male: Anyone that is a cis male or trans male. There Matt Walsh, you have your definition of the genders.

Yes. And you’re still in denial. Ignorant. Pathetic. Lazy ass denial. 

You all who come back with no intelligent rebuttal on point are. 

Floyd killed himself. Chauvin did nothing wrong. Everyone involved is  a liar and you’re drinking their koolaid. 

The argument has already been given and substantiated more than once. 

That’s pure bullshit. 

A six year old does not have the requisite knowledge and comprehension skills to understand medically scientific terminology let alone SOP of law enforcement. 

You’re just a denialist. And a lazy one at that. It’s clear you never had any intent or interest to engage in a legit discussion here. Your sophomoric banality is duly noted. 

I simply cannot articulate and give justice to either what the black pastor says, or what the unbiased professional says regarding the cause of death of Floyd. Which is why I told you where you can scan ahead to and watch and listen to an actual expert. 

instead of linking us to a paid hour long documentary, why don't you make the argument and source it for us, because presumably you think there is some scientific indication that George died from drugs.   

The medical examiner’s report proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Floyd’s killed himself.

• Novice_II
  
• Ehyeh 
  

• THBT: On balance, the US ought to make abortion illegal.
  
• Not to toot my own horn here, but a debate is a two person effort and Whiteflames performed exceptionally well. The matchup itself of this debate elicited much interest from the community, as evidenced through the 275 comments. Furthermore, I may have to verify this, but I believe that this is the debate with the most votes (serious debate, being any with a no forfeit and an r1 of more than 100 characters), with votes from the likes of Barney and MisterChris. 
  

• The Hennepin County medical examiner's office ruled Floyd's death was a homicide caused by "cardiopulmonary arrest" complicated by "restraint, and neck compression" while he was being subdued by police.
  
• Medical Examiner Andrew Baker testified that the way officers held Floyd down and compressed his neck while restraining him "was just more than Mr. Floyd could take," given the condition of his heart.
  
• Similarly, an independent autopsy commissioned by Floyd's family ruled  "asphyxiation from sustained pressure was the cause" of Floyd's death.
  Floyd family attorney Benjamin Crump said at a news conference in June 2020 that Dr. Michael Baden and Dr. Allecia Wilson performed the autopsy, finding there was "neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain."
• Dr. Martin Tobin, a pulmonologist and critical care specialist of Loyola University Medical Center, also testified during Chauvin's trial that Floyd died of a lack of oxygen from being pinned to the pavement with a knee on his neck. He added, “A healthy person subjected to what Mr. Floyd was subjected to would have died."
  
• Tobin noted Floyd's body position – officers lifting up his handcuffed arms, Chauvin's knee on his neck, back and sides – are what led to his low oxygen levels, resulting in "low tidal volume, which gives you shallow breaths." 
  

“I personally do not want to get pregnant because my body would not be able to handle it. 

Hence me saying, quite accurately,  you would support killing a literal child who is past 9 month at development with the only justification being that some chord is still attached to its mother is just a fundamental disagreement. 

Where is your quote from? I'd like to read the original source since you've yet to answer my question on whether or not this baby is alive before the D&E. 

It would  be born, but under the pro-choice position, you would forbid that (just as how you forbid 24 week unborns to be killed) and instead let it be aborted, correct? It's a simple yes or no. If the above circumstance is given to you, and the unborn is perfectly healthy but the mother does not want to go through with the very painful pregnancy, would you allow the doctor to pull the child half way out and dismember its chest?

I don't understand this at all. Pro-choice forbids nothing, it allows the person capable of choice to make the choice.

So for a simple "yes or no", no, I would forbid nothing and let mom decide with appropriate medical guidance.

 If mom 'doesn't want to go through with the pregnancy' then there's no chest to dismember as it hasn't had time to develop.

If there is a chest to dismember and the fetus is still alive, it'll just be born.

Where are people aborting fully formed fully healthy fetuses on week 38? Does being pro-life hinge on these "examples" that don't happen?

Well now you are creating a wholly different situation to the one being discussed. I am talking about perfectly healthy unborn children and you are comparing it to those who are in the situation where they could have a plug pulled, implying they are probably comatose. 

If it's perfectly healthy, then it can go be perfectly healthy without the use of my body.

If it will die without my body, then it is akin to a child on life support (ie, unable to survive without life-sustaining assistance) which we already allow parents to make decisions about.

Since you generally seem so concerned about the autonomy of children, I hope you speak out against child abuse, school shootings, sex trafficking, and other things that put born children in danger as fervently as you speak out for the nonexistent autonomy of the unborn.

Okay so the fact that you would support killing a literal child who is past 9 month at development with the only justification being that some chord is still attached to its mother is just a fundamental disagreement. 

How the hell did you get to this from my statement of "I'd support the doctor choosing the best method of my removal. I'm not a doctor, so why would I allow or not allow any medical procedure? I'd trust someone actually trained to make the decision. "

Would you allow for the abortion of an unborn to be partially removed from the mother where head and torso is removed but umbilical chord remains attached?

I'd support the doctor choosing the best method of my removal. I'm not a doctor, so why would I allow or not allow any medical procedure?

Yes, but instead of letting the baby out, would you allow, at the mothers discretion, for doctors to pull the child half out, leaving their heads in, and penetrating it's chest with a pair of scissors (this is how 3rd trimester abortions can be done)?

If it's alive, it's just gonna be born.

Well I disagree fundamentally. At what stage would you say that the child has autonomy and that they can have a say as to whether they are on life support. 

I'm interested that you think the government or other parties should be able to make decisions about a born child. If you disagree fundamentally that the parents should be the ones making medical decisions for their children, who do you think should be making them?

Giving consent is different from signing off their death. 

No, it's not. Parents make medical decisions for their children, including when "to pull the plug" if such a scenario rises. Just because you don't like the moral implications or struggles that come with that doesn't mean it's not happening.

A right to life. 

When outside of pregnancy and birth does one's right to life trump another's right to bodily autonomy?

Would you allow for the abortion of an unborn to be partially removed from the mother where head and torso is removed but umbilical chord remains attached?

I'd support the doctor choosing the best method of my removal. I'm not a doctor, so why would I allow or not allow any medical procedure? I'd trust someone actually trained to make the decision. 

Would you allow 9 month abortions? 

There's no such thing. Babies are born at 9 months.

Would you allow for the killing of babies who are tragically born with requirement of life support since they have no autonomy?  

I would allow the parents to make decisions for that child, including taking it off life support.

We already do this -- give parents the medical authority over their children -- so again me "allowing" it is irrelevant.

I didn't say "body" I said "organs". There's a difference. 

Murder, theft, and rape violate the bodily autonomy of others. 

Name one law that takes bodily autonomy away from one group in favor of another.

So using biology and embryology, explain why my uterus should be subject to laws forcing me to share it outside of my consent when no other organ undergoes such legislation.