If you come to a debate to review votes, you should compare ALL the votes for meeting the same untenable criteria you keep hypocritically pushing on me and waisting my time with BUT upon no one else. And don’t come back with the Bs that you only look at votes that are reported and never comparing them to others not reported to see if the removal would be justified in relationship to the other votes. Cause if that’s what you do, you should not be a moderator.
“ think my vote explanation is very clear. Where did I err?”
~ you didn’t fulfill all the standard criteria whiteflame keeps demanding from me, over and over and over again as he/she keeps deleting my far more detailed votes than yours for BS reasons.
You better remove Barney and Slainte’s votes. They don’t explain anything that would meet your targeted standards being placed upon me.
And the legibility category is null and void. They typed. Letters can be seen. Done. Until the powers that be either change it to spelling & grammar or something more accurate than the inaccurate term presently used, no one can justify it one way or the other.
I mean really, I put more thought into my votes and Barney and slainte (?) did not. If you don’t remove their votes, you demonstrate hypocrisy and a clear bias directed at me.
Whatever makes you feel better about yourself; you’re still an intellectual coward. Always will be until you can swallow your pride and display a little humility but most of all, a lot of integrity. To date you’ve demonstrated neither to anyone here.
@devin
Cry some more, child.
My vote wasn’t personal. I have no personal stake any any of these debates, forum discussions or these comments. I gave a non-sugar coated (which is clear you needed the sugar), direct analysis of the ridiculously short subjectively opinionated debate without beating around the bush. Boo hoo you didn’t like it and are so weak you let my criticism hurt you(rself).
Clap clap!
Way to prove beyond any reasonable doubt your intellectual cowardice.
Easy to claim my vote was unreasonable, harder to prove. Either way. It’s not for you to bitch about in the comments like the other two. You’re suppose to learn from the constructive criticism. Not cry wolf about it, especially when none of you can prove the criticism indefensible.
"I would like to suggest that it would be prudent to read in full before trying to retort so you have a comprehensive understanding and fully grasp what is being communicated. This will help facilitate a more effective and meaningful exchange."
Practice what you preach. Intellectual coward that you so clearly are.
You proved nothing contrary to that which I corrected you upon.
Well, the site admin was wrong and needs to change it back for the reasons stated within the voting guide and the article clearly articulating what legibility truly is. I started a thread on this under the DART forum.
Guess what, I am going to start reviewing votes from several debates.
If any one of them are missing a single detail based on your flimsy excuse(s), I will report them.
If those votes are not removed by YOU, then it will prove two things: 1) you have a hardon for me, and 2) you're a hypocrite.
Put your glasses on, gramps/grandma.
You also are in the position to disagree with the report.
Like I said, you have been nitpricking and it’s clearly biased.
@Devon
ALL PROVEN!
Need me to go through the comments and provides receipts, yet again!?!
Better yet, I will let the members/readers decide for themselves.
Keep replying, it just serves to prove what an intellectual coward you are.
Oh, and a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.
@Devon
"Like I said the debate is about whether or not abortion is murder. You made it about how long it takes within the weeks for abortion."
~ Proven Liar.
"YOU made it about that in the comments."
~ Proven Liar.
"I never mentioned that in my debate because that's irrelevant towards the debate."
~ Proven Liar.
"What's the complete definition of murder then? How come you didn't use it then since you're so smart? Lmfao exactly. Again, nitpicking."
~ Look it up for yourself, clown child.
@Devon
"And that's your inaccurate opinion if you think I lack knowledge/ignorant of the subject."
~ No, that's observable fact given your piss poor attempt to argue the issue in this debate.
"So that's what you were referring to in the definition, okay, but that's beside the point. The debate is simply about whether or not abortion is murder. Not how long abortions are performed. That's why I left that part out as the core meaning of abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. 14 weeks, 28 weeks whatever. It's within the 28-week window. You proved nothing."
~ And yet you were the one who interjected how long abortions are performed. Nice attempt at backpedaling. Fail.
If 84-94% of ALL abortions are before 14 weeks, doubling that to 28 is a gross error on your part. Them's the facts. I proved your wrong. And you keep proving what an intellectual coward you are.
""most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy" is from google. If you have an issue with the definition then take that up with the CEO of google."
~ No, not how it works. It just shows how sad your research skills are, believing everything you read on the internet without validating and cross-referencing other others for more accurate data. Hope you never consider becoming a journalist. But if you do, I hear CNN is hiring.
"If my murder definition is incomplete, then so is yours by that logic because both of our murder definitions are literally the same. That is the complete definition of murder, you're just nitpicking. Again, you proved nothing."
~ Yes, it is incomplete. You clearly know nothing of strategizing.
"Your weird behavior and insecurity knows no bounds, grandpa. Please seek mental help."
~ What, are you a psychologist now! LOL!!! Intellectual Coward hypocrite childish loser.
""Pro demonstrated their lack of the requisite knowledge of the subject material to even have this debate." <<< called me dumb without calling me dumb. You were being indirect with calling me dumb."
~ LOL!!! Saying another lacks knowledge =/= calling them dumb; in context, it's referring to their lack of the requisite education/knowledge of the subject. In other words, you're ignorant of the subject matter. Nowhere in that statement of mine am I calling you "dumb." Reading comprehension matters. Understanding linguistics (e.g., context, semantics, etc.) matters.
From your debate: "Abortion: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy." You conveniently left off the second half, which is the part that I was referring to as being factually inaccurate. The majority of abortions are performed before 14 weeks gestation, not 28 weeks. Abortions are never deliberate, they are contemplated, and a choice is made. Using "deliberate" in the context abortion appears as though the girl/woman is doing something illegal. You're wrong. Own it.
From your debate: "Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." That is an incomplete definition, and when something is incomplete, it is not entirely accurate.
"And you demonstrated that you're a very sad pathetic individual who thrives off drama on the internet because you're unhappy with your own empty life."
Your psychological projection and intellectual cowardice knows no bounds, child.
@Devon
I never called you “dumb,” that’s a flat out lie.
I wasn’t rude. I was direct. Big difference.
Your definition. We’re incorrect and you didn’t even cite a source to back each one up.
You failed miserably and demonstrated that you possess the emotional and intellectual temperament of a precocious little child.
Here we go again. More asinine reasoning for removal of a legit vote that you cannot disprove.
Fine. I’ll vote again. And give very specific criticism that Devon will fly off the handle with yet again with more vulgarities. How about you censor or admonish him for such childish unbecoming behavior for DART. Eh!
"I would like to say that being transgender is not a mental illness and that trans people are real (proof for this is that the World Health Organization does not qualify transgenderism as mental illness)."
~ WHO is not a credible source since it is politically motivated and serves its own agenda of power and control.
Gender dysphoria is a mental illness, always has been and always shall be.
"I will explain how even biology connected with psychology can prove that there are in fact more than two genders."
~ Impossible. Psychology is centered around the state of mind; biology is physiological fact. Like the little kid in the movie "Kindergarten Cop" said to each new person brought into the classroom, "boys have a penis, girls have a vagina." There are only two genders, biologically; and mental illness that contradicts that biology, psychologically.
"It is natural for human society to have people that do not identify as a man or woman."
~ No, it is not; it is unnatural, which is precisely why transgenders have been less than 0.5% of the population, that is, up until 15 min ago when the social contagion took hold.
"People that do not identify as a man or woman have been with us for a long period of time."
~ Yeah, that's why it has always been categorized as an unnatural state of humanity, thus making it a mental illness. I mean really, Schizophrenia has been with us for a long period of time. Are you going to welcome a schizophrenic into your circle just because that mental illness has been around for a long period of time?
You are beginning your debate on a patently false premise, therefore you conclusion will be equally fallacious.
RECEIPTS:
My first comment here, and it wasn't even directed at you: -->
~ @DeonM
A fetus is NOT [a] human being (ie - a person). It is only human in origin (biological and physiological makeup)
Murder is an already born human being taking the life of another already born human being.
Human beings (ie - a person) have legal rights, privileges and equal protections of the law - a pregnancy DOES NOT!
You are just as incorrect as Pro is/was in their debate.
Then along comes @Devon, the epitome of maturity, intellect and demonstrating their command of the English language: -->
~@<<<TWS1405_2>>>
Lol bitch fuck you and your vote and your comment as well. If you wanna (sic) believe a fetus is not a human and that abortion isnt (sic) murder (sic) then great. If you want to believe I'm dumb and lack knowledge per my debate (sic) then awesome. I don't give a shit, (sic) you can fuck off. Get a brain and learn to make an elaborate RFD like the other two did, instead you wanna (sic) have a smart mouth and come at me sideways. Well (sic) I can reach that energy too. If someone killed a pregnant woman that would be considered double homicide due to her and the baby, was the baby not murdered because it was a fetus inside her stomach? I'll wait (sic)
I then call you out for your sophomoric banality, and YOU then retort in the same and consistent mannerism:
~ @<<<TWS1405_2>>>
Miss me with the nonsense, I say what I want [[[especially if a lowlife disrespects (sic) me first.]]] Don't act like you never cussed not one time in your life. [[[You were being vulgar and rude first.]]] You just used a whole bunch of big words in your RFD to sound intelligent but you were being rude (sic) so I returned that same energy and now you cant (sic) handle it. Its (sic) cool when they do it, its (sic) a problem when I do it lmaoooo.
"legal victim" (sic) and NOT "[a] human being." - Same thing. Human being. But I didn't debate with you so I couldn't care less. You have your opinion.
I do very well know the topic. I would send links for proof from debate.org but sadly the website doesn't exist anymore, but I had numerous abortion debates on there and even won some of them. Even played both sides and devil's advocate. I was referring me having several debates about abortion on debate.org, not debateart. (sic) But you don't know me from a can of paint so idgaf what you think. Piss poor attitude? Oh (sic) I'm sorry that you want me to be happy go lucky and kiss your ass after you literally disrespected me FIRST on your RFD.
Yeah (sic) I made a SECOND comment which was "And fyi (sic) i've (sic) had several debates about abortion" etc. My comment you replied to is my INITIAL comment. I took that sentence and edited it into my initial comment since you're so worried about it (sic)
NOTE THE [[[PORTION]]] in the first so-called paragraph of drivel. Lie after lie. As the receipts show thus far, it is to YOU who is the one who came out of the gate foaming out of your big mouth personally attacking me for a comment I made directed at someone else entirely. It's crystal clear that it was YOU who was rude and vulgar first, not I.
Then you have the audacity to continue to claim your innocence with Bella:
~ @Bella3sp
Oh well I'm sorry I gave you the impression of him through my words, I wouldn't want that. It's just that he came at me first (sic) so I had to defend myself (sic)
You continue to lie and make spurious accusations with ZERO facts, as the receipts prove throughout this comment section. And your last comment, further definitive proof that you lack the emotional and intellectual temperament for mature dialogue in an online environment. You act like a five-year-old caught with their hand in the cookie jar and chocolate around your mouth, but you emphatically, nay, vehemently deny you got caught and blame the one observing your attitude, demeanor, behavior and actions.
In reality, you are a waste of my time; but the reason why I keep coming back is to keep proving you wrong and letting you make a complete jackass out of yourself. On that note, you've certainly done an outstanding job!!!
I don't care if you block me, because I can still reply and sooner or later your curiosity will get the best of you, and you'll see me putting YOU in your place.
"You need to not conflate being considered a person and being a human being. These terms are used very interchangeably (because all human beings are supposed to be considered persons) but are distinct and will be separated in philosophical and ethical discussions such as this."
~ Person: 1. Human, Individual
5. the personality of being [a human being]
6. one (such as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
Human Being: Human.
Human:: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens): [a person]
There is no conflation on my part. By layman (common knowledge) definition, a person = a human being, and vise versa. Legally the definitions are virtually the same. Even philosophically the meanings are the same where the fields of medicine and law are concerned; and these two fields have an important role in any discussion(s) on abortion.
"Personhood is the philosophical and ethical concept that refers to the status of being considered a "person". "
~ Wrong. Definition: personhood
noun
The state or condition of [being a person], especially having those qualities that confer distinct individuality.
The state or period of [being a person.]
[being a person]
And as noted above, the definition of a person is being a human (being).
"The assignment of that status being relational and subjective."
~ There is nothing subjective about what a human being, a person is and the inherent nature of personhood that goes along with it.
"Being a human being refers to being a member of the species Homo sapiens. It is a biological concept that is determined by genetics and physical characteristics."
~ Wrong. Definition: human being
noun
[A human].
[A person]; a large sapient, bipedalprimate, with notably less hair than others of that order, of the species Homo sapiens.
Another, extinct member of the genus Homo.
The categorical designation of being a member of the species homo sapiens is merely a biological classification; but there is more meaning to the term human being, as noted above and throughout this response.
"Your first statement is factually incorrect. A fetus is a human being simply in its embryonic stage. You were once adolescent, a child, an infant, a fetus, and an embryo. In all these stages of development you (if you're human) were and are still a human being."
~ Wrong. It is factually accurate. Gestational development =/= biological & physiological maturation
""Murder is an already born human being taking the life of another already born human being."
Funny enough, you insinuate a fetus being a human being with the distinctive qualifier "an already born" before "human being". Also, how does them not being born give you the right to take their life."
~ Nowhere in that statement do I qualify a fetus with any such qualifier as you allude to. That's your incorrect interpretation of what was said, hence you just created a nonsensical strawman argument.
"Like I said you don't know me from a can of paint."
~ I do not need to know you personally to know what kind of person you are in an online environment. Your attitude, demeano, behavior and linguistic choices tell me (all of us, for that matter) all we need to know.
"Had I sent you countless links of my past debates from debate.org it would've shut you up."
~ LOL!! Delusions of grandeur.
"I'm very much educated and intelligent and you can't tell me otherwise as you don't know me personally."
~ That remains to be seen; and again, I do not need to know you personally in order to know something about you that you so clearly put on display for all to observe.
"I've gone to school just like you have."
~ Going to school doesn't translate into getting anything meaningful out of it.
"Yes, you do have more worldly experience than me and ofc more professional experience, you've had a chance to a LOT of things and have done more and I'm going to experience a lot of things as well. Can't help the fact that you're older than me. Imagine using that as an insult. I don't need to better myself off of you, fuck you. I better myself every day for myself, not for others especially not some washed up damn near 50 year-old on the internet who uses his age to shame others by saying "you're an idiot compared to me" instead of helping and educating them. Another thing, age doesn't equate maturity, it's about your mind. I'm smarter and wiser than a lot of people my age. Just because someone's older also always doesn't mean they're smarter."
~ LOL!!! The irony here oozing out of your own comment flies over your own head. In your comment to Sir Lancelot you act like you're the mature one taking the higher ground, and I am just the foul mouth keyboard warrior just wanting to argue. You clearly do not read what you right. Suspension of disbelief I guess, right!
"I literally chilled and pumped my breaks last comment (which I really didn't have to off the premise that YOU started all of this to be begin with) I just said I'll end this maturely and agree to disagree yet you still wanna argue and throw insults, so who's really the mature one in the situation? Grow up. You and this intellectual coward bullshit is hilarious, keep thinking what you want, grandpa. Trust me, it's a lot I could say but I'm refraining from it. I'm gonna give you one last chance. Agree to disagree."
“ Yeah unfortunately. I wanted to end this maturely and like I said not add more fuel to the fire but he wants to keep arguing. ”
LOL!! You and maturely are two things that don’t belong together. I mean really, FFS! Do you not read the drivel you post? Your fist comment to me was anything but mature with all those terms of profanity utilized in that sophomorically banal retort of yours.
And it’s to you who wants to argue, cause you can STFU anytime and stop replying like a scorned little girl trying to vindicate yourself.
“ Psychological how? Oh you a therapist now? 😂😂😂 "
Psychological how ≠ psychological projection. Failed attempt to backpedal. 🙄
I don’t think it, I know it. I know you don’t know the subject matter. Your lack of education and emotional and intellectual intelligence with your own choice of wording affirms that fact.
And yes? I am older than you. Which means I have more academic and/or professional experience than you, which translates into more worldly experience than you. By all measures you’re an idiot compared to me. Accept it. Own it. Use it as a point of reference to better yourself.
Of course you’re jsut going to end it here…all intellectual cowards do when they j ie they don’t have a keg, let smoke a toe to stand on.
~ I quite clearly said, 'psychological projection,' it is a term made of two words, but still a term. Reading comprehension matters.
"You act as if you never cussed Mr. goody two shoes, "Way to demonstrate your lack of emotional and intellectual intelligence" I guess that applies to you too then. I'm talking about your RFD being rude. Let's copy and paste since you have short term memory loss."
~ Classic sophomoric "I know you are, but what am I" retort. Pathetic.
"Congratulations on your resume, ask me if I give a fuck? This isn't a job application buddy calm down. It's the fake smart woke shit for me 😂 "
~ You clearly do not know how to debate let alone understand the credentials of debate. If you lack the academic and/or professional experience in field, you rely on cited sources. Those who are accredited in their field do not need to cite as much, or any, sources to back them up PRECISELY because they possess CREDIBILITY in their objective opinions.
"Difference between me and you is I don't have shit to prove to a stranger online who I don't know or care about because I'm secure in myself."
~ Yeah, keep telling yourself that peon. Your insecurities are shining through bright and clear with every response.
" I went to college, I'm very educated. I took criminal justice before but that's not my field. I also OWN my own house free and clear, highly doubt you can say the same. Successful homeowner at a young age, also have my own businesses (plural) yeah let's not get to that conversation because what you're not gonna do is that. I'm not the one."
~ College dropout more likely. And I retired at 45yo. That was several years ago. When did you retire?
"I do know the topic very well like I said, thanks."
I will restart this debate just for you and your "dumbass," but instead of having to argue as devil's advocate, I will be PRO and you can be CON. You can then take your best shot. Pissant.
"Miss me with the nonsense, I say what I want especially if a lowlife disrespects me first."
~ Psychological projection there. LOL!
"Don't act like you never cussed not one time in your life."
~ Never claimed that I did not or never have. Strawman fallacy on your part.
"You were being vulgar and rude first."
~ REALLY? Where in this initial comment was I "vulgar and rude"?
------A fetus is NOT [a] human being (ie - a person). It is only human in origin (biological and physiological makeup)
Murder is an already born human being taking the life of another already born human being.
Human beings (ie - a person) have legal rights, privileges and equal protections of the law - a pregnancy DOES NOT!
You are just as incorrect as Pro is/was in their debate."
No vulgarity or rudeness, just facts.
"You just used a whole bunch of big words in your RFD to sound intelligent but you were being rude so I returned that same energy and now you cant handle it. Its cool when they do it, its a problem when I do it lmaoooo."
~ Intellectual cowards always accuse those they disagree with for using "big words" just to "sound intelligent." That is actually a compliment, you know.
""legal victim" and NOT "[a] human being." - Same thing. Human being. But I didn't debate with you so I couldn't care less. You have your opinion.""
~ No, a legal victim is NOT the same thing as [a] human being, you dolt. Where did you matriculate to earning your degree in any legal field? Me? Portland State University. Criminology and Criminal Justice. Worked for a county sheriff, than a DAs Office. Prior to that, Military Police for the Drug Suppression Team under the Army's Criminal Investigation Division (you know, like the TV show NCIS, but Army). What legal academic and/or professional experience do you have? Oh, none. That's what I thought. Clown.
"Lol bitch fuck you and your vote and your comment as well."
~ Way to demonstrate your lack of emotional and intellectual intelligence there, intellectual coward.
"If you wanna believe a fetus is not a human and that abortion isnt murder then great. If you want to believe I'm dumb and lack knowledge per my debate then awesome. I don't give a shit, you can fuck off."
~ Wow! You certainly are painting a clear picture of yourself falling under the Dunning-Kruger Effect here. Kudos!
"Get a brain and learn to make an elaborate RFD like the other two did, instead you wanna have a smart mouth and come at me sideways."
~ I have a brain, you clearly do not. Given your vulgar sophomoric banal retort(s) above.
"Well I can reach that energy too. If someone killed a pregnant woman that would be considered double homicide due to her and the baby, was the baby not murdered because it was a fetus inside her stomach? I'll wait"
~ Those laws specifically spell out that the pregnancy is merely a "legal victim" and NOT "[a] human being." Doing a little research and reading comprehensions skills matter.
"And fyi i've had several debates about abortion and know the topic of it very well. So you can go fuck off"
~ No, you do NOT know the topic; and you lost most if not all of those debates. Clearly. Given your piss poor attitude, demeanor, and childish behavior herein.
PS. Appears you made an initial comment then deleted it. Too emotive, huh!
"In this debate, I will attempt to emphasize one central point: that killing a baby is a bad thing."
Had I seen this before voting was done, I would have voted against you.
Using the term baby in this context is both a misnomer and an appeal to emotion fallacy.
There is NO "baby" involved in an abortion, only zygotes, blastocysts, embryos and fetuses. That's it.
By legal, social, psychological, and cultural dictate...a pregnancy doesn't become 'a person' (ie. - a baby) until birth.
You will lose this debate too as you did the other, unless you take the criticism I provided within my vote and the comments section of that previous debate to heart.
OBSERVATIONS:
"I think abortion should not be considered murder (ethically), if it is done before the first two months of a pregnancy."
~ Murder and ethical are mutually exclusive terms and should never be used together. There is nothing ethical or unethical about 'murder.'
"However, I firmly believe that when the fetus first develops, it is just a clump of cells. The reason I don't consider it to be a new living organism is because at this stage, the baby (fetus) cannot yet feel, or think, but most prominently suffer, and counting the destruction of cells as murder compared to the murder of a person or pet (who can feel senses) is simply not ethical."
~ This right here demonstrates your lack of education on the subject material.
Clump of cells? Not a living organism?
The baby (fetus)...?
Bringing a pet into this also shows a measure of ignorance too.
Scientifically, at conception, the very basic biological criteria for "life" are met; therefore, it is alive/living but it is clearly NOT [a] human being (ie - 'a person'). It has potential to be, but it actually is not. Potentiality =/= Actuality. Also, a fetus =/= [a] baby either. That term, baby, is a misnomer, an appeal to emotion fallacy.
""If it's consciousness that you care about, would you kill a man in a coma?" I really don't have a good answer for this..."
~ You should, and it is easy. That argument is a false equivalency fallacy. One cannot compare a pregnancy to a born human being, regardless of their state (e.g. coma, under anesthesia, asleep, etc.). Why? Simple. The pregnancy has NO legal rights, privileges, and/or equal protections of the law - unlike those born who do (14th Amendment; 1 USC 8).
" What if it was a brain-dead man? I personally believe it is fine to pull the plug on a brain-dead man, although it should be done with consent from close friends or family. In this state, the man has practically turned back into a fetus that is incapable of living by itself (in fact, one who is brain-dead is legally considered, "already dead")."
~ This is nonsensical and utterly irrelevant to the debate topic. And the "the man has practically turned back into a fetus..." Incredibly ignorant statement. Think before you type. If it sounds uneducated, don't post it.
You are arguing the layman’s definition of intent here, which makes is a misnomer. Such a layman’s definition has no relevance to a criminal act, as there is no criminal intent to behave criminally in your scenario.
Abortion is legal.
Abortion is a medical procedure.
Abortion is not murder.
This is the correct definition of ‘a person’:
1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8
In short, 'a person' is a born human being. Birth is the criteria. Once born that viable fetus becomes 'a person' under the eyes of the law, socially, culturally and psychologically.
Murder is 'a person' taking the life of another 'a person' with malice, aforethought and without legal justification to do so.
No girl/woman ever desires (with intent) to have an abortion; there is no malice on her part. Abortion is a safe legal medical procedure whereby the majority of which (89-94%, give or take reported year) are done before 14 weeks gestation, with the majority of those being before 6 weeks. Less than 1.3% are done after 22 weeks, which is the point of fetal viability (for emergency or medically necessary reasons).
Since a pregnancy =/= 'a person,' abortion =/= murder.
If you come to a debate to review votes, you should compare ALL the votes for meeting the same untenable criteria you keep hypocritically pushing on me and waisting my time with BUT upon no one else. And don’t come back with the Bs that you only look at votes that are reported and never comparing them to others not reported to see if the removal would be justified in relationship to the other votes. Cause if that’s what you do, you should not be a moderator.
“ think my vote explanation is very clear. Where did I err?”
~ you didn’t fulfill all the standard criteria whiteflame keeps demanding from me, over and over and over again as he/she keeps deleting my far more detailed votes than yours for BS reasons.
At the time I asked it wasn’t ended. Hypocrite.
You better remove Barney and Slainte’s votes. They don’t explain anything that would meet your targeted standards being placed upon me.
And the legibility category is null and void. They typed. Letters can be seen. Done. Until the powers that be either change it to spelling & grammar or something more accurate than the inaccurate term presently used, no one can justify it one way or the other.
I mean really, I put more thought into my votes and Barney and slainte (?) did not. If you don’t remove their votes, you demonstrate hypocrisy and a clear bias directed at me.
@Devon
“ Lmao whatever makes me feel better huh? I should say that to you. ”
~ how cute. The “I know you are, but what am I” childish retort.
Someone is clearly protesting too much. Lol 😂
@devon
Whatever makes you feel better about yourself; you’re still an intellectual coward. Always will be until you can swallow your pride and display a little humility but most of all, a lot of integrity. To date you’ve demonstrated neither to anyone here.
@Devon
“ Definitely was personal…”
~ No, it wasn’t and in no world could you ever prove it. It’s all in your mind, your weak kind.
“…and I don't need you to sugarcoat anything.”
~ given your scorned little girl profane responses, clearly you do.
“Last thing I am is weak”
~ When it comes to interpersonal communication and taking constructive criticism maturely, yea, you are weak.
What’s w it h tiger lord? Does he have an axe to grind or he just enjoys trolling the votes and reporting them blindly, as you suggested.
Dear, I never said anything about you. My comment was directly directed at @Devon.
And no, it was not unreasonable. It was direct constructive criticism without sugarcoating it.
@devin
Cry some more, child.
My vote wasn’t personal. I have no personal stake any any of these debates, forum discussions or these comments. I gave a non-sugar coated (which is clear you needed the sugar), direct analysis of the ridiculously short subjectively opinionated debate without beating around the bush. Boo hoo you didn’t like it and are so weak you let my criticism hurt you(rself).
Clap clap!
Way to prove beyond any reasonable doubt your intellectual cowardice.
Easy to claim my vote was unreasonable, harder to prove. Either way. It’s not for you to bitch about in the comments like the other two. You’re suppose to learn from the constructive criticism. Not cry wolf about it, especially when none of you can prove the criticism indefensible.
Children. The whole lot of yiu.
"I would like to suggest that it would be prudent to read in full before trying to retort so you have a comprehensive understanding and fully grasp what is being communicated. This will help facilitate a more effective and meaningful exchange."
Practice what you preach. Intellectual coward that you so clearly are.
You proved nothing contrary to that which I corrected you upon.
Well, the site admin was wrong and needs to change it back for the reasons stated within the voting guide and the article clearly articulating what legibility truly is. I started a thread on this under the DART forum.
It's clear based on this, https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1790/posts/76387, that you all need to change "legibility" to "spelling & grammar."
For the edification of all the powers that be at DART: https://creativepro.com/legibility-and-readability-whats-the-difference/
Guess what, I am going to start reviewing votes from several debates.
If any one of them are missing a single detail based on your flimsy excuse(s), I will report them.
If those votes are not removed by YOU, then it will prove two things: 1) you have a hardon for me, and 2) you're a hypocrite.
Put your glasses on, gramps/grandma.
You also are in the position to disagree with the report.
Like I said, you have been nitpricking and it’s clearly biased.
“The voter sufficiently explains Arguments, but does not explain their reasoning for awarding Legibility.”
The reasoning is found within the explanation. It’s called: read between the lines.
Either way, this is nitpricking Bs!
You clearly have a Hardon for me.
Please vote, if you have time.
@Devon
ALL PROVEN!
Need me to go through the comments and provides receipts, yet again!?!
Better yet, I will let the members/readers decide for themselves.
Keep replying, it just serves to prove what an intellectual coward you are.
Oh, and a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Adieu
@Devon
"Like I said the debate is about whether or not abortion is murder. You made it about how long it takes within the weeks for abortion."
~ Proven Liar.
"YOU made it about that in the comments."
~ Proven Liar.
"I never mentioned that in my debate because that's irrelevant towards the debate."
~ Proven Liar.
"What's the complete definition of murder then? How come you didn't use it then since you're so smart? Lmfao exactly. Again, nitpicking."
~ Look it up for yourself, clown child.
@Devon
"And that's your inaccurate opinion if you think I lack knowledge/ignorant of the subject."
~ No, that's observable fact given your piss poor attempt to argue the issue in this debate.
"So that's what you were referring to in the definition, okay, but that's beside the point. The debate is simply about whether or not abortion is murder. Not how long abortions are performed. That's why I left that part out as the core meaning of abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. 14 weeks, 28 weeks whatever. It's within the 28-week window. You proved nothing."
~ And yet you were the one who interjected how long abortions are performed. Nice attempt at backpedaling. Fail.
If 84-94% of ALL abortions are before 14 weeks, doubling that to 28 is a gross error on your part. Them's the facts. I proved your wrong. And you keep proving what an intellectual coward you are.
""most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy" is from google. If you have an issue with the definition then take that up with the CEO of google."
~ No, not how it works. It just shows how sad your research skills are, believing everything you read on the internet without validating and cross-referencing other others for more accurate data. Hope you never consider becoming a journalist. But if you do, I hear CNN is hiring.
"If my murder definition is incomplete, then so is yours by that logic because both of our murder definitions are literally the same. That is the complete definition of murder, you're just nitpicking. Again, you proved nothing."
~ Yes, it is incomplete. You clearly know nothing of strategizing.
"Your weird behavior and insecurity knows no bounds, grandpa. Please seek mental help."
~ What, are you a psychologist now! LOL!!! Intellectual Coward hypocrite childish loser.
@Devon
""Pro demonstrated their lack of the requisite knowledge of the subject material to even have this debate." <<< called me dumb without calling me dumb. You were being indirect with calling me dumb."
~ LOL!!! Saying another lacks knowledge =/= calling them dumb; in context, it's referring to their lack of the requisite education/knowledge of the subject. In other words, you're ignorant of the subject matter. Nowhere in that statement of mine am I calling you "dumb." Reading comprehension matters. Understanding linguistics (e.g., context, semantics, etc.) matters.
From your debate: "Abortion: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy." You conveniently left off the second half, which is the part that I was referring to as being factually inaccurate. The majority of abortions are performed before 14 weeks gestation, not 28 weeks. Abortions are never deliberate, they are contemplated, and a choice is made. Using "deliberate" in the context abortion appears as though the girl/woman is doing something illegal. You're wrong. Own it.
From your debate: "Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." That is an incomplete definition, and when something is incomplete, it is not entirely accurate.
"And you demonstrated that you're a very sad pathetic individual who thrives off drama on the internet because you're unhappy with your own empty life."
Your psychological projection and intellectual cowardice knows no bounds, child.
@Devon
I never called you “dumb,” that’s a flat out lie.
I wasn’t rude. I was direct. Big difference.
Your definition. We’re incorrect and you didn’t even cite a source to back each one up.
You failed miserably and demonstrated that you possess the emotional and intellectual temperament of a precocious little child.
@Devon
My vote wasn’t rude. It wasn’t laced with profanity. It wasn’t childish. It was appropriately short, sweet and to the point. You lost. Epically.
But hey, Whiteflame wanted actual reasons from conduct within the debate, fine, I gave them in more detail. Enjoy the constructive criticism, child.
Here we go again. More asinine reasoning for removal of a legit vote that you cannot disprove.
Fine. I’ll vote again. And give very specific criticism that Devon will fly off the handle with yet again with more vulgarities. How about you censor or admonish him for such childish unbecoming behavior for DART. Eh!
"I would like to say that being transgender is not a mental illness and that trans people are real (proof for this is that the World Health Organization does not qualify transgenderism as mental illness)."
~ WHO is not a credible source since it is politically motivated and serves its own agenda of power and control.
Gender dysphoria is a mental illness, always has been and always shall be.
"I will explain how even biology connected with psychology can prove that there are in fact more than two genders."
~ Impossible. Psychology is centered around the state of mind; biology is physiological fact. Like the little kid in the movie "Kindergarten Cop" said to each new person brought into the classroom, "boys have a penis, girls have a vagina." There are only two genders, biologically; and mental illness that contradicts that biology, psychologically.
"It is natural for human society to have people that do not identify as a man or woman."
~ No, it is not; it is unnatural, which is precisely why transgenders have been less than 0.5% of the population, that is, up until 15 min ago when the social contagion took hold.
"People that do not identify as a man or woman have been with us for a long period of time."
~ Yeah, that's why it has always been categorized as an unnatural state of humanity, thus making it a mental illness. I mean really, Schizophrenia has been with us for a long period of time. Are you going to welcome a schizophrenic into your circle just because that mental illness has been around for a long period of time?
You are beginning your debate on a patently false premise, therefore you conclusion will be equally fallacious.
RECEIPTS:
My first comment here, and it wasn't even directed at you: -->
~ @DeonM
A fetus is NOT [a] human being (ie - a person). It is only human in origin (biological and physiological makeup)
Murder is an already born human being taking the life of another already born human being.
Human beings (ie - a person) have legal rights, privileges and equal protections of the law - a pregnancy DOES NOT!
You are just as incorrect as Pro is/was in their debate.
Then along comes @Devon, the epitome of maturity, intellect and demonstrating their command of the English language: -->
~@<<<TWS1405_2>>>
Lol bitch fuck you and your vote and your comment as well. If you wanna (sic) believe a fetus is not a human and that abortion isnt (sic) murder (sic) then great. If you want to believe I'm dumb and lack knowledge per my debate (sic) then awesome. I don't give a shit, (sic) you can fuck off. Get a brain and learn to make an elaborate RFD like the other two did, instead you wanna (sic) have a smart mouth and come at me sideways. Well (sic) I can reach that energy too. If someone killed a pregnant woman that would be considered double homicide due to her and the baby, was the baby not murdered because it was a fetus inside her stomach? I'll wait (sic)
I then call you out for your sophomoric banality, and YOU then retort in the same and consistent mannerism:
~ @<<<TWS1405_2>>>
Miss me with the nonsense, I say what I want [[[especially if a lowlife disrespects (sic) me first.]]] Don't act like you never cussed not one time in your life. [[[You were being vulgar and rude first.]]] You just used a whole bunch of big words in your RFD to sound intelligent but you were being rude (sic) so I returned that same energy and now you cant (sic) handle it. Its (sic) cool when they do it, its (sic) a problem when I do it lmaoooo.
"legal victim" (sic) and NOT "[a] human being." - Same thing. Human being. But I didn't debate with you so I couldn't care less. You have your opinion.
I do very well know the topic. I would send links for proof from debate.org but sadly the website doesn't exist anymore, but I had numerous abortion debates on there and even won some of them. Even played both sides and devil's advocate. I was referring me having several debates about abortion on debate.org, not debateart. (sic) But you don't know me from a can of paint so idgaf what you think. Piss poor attitude? Oh (sic) I'm sorry that you want me to be happy go lucky and kiss your ass after you literally disrespected me FIRST on your RFD.
Yeah (sic) I made a SECOND comment which was "And fyi (sic) i've (sic) had several debates about abortion" etc. My comment you replied to is my INITIAL comment. I took that sentence and edited it into my initial comment since you're so worried about it (sic)
NOTE THE [[[PORTION]]] in the first so-called paragraph of drivel. Lie after lie. As the receipts show thus far, it is to YOU who is the one who came out of the gate foaming out of your big mouth personally attacking me for a comment I made directed at someone else entirely. It's crystal clear that it was YOU who was rude and vulgar first, not I.
Then you have the audacity to continue to claim your innocence with Bella:
~ @Bella3sp
Oh well I'm sorry I gave you the impression of him through my words, I wouldn't want that. It's just that he came at me first (sic) so I had to defend myself (sic)
You continue to lie and make spurious accusations with ZERO facts, as the receipts prove throughout this comment section. And your last comment, further definitive proof that you lack the emotional and intellectual temperament for mature dialogue in an online environment. You act like a five-year-old caught with their hand in the cookie jar and chocolate around your mouth, but you emphatically, nay, vehemently deny you got caught and blame the one observing your attitude, demeanor, behavior and actions.
In reality, you are a waste of my time; but the reason why I keep coming back is to keep proving you wrong and letting you make a complete jackass out of yourself. On that note, you've certainly done an outstanding job!!!
I don't care if you block me, because I can still reply and sooner or later your curiosity will get the best of you, and you'll see me putting YOU in your place.
"You need to not conflate being considered a person and being a human being. These terms are used very interchangeably (because all human beings are supposed to be considered persons) but are distinct and will be separated in philosophical and ethical discussions such as this."
~ Person: 1. Human, Individual
5. the personality of being [a human being]
6. one (such as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
Human Being: Human.
Human:: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens): [a person]
There is no conflation on my part. By layman (common knowledge) definition, a person = a human being, and vise versa. Legally the definitions are virtually the same. Even philosophically the meanings are the same where the fields of medicine and law are concerned; and these two fields have an important role in any discussion(s) on abortion.
"Personhood is the philosophical and ethical concept that refers to the status of being considered a "person". "
~ Wrong. Definition: personhood
noun
The state or condition of [being a person], especially having those qualities that confer distinct individuality.
The state or period of [being a person.]
[being a person]
And as noted above, the definition of a person is being a human (being).
"The assignment of that status being relational and subjective."
~ There is nothing subjective about what a human being, a person is and the inherent nature of personhood that goes along with it.
"Being a human being refers to being a member of the species Homo sapiens. It is a biological concept that is determined by genetics and physical characteristics."
~ Wrong. Definition: human being
noun
[A human].
[A person]; a large sapient, bipedalprimate, with notably less hair than others of that order, of the species Homo sapiens.
Another, extinct member of the genus Homo.
The categorical designation of being a member of the species homo sapiens is merely a biological classification; but there is more meaning to the term human being, as noted above and throughout this response.
"Your first statement is factually incorrect. A fetus is a human being simply in its embryonic stage. You were once adolescent, a child, an infant, a fetus, and an embryo. In all these stages of development you (if you're human) were and are still a human being."
~ Wrong. It is factually accurate. Gestational development =/= biological & physiological maturation
""Murder is an already born human being taking the life of another already born human being."
Funny enough, you insinuate a fetus being a human being with the distinctive qualifier "an already born" before "human being". Also, how does them not being born give you the right to take their life."
~ Nowhere in that statement do I qualify a fetus with any such qualifier as you allude to. That's your incorrect interpretation of what was said, hence you just created a nonsensical strawman argument.
"Like I said you don't know me from a can of paint."
~ I do not need to know you personally to know what kind of person you are in an online environment. Your attitude, demeano, behavior and linguistic choices tell me (all of us, for that matter) all we need to know.
"Had I sent you countless links of my past debates from debate.org it would've shut you up."
~ LOL!! Delusions of grandeur.
"I'm very much educated and intelligent and you can't tell me otherwise as you don't know me personally."
~ That remains to be seen; and again, I do not need to know you personally in order to know something about you that you so clearly put on display for all to observe.
"I've gone to school just like you have."
~ Going to school doesn't translate into getting anything meaningful out of it.
"Yes, you do have more worldly experience than me and ofc more professional experience, you've had a chance to a LOT of things and have done more and I'm going to experience a lot of things as well. Can't help the fact that you're older than me. Imagine using that as an insult. I don't need to better myself off of you, fuck you. I better myself every day for myself, not for others especially not some washed up damn near 50 year-old on the internet who uses his age to shame others by saying "you're an idiot compared to me" instead of helping and educating them. Another thing, age doesn't equate maturity, it's about your mind. I'm smarter and wiser than a lot of people my age. Just because someone's older also always doesn't mean they're smarter."
~ LOL!!! The irony here oozing out of your own comment flies over your own head. In your comment to Sir Lancelot you act like you're the mature one taking the higher ground, and I am just the foul mouth keyboard warrior just wanting to argue. You clearly do not read what you right. Suspension of disbelief I guess, right!
"I literally chilled and pumped my breaks last comment (which I really didn't have to off the premise that YOU started all of this to be begin with) I just said I'll end this maturely and agree to disagree yet you still wanna argue and throw insults, so who's really the mature one in the situation? Grow up. You and this intellectual coward bullshit is hilarious, keep thinking what you want, grandpa. Trust me, it's a lot I could say but I'm refraining from it. I'm gonna give you one last chance. Agree to disagree."
~ One word for you: HYPOCRITE!
“ Yeah unfortunately. I wanted to end this maturely and like I said not add more fuel to the fire but he wants to keep arguing. ”
LOL!! You and maturely are two things that don’t belong together. I mean really, FFS! Do you not read the drivel you post? Your fist comment to me was anything but mature with all those terms of profanity utilized in that sophomorically banal retort of yours.
And it’s to you who wants to argue, cause you can STFU anytime and stop replying like a scorned little girl trying to vindicate yourself.
Your replies to Sir.L are hilariously ironic.
“ Psychological how? Oh you a therapist now? 😂😂😂 "
Psychological how ≠ psychological projection. Failed attempt to backpedal. 🙄
I don’t think it, I know it. I know you don’t know the subject matter. Your lack of education and emotional and intellectual intelligence with your own choice of wording affirms that fact.
And yes? I am older than you. Which means I have more academic and/or professional experience than you, which translates into more worldly experience than you. By all measures you’re an idiot compared to me. Accept it. Own it. Use it as a point of reference to better yourself.
Of course you’re jsut going to end it here…all intellectual cowards do when they j ie they don’t have a keg, let smoke a toe to stand on.
I know I will lose this deabte, no matter how hard I try...because the facts are against me.
I accept that.
Having said that, being my first formal debate at DART, being devil's advocate, it a great exercise. Especially in humility.
I did reply.
Apparently, you have no self-control in keeping our panties (err...G-string) on.
"Psychological how? Oh you a therapist now? 😂😂😂 "
~ I quite clearly said, 'psychological projection,' it is a term made of two words, but still a term. Reading comprehension matters.
"You act as if you never cussed Mr. goody two shoes, "Way to demonstrate your lack of emotional and intellectual intelligence" I guess that applies to you too then. I'm talking about your RFD being rude. Let's copy and paste since you have short term memory loss."
~ Classic sophomoric "I know you are, but what am I" retort. Pathetic.
"Congratulations on your resume, ask me if I give a fuck? This isn't a job application buddy calm down. It's the fake smart woke shit for me 😂 "
~ You clearly do not know how to debate let alone understand the credentials of debate. If you lack the academic and/or professional experience in field, you rely on cited sources. Those who are accredited in their field do not need to cite as much, or any, sources to back them up PRECISELY because they possess CREDIBILITY in their objective opinions.
"Difference between me and you is I don't have shit to prove to a stranger online who I don't know or care about because I'm secure in myself."
~ Yeah, keep telling yourself that peon. Your insecurities are shining through bright and clear with every response.
" I went to college, I'm very educated. I took criminal justice before but that's not my field. I also OWN my own house free and clear, highly doubt you can say the same. Successful homeowner at a young age, also have my own businesses (plural) yeah let's not get to that conversation because what you're not gonna do is that. I'm not the one."
~ College dropout more likely. And I retired at 45yo. That was several years ago. When did you retire?
"I do know the topic very well like I said, thanks."
~ No, you do not.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Intellectual coward that you so clearly are.
"I tried to warn you."
yeah, I admit I fucked up. So, I better own it.
I will restart this debate just for you and your "dumbass," but instead of having to argue as devil's advocate, I will be PRO and you can be CON. You can then take your best shot. Pissant.
DAMNIT!!!!! I selected the wrong option.
First debate setup. My bad.
Guess I will have to first test my skills playing devil's advocate then.
"Miss me with the nonsense, I say what I want especially if a lowlife disrespects me first."
~ Psychological projection there. LOL!
"Don't act like you never cussed not one time in your life."
~ Never claimed that I did not or never have. Strawman fallacy on your part.
"You were being vulgar and rude first."
~ REALLY? Where in this initial comment was I "vulgar and rude"?
------A fetus is NOT [a] human being (ie - a person). It is only human in origin (biological and physiological makeup)
Murder is an already born human being taking the life of another already born human being.
Human beings (ie - a person) have legal rights, privileges and equal protections of the law - a pregnancy DOES NOT!
You are just as incorrect as Pro is/was in their debate."
No vulgarity or rudeness, just facts.
"You just used a whole bunch of big words in your RFD to sound intelligent but you were being rude so I returned that same energy and now you cant handle it. Its cool when they do it, its a problem when I do it lmaoooo."
~ Intellectual cowards always accuse those they disagree with for using "big words" just to "sound intelligent." That is actually a compliment, you know.
""legal victim" and NOT "[a] human being." - Same thing. Human being. But I didn't debate with you so I couldn't care less. You have your opinion.""
~ No, a legal victim is NOT the same thing as [a] human being, you dolt. Where did you matriculate to earning your degree in any legal field? Me? Portland State University. Criminology and Criminal Justice. Worked for a county sheriff, than a DAs Office. Prior to that, Military Police for the Drug Suppression Team under the Army's Criminal Investigation Division (you know, like the TV show NCIS, but Army). What legal academic and/or professional experience do you have? Oh, none. That's what I thought. Clown.
"I do very well know the topic."
~ No, you do not.
You're a clown. End of story.
FFS, stay on topic.
"He wrote a lot of stupid shit that made me laugh."
~ Indeed.
"Lol bitch fuck you and your vote and your comment as well."
~ Way to demonstrate your lack of emotional and intellectual intelligence there, intellectual coward.
"If you wanna believe a fetus is not a human and that abortion isnt murder then great. If you want to believe I'm dumb and lack knowledge per my debate then awesome. I don't give a shit, you can fuck off."
~ Wow! You certainly are painting a clear picture of yourself falling under the Dunning-Kruger Effect here. Kudos!
"Get a brain and learn to make an elaborate RFD like the other two did, instead you wanna have a smart mouth and come at me sideways."
~ I have a brain, you clearly do not. Given your vulgar sophomoric banal retort(s) above.
"Well I can reach that energy too. If someone killed a pregnant woman that would be considered double homicide due to her and the baby, was the baby not murdered because it was a fetus inside her stomach? I'll wait"
~ Those laws specifically spell out that the pregnancy is merely a "legal victim" and NOT "[a] human being." Doing a little research and reading comprehensions skills matter.
"And fyi i've had several debates about abortion and know the topic of it very well. So you can go fuck off"
~ No, you do NOT know the topic; and you lost most if not all of those debates. Clearly. Given your piss poor attitude, demeanor, and childish behavior herein.
PS. Appears you made an initial comment then deleted it. Too emotive, huh!
LOL!
Everything I stated in the comments of that debate is factually accurate. It is not a subjective opinion, but rather objective (based on facts).
"In this debate, I will attempt to emphasize one central point: that killing a baby is a bad thing."
Had I seen this before voting was done, I would have voted against you.
Using the term baby in this context is both a misnomer and an appeal to emotion fallacy.
There is NO "baby" involved in an abortion, only zygotes, blastocysts, embryos and fetuses. That's it.
By legal, social, psychological, and cultural dictate...a pregnancy doesn't become 'a person' (ie. - a baby) until birth.
You will lose this debate too as you did the other, unless you take the criticism I provided within my vote and the comments section of that previous debate to heart.
A fetus is NOT [a] human being (ie - a person). It is only human in origin (biological and physiological makeup)
Murder is an already born human being taking the life of another already born human being.
Human beings (ie - a person) have legal rights, privileges and equal protections of the law - a pregnancy DOES NOT!
You are just as incorrect as Pro is/was in their debate.
OBSERVATIONS:
"I think abortion should not be considered murder (ethically), if it is done before the first two months of a pregnancy."
~ Murder and ethical are mutually exclusive terms and should never be used together. There is nothing ethical or unethical about 'murder.'
"However, I firmly believe that when the fetus first develops, it is just a clump of cells. The reason I don't consider it to be a new living organism is because at this stage, the baby (fetus) cannot yet feel, or think, but most prominently suffer, and counting the destruction of cells as murder compared to the murder of a person or pet (who can feel senses) is simply not ethical."
~ This right here demonstrates your lack of education on the subject material.
Clump of cells? Not a living organism?
The baby (fetus)...?
Bringing a pet into this also shows a measure of ignorance too.
Scientifically, at conception, the very basic biological criteria for "life" are met; therefore, it is alive/living but it is clearly NOT [a] human being (ie - 'a person'). It has potential to be, but it actually is not. Potentiality =/= Actuality. Also, a fetus =/= [a] baby either. That term, baby, is a misnomer, an appeal to emotion fallacy.
""If it's consciousness that you care about, would you kill a man in a coma?" I really don't have a good answer for this..."
~ You should, and it is easy. That argument is a false equivalency fallacy. One cannot compare a pregnancy to a born human being, regardless of their state (e.g. coma, under anesthesia, asleep, etc.). Why? Simple. The pregnancy has NO legal rights, privileges, and/or equal protections of the law - unlike those born who do (14th Amendment; 1 USC 8).
" What if it was a brain-dead man? I personally believe it is fine to pull the plug on a brain-dead man, although it should be done with consent from close friends or family. In this state, the man has practically turned back into a fetus that is incapable of living by itself (in fact, one who is brain-dead is legally considered, "already dead")."
~ This is nonsensical and utterly irrelevant to the debate topic. And the "the man has practically turned back into a fetus..." Incredibly ignorant statement. Think before you type. If it sounds uneducated, don't post it.
As with all the other terms you clearly misunderstood and incorrectly used in the debate, intent is one of them.
Murder is a criminal act. Therefore this debate hinges on proving abortion is a crime.
The legal definition of intent is as follows:
Criminal intent is defined as the resolve or determination with which a person acts to commit a crime.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/element-intent-criminal-law#:~:text=Criminal%20intent%20is%20defined%20as,acts%20to%20commit%20a%20crime.
You are arguing the layman’s definition of intent here, which makes is a misnomer. Such a layman’s definition has no relevance to a criminal act, as there is no criminal intent to behave criminally in your scenario.
Abortion is legal.
Abortion is a medical procedure.
Abortion is not murder.
This is the correct definition of ‘a person’:
1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8
In short, 'a person' is a born human being. Birth is the criteria. Once born that viable fetus becomes 'a person' under the eyes of the law, socially, culturally and psychologically.
Murder is 'a person' taking the life of another 'a person' with malice, aforethought and without legal justification to do so.
No girl/woman ever desires (with intent) to have an abortion; there is no malice on her part. Abortion is a safe legal medical procedure whereby the majority of which (89-94%, give or take reported year) are done before 14 weeks gestation, with the majority of those being before 6 weeks. Less than 1.3% are done after 22 weeks, which is the point of fetal viability (for emergency or medically necessary reasons).
Since a pregnancy =/= 'a person,' abortion =/= murder.
Will do.