Total posts: 2,182
I have been doing some research and thinking lately, and as you all probably know, most of the Presidential candidates today, are not good. None of them are good, Democrat or Republican. Everyone nowadays votes on who is the least bad and least damaging rather than who is the best suited for the job.
Our politics have become a laughingstock, as celebrities are taking control over our country, running for president, and some of them even winning.
Now I have defended Trump a lot, and for good reason too. Trump made a lot of stupid and dumb decisions as our president. He did not handle Covid well at all. He did not do well, when it came to closing his mouth. He also did a lot of other bad things. But in the end, he made our economy slightly better, and put certain bills into effect that I agreed with, which led to me supporting him.
But now Trump has fallen off. He is running again in 2024 and it is likely that he will not win against Biden. Trump has not only not done a good job with his new campaign but has also taken massive shots at other Republican candidates who are either thinking of running for president or have announced they are running for president.
Just recently, Donald Trump was bashing in Ron Desantis and calling him names, and trying to attack him. All the while, Ron kept his mouth shut, and was very mature and leader like throughout the whole situation.
Then Trump is threatened with this new investigation, about him "allegedly" committing a crime.
After this, Trump goes to other Republican candidates and basically tells them that if they don't speak out against this, then they are not truly Republicans. Now with Trumps massive fan base, this led Trump fans to push this onto other Republican candidates, including Ron Desantis.
Ron Desantis responded with he thinks the situation is very stupid and wrong but has not jurisdiction to do anything about it. Trump fans were enraged by this and started to smash Ron Desantis, even though Trump was attacking him just a week earlier, then demanding for Ron to help him.
This situation has made Trumps fan base go way down, and Rons fan base go way up.
Ron Desantis in general has a clean record, handles the lefts biggest weapon (the media) with ease, is very smart when it comes to policy, has very leader like qualities, and best of all, has made actual changes to Florida that most conservatives would like to see happen across the country, including making it illegal for teachers to indoctrinate children in the 3rd grade or lower, protecting our 2nd amendment rights and much more.
I am not a fan of Ron Desantis myself, because I still need more information about him, and I need to see more from him, but from what I can see right now, if he runs for president in 2024, he has my election, and I urge other Republicans to think about it and do their own research.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Yeah, I'm not against holding politicians accountable on either side of the aisle, but this is clearly being done for media attention and not because it will lead to a conviction.
My thoughts exactly.
Created:
Trump
Of course, the main event.
Iowa voters
Really, because Iowa voters usually tend to vote Democrat.
Trump
Just had to repeat yourself.
DeSantis
Ahh, I see, you just like targeting popular Republicans in general.
Matt Sclapp
Another Conservative/Republican
Eli Lilly
"An American soldier, pharmacist, chemist, and businessman who founded the Eli Lilly and Company pharmaceutical corporation."
Yea.............
Kelly Ann Conway’s divorceCPAC’s declining popularityFOX News lying scandal over election fraudPaul Ryan saying he won’t support TrumpStudent Loan forgivenessObamacare being used by Red States
So basically, you spend your whole day, thinking and hating on people, just because they believe in a different way to run the country.
I was more talking about like, do you know about any other topics besides politics, and trying to bash popular republicans?
You’re a Christian dummy.
Yikes dude, for being an inclusive Democrat, you really aren't living up to that name.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
If you hid half a million dollars from the IRS you'd be in jail. Is Trump subject to the same law or does Trump get to skate by on the special laws for white boys who inherited billions?
I think Trump did do it. But I also think that a lot of other republican politicians and democratic politicians did it as well.
So why is everyone only after Trump?
After all Hunter Biden has more evidence against himself, yet has not been convicted once.
He has literal videos of himself with prostitutes and doing drugs. There is substantial evidence of money laundering with the Chinese government.
I think Trump is guilty of this crime. but won't be convicted, only because it was 6 years ago "allegidally". The statute of limitation prevents him from getting convicted, so even if he is found guilty of this crime, he won't be charged.
Created:
Roosevelt, do you only come online when the media said Trump did something bad?
Do you have the knowledge and intellect to argue about any other topic?
Created:
I used to be a Democrat.
The thought was simple really. Democrats promote everyone should be happy, and I was happy with that.
But once I got more into politics, I realized, that certain things cost a lot of money, and spending all this money, helping people would in actuality hurt them more.
I understood that, and so I then wondered why the politicians who were pushing this stuff did not. After all, didn't they want the best for everyone?.......................
I also did more research into psychological experiments, and history and how governments took control of society, the way they do it. I then did more research into our government, and realized that the democratic party's leaders showed signs of a corrupt government, and the more I looked into it, the more I saw. Then I started to see certain things that were just perverse, and horrible, that on the outside looked like a fun, and good thing.
For example, all of my old friends were democrats, and on the outside it all looked fun and like a good thing, when we hung out. But in reality, half of them were addicted to drugs, pornography, and other crap like that, and were constantly defending it and affirming each other that those things were fine.
But yea thats basically the big shift for me.
Created:
Oh really? Which book says there is a 2 year statute of limitations? When did you read this book? When did you graduate Law School?Is the limit the same for all levels of crime? What are the charges against Trump? Do you think you know the laws better than the District Attorney of New York?
The guy who is charging Trump works for the same guy, who let 50% of all prisoners free, and would rather search back years to find Trump guilty of a misdemeanor, rather than worry about the crime happening right now.
But anyways:
For felony's, in New york, the statute of limitations is 5 years (which still wouldn't be long enough to charge Trump).
For misdemeanors, in New York, the statute of limitations is 2 years (which also wouldn't be long enough to charge Trump).
And finally, for petty offences in New York, the statute of limitations is 1 year (which also wouldn't be long enough to charge Trump).
"Most felony offenses have a five year statute of limitations period. Misdemeanor offenses have a two year statute of limitation period, while petty offenses generally have a one year statute of limitations."
“Trump could be charged with falsifying business records in combination with another criminal violation. Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor, but it would become a felony if linked to a second crime”
Even if it was a felony, he wouldn't be charged.
This is stretching it out far, and though Trump probably did falsify some documents, he wouldn't be charged, because again, the statute of limitations wouldn't allow it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I said no other factors involved, just the plain action of terminating a fetus in the womb.
Created:
One thing I am mad about Trump doing, is calling for all republican candidates to "speak out" against this issue.
One of these people he called out is Ron De Santis, the Governor of Florida.
Trump has been repeatedly attacking Ron and attacking him very hard. So I think it is very hypocritical to ask for help after attacking him politically like that.
But then again, Ron's response to Trump was not the best either. It wasn't a bad response, but I think in order to gain more popularity, I think it would have been politically more smart for Ron to speak out more against this issue, and make a bigger deal of it.
Trump doesn't deserve it, but it would paint Ron in a better light, and make him infinitely more popular, and that would be smart if his goal is to run for President.
Created:
No. He couldn’t be charged as President. Then a new DA wanted to do his own investigation. There is no 2 year statute of limitation
In New York where the crime "allegedly" occurred there is a 2 year statute of limitation. Read a book.
This incident "allegedly" occurred 6 years ago, so it would pass the statute of limitation, and the offence would not be passed.
Trump is guilty of several crimes but because of idiot republican politicians and voters it has been difficult to hold him accountable.
Saying "controversial" stuff is not a crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I disagree with your answer, because you are not answering the question in the way I asked.
I asked if the action of terminating a child in the womb is morally wrong (no other factors involved)
But you are involving bodily rights into the argument, which goes against no other factors involved.
Just answer the question about the action itself. Is the action itself morally wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
If the coma patient demonstrates a possibility for recovery, then terminating their life could be seen as murder.
Doesn't the same apply for a cell, that demonstrates a possibility for full development into a human being?
had intended to live for longer, and did not give pre-consent to having their life ended
You can't confirm that they wanted to live longer.
Also, a zygote/embryo/fetus did not give pre-consent to having their life ended, or even to be created.
It’s also likely they weren’t put into a coma voluntarily and after waking up, they will still want to live on.
This is not true. The majority of coma patients fall into a coma, because of either a tragic accident, or a physical problem, not by their own choice.
The fetus during conception does not process thought, emotion, or demonstrate the capacity for intention. So the comparison to a coma patient is moot anyway.
Nope. During an abortion, it has been proven that the abortion procedure causes pain to a fetus, and also, fetus's (not zygotes) have recorded brain activity, so there is no way to prove they don't process thought, emotion, etc.
Defining 'murder' in the moral sense is both unclear and entirely subjective. But even if we were to define abortion as murder at this stage, then to be morally consistent, we'd have to consider every human being a murderer because they kill skin-cells every day.
Skin cells don't have the capacity for human life.
And even if they did, we don't have control over our body's natural functions, therefore it would not be our moral conscience making that decision, therefore not murder.
Abortion is someone using their moral conscience to terminate a living organism that is seperate from themselves.
Created:
They shouldn't because they didn't prosecute him within the 2-year maximum time.
They are still going to try, but it won't work.
Also, Trump is probably guilty of this crime, given his attitude.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Because at the point of conception, it’s a brainless body.
What does the brain give?
The ability to think.
What about people in a coma who don't have an ability to think. Are they not valuable?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
You're not answering the question.
Is the action of killing a fetus/embryo/zygote, or baby in the womb, morally wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
As owners we have a broad right to do with our bodies what we want and maintain our bodily integrity as we see fit.
I am not talking about the "right to your body argument" right now.
My only question is do you think it is morally acceptable to kill a child in the womb, and why?
Created:
I get my information from Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh (who is very biased but sometimes speaks facts), Brett Cooper, Jordan B. Peterson, Michal Knowles, Candace Owens, and Andrew Klavan.
Basically the entire Daily Wire News team.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I meant the action of aborting the baby, is that wrong?
Not making it illegal, or taking away someone's ability to do something.
Not talking about laws.
Is the action of terminating a pregnancy morally wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No I didn't. I have you a list of qualities which I later linked you too again. Have you forgotten that already or are you just not interested in a good faith discussion?
Let's go back to your list of qualities that you think defines personhood.
The ability to think,feel emotions,create and hold memories,form relationships,develop habits/routines,have desires,create goals for oneself, etc.
Those are your reasons.
Not all of these can define personhood because some of them apply to other life.
Animals can think, feel emotions, create and hold memories, form relationships, develop habits/routines, have desires, and create goals.
So your qualities of personhood does not define personhood rather it defines most animals alive today.
I ask you again, what makes a human, more valuable than an animal, and what defines a human?
When I talked about viability it was an add on to the conversation, pointing out that the fetus's inability to survive on its own is the biggest factor in this conversation.
All I can say to this repeated argument, is that the ability to survive without help does not define personhood, being a human, or value.
I've already explained the differences in qualities each share. Waiting on you to join the conversation.
Physical attributes, sure.
But you have yet to explain to me why physical attributes make a living human any less valuable.
My question was what makes a fetus, and a born human different valuably?
Physically they are different, but how does physical being make anything living less valuable.
In other words, how does the way someone looks make them any less valuable.
Here's an example:
Take any person, human whatever valuable life.
Now, imagine they are stuck in the body of a frog.
Is that person still valuable, or did they lose their value.
Now this person is still human at heart, and can express human emotions, and understand people, etc.
The only difference is the way they are presented.
Responsible how? Please explain what that looks like. And also explain how you hold that position through different contexts. What if it were purely an accident? What about self defense?
They are responsible because they caused that person harm.
When you harm someone you should be held responsible no matter the context, unless it was self defence.
If it was an accident, well the same thing with pregnancy. It might of been an accident getting pregnant, but you still caused it.
In the case of self defence, you didn't choose for this person to attack you, leading to a coma.
Therefore, it was not your individual choice, by yourself. The attacker was involved.
A baby in the womb is not involved whatsoever with their creation.
What makes it a big deal is when one does not have the choice as to whether to carry it to terms, which is what you are advocating for. So it's only a big deal because of your position, which you are then using to justify your position. It's just one big circle.
.................I have literally repeated this point a thousand times.
One does have the choice to carry it to terms or not. The decision is called not having sex, or having sex.
I am not advocating for forcing women to get pregnant against their own will, then carrying a pregnancy to term.
I am advocating for if a woman chooses/consents to the possibility of getting pregnant, and they do get pregnant, then they should be held accountable for creating a valuable human life, and shouldn't be allowed to kill a valuable human life.
If you are incapable of thinking in anything but black and white terms, this statement makes sense. Those of us who are able to process nuance see more than just two colors here.
You never said my statement is wrong.
Is it wrong. If so, how so?
Some things are obvious, and it's people like you who look to make every single concept complicated so that every single one of your arguments can fit into any concept.
A living human is valuable, yes?
If so, from conception, a human is valuable.
You are an authoritarian, plain and simple. You believe you have a right to impose your beliefs onto others and hold others responsible for what you have decided their responsibilities are to the rest of us.
Nope. A woman has a right to her own body, and if she chooses to risk sex, then that is her choice and she has to live with it.
I am not saying people shouldn't have sex for fun. I am not saying that any type of sexual activity should be made into a law.
I am saying that we should strive to save valuable living human life, which is what abortion is the opposite of.
The "point" of sex is whatever the individuals engaging in it want it to be. You don't get to decide that for others.
I didn't decide it. Biology did. I am just simply stating the facts.
The very notion of sex having some external purpose strongly implies that your position here is religious based, which adds even more authoritarianism to the equation. Not only do you believe in imposing your beliefs generally onto others, but also your religion.
Yes, my position is very religious based. All things are religious based. But I am not approaching this from a religious standpoint for the very reason of not enforcing my religion upon you.
I could of came at this from a religious standpoint, and enforced my religion on you, but I decided to create a different argument that has nothing to do with religion, but basic morals.
Of course I could tie morals to God, because where did you moral conscience come from, if not from a higher being, but my point still stands.
Yes, my argument is religious based. Yes I believe that life in the womb is valuable. And yes I believe that baby's in the womb should be protected by the law.
None of this is wrong. It is just your bias and inability to see from another side that makes you wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
You’re in high school at a redneck school.
Nope, my school is very left leaning.
I graduated college in Massachusetts in 1987
Education =/ I.Q.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Irrespective of lawful conduct, are all instances of terminating a viable post natal human mass, bad.What would your opinion be?
But during the pregnancy, at conception, the zygote is alive biologically. That is why it can grow. It also contains human DNA, so it is a human life.
So yes any killing of a viable post natal human mass, is bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
God didn't want us to have knowledge.
He already gave us knowledge; he just didn't want us to know the full extent. He was trying to protect us, but at no point did he take that choice of knowing it away.
He was terrified that we would become " like them" i.e. knowing our own minds to make our own decisions and think for ourselves. And part of that "knowing" was taught by the serpent lord . Who had whipped some of his own of seed into the woman. Its Yet another retelling of the Sumerian epics.
So, God gave us a choice of knowing what was good and bad, and he was terrified of us knowing what was good and bad?
Why wouldn't he just not give us that choice.
What would it do to him, if he was terrified.
You just proved that God loved us so much, that he was scared that we would choose the wrong path.
Created:
Posted in:
You're not conservative, and your less educated.
What does that say about your political ideology's?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
God said to not eat from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
In order for humans to sin, we must have the knowledge of what is good and bad.
Before Adam and Eve sinned, they did not know what was bad or good. They could do as they pleased, but the only thing they knew was wrong, was eating of that tree.
Once they ate of that tree, their eyes were opened to their moral conscience, and they themselves could differ what was good and bad, therefore sin enters the world through them.
Now God never took away or didn't give them the ability to process good and evil or knowledge.
The tree didn't give them knowledge, it opened their eyes to their moral conscience.
Created:
Posted in:
This is a simple question.
Forget about the law for just a second when it comes to this.
In your opinion, do you believe that abortion is bad?
Do you believe that the act of abortion is morally bad?
That is the only question.
This is opinions, and nothing to do with lawful conduct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No, I'm not. You are conflating two different points; viability and personhood.
I literally asked you what in your opinion defines a person, and you said viability.
So yes or no, does viability define a person.
Viability is what makes the biggest difference here, in this conversation, because you continually try to use examples of fully developed human beings to argue why it's wrong to terminate a fetus. The circumstances are not the same.
They are most definitely the same. Question:
What is the difference between an adult human being, and a fetus, and why do those differences make them any less valuable.
You also fail to address the main point I raised on this. If the man in the coma requires resources to stay alive and there is no one willing to provide those resources, who is responsible for keeping him alive?
The one who put him in the coma should be responsible.
Just the same as the mother who brought her child into the world.
The fact that she might get pregnant is only a big deal because you assert it's a big deal, but you cannot explain why.
Is pregnancy a big deal?
If yes, my point stands.
If no, then why do we need abortion? Why do you need a medical procedure done to you to get rid of it, if it's not a big deal?
Pregnancy holds a human life.
I would say a human life is pretty important.
No individual couple is responsible for nor obligated to contribute to the continuation of our species.
Yes, they are. That is the whole point of reproduction and sex.
I stand on the belief that the purpose of sex is reproduction (which it is). Now that doesn't mean you can involve yourself in it without wanting to get pregnant, but having sex ultimately leads to pregnancy if something goes wrong.
So, everyone who has sex ultimately is taking a risk.
Now that risk isn't necessarily bad all the time. It doesn't have to be bad, but ultimately you need to be able to deal and face the consequences of your own decisions, no matter if you like them or not.
It never ceases to amaze me how the same people who peach freedom tend to be the same people who want to tell everyone else what is allowed to go on in their own bedrooms and/or what obligations are thrusted upon them - because they said so. How utterly ridiculous.
I never said I should be allowed to tell people what to do in their own bedroom. Your sex life is up to you. All I am asking and saying, is that people need to take responsibility for their own actions, and that they should be careful whilst having sex in any way shape or form. I am not saying that any sexual activity should be enforced by the law, that is your own body, and your own choice. But what I am saying is that once, you have made that choice with your body the consequences are yours to face, like the responsible adult that you are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Did god say eat from the tree of knowledge or did he say do not eat from the tree of knowledge?
You do know why its called that right?
The tree was named The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, because if you eat from it, you will know right from wrong, and be subject to sin.
God gave us a choice; therefore, he gave us intellect and knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
The faith of any who believes in Jesus Christ stands not in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God.
Yes, but God also does not renounce man to ask questions and to be interested and confused.
He does also not renounce debating and discussing his word and text.
God gave us intellect and reason for a reason.
Just like he gave us science; a way to perceive his creation through our small incomprehensible minds.
No one who is a follower of Jesus Christ will have their faith in Jesus shaken or undone by the logic or cunning or experiences of humanity, nor by strength of reason or philosophy.
This is true, because our faith is unable to break.
But I would argue that we as christians can use philosophy, reason, experiences in humanity, and logic to argue for God, and not against him.
After all, God is the creator of philosophy, reason, experiences in humanity, and logic. He gave us these tools to further understand him. These practices are not demonic in nature and have proven to help expand our intellect and mind, so we must have the ability to use these tools for a reason. God gave us these tools for a reason.
therefore, debate and discussion and arguement should never affect the faith of a true Christian. but with the word of God, our faith comes.life and its trials will test everyone's faith, to show that it is sure, or if it is false.
This is true, but does not mean we shouldn't involve ourselves in debate and discussion. Pastors and theologians, apologists and others all around the world debate and discuss God's wonders and the Biblical meaning behind other things not to deny Christ, but to further understand him.
Faith is the only way to the Father, but that does not mean we just sit their and do nothing. We can further increase and strengthen our faith by studying the bible, debating about it, discussing what God means in certain scriptures. Is that not what church is for?
Church is not a requirement for Heaven, but it is smart to involve yourself in it, because it helps to strengthen your faith and to become closer to God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Just tell me my next opponent and I will talk with them on who's going to make the debate.
I haven't officially won my debate yet, but the majority of the judges have already voted me.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
No.
Yes it did. Did you read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, or any part of the New Testament?
When all else fails , default to the supernatural .
Well, God is a supernatural being.
Wrong again.Tell me;did the Messiah Jesus rebuild the temple?Did he unite all the tribes of IS-RA - EL?Did he bring peace to earth?Did he free the Jews from the Roman yoke?These are just some of the requirements expected of the coming Messiah-Read your bible.
1.) Jesus rebuilding the temple : Making a way for us to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Also, the temple before Jesus was the only place you could worship, now we can worship anywhere.
2.) He united everyone in the world, so yes he did do that.
3.) Yes he did bring a way for peace into the earth, but only by our choosing may that happen.
4.) Yes he did free the Jews spiritually.
You read your Bible.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.
It came true.
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
It came true, not physically, but spiritually.
And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Luke 1:30-33
Christianity is the house of Jacob, and it will rein forever. It will exist and be the light of all good forever.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You have a simple mind and simple solutions, but you don't put into account all of the problems that could happen, and you don't study why they wouldn't work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You're supporting the Purge?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Again, you need to get better at understanding politics.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You have a very distorted view of politics and how they work.
Maybe educate yourself on politics a bit more before you argue about them.
You're not entirely dumb on the politics, but you still got some more to learn.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
https://www.webmd.com/baby/interactive-pregnancy-tool-fetal-development?week=8 shows the pictures of human development in the pregnancy. At conception, the pregnancy doesn’t look like it contains a human being. I just don’t think it does. 8 weeks is a different story. At 8 weeks, that looks pretty human to me, so I wouldn’t legalize killing an 8 week pregnancy. Basically, I think abortion should be legal up until 8 weeks into pregnancy and banned beyond this point. You find out you’re pregnant at 6 weeks, so you still have time to abort under this model. Make this the federal standard.
If you are going to define a human being, by how it looks, then you are going to have to account for all the disformed humans and amputees, and every human that doesn't look like a human in some way shape or form.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If the whole world had good intentions, your terms would work. But corruption and loopholes and bad people exist, and you fail to understand that.
The world isn't as simple as you make it out to be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I did and they said .gov cites were reliable.
There's your answer.
His plan of a perfect Germany was one free of Jews and anyone without blond hair and blue eyes. In other words, if everyone had blond hair and blue eyes, we wouldn’t be better off because of it.
That is correct.
If the government spends a lot of money taking care of teachers, they want teachers.If the government spends a lot of money on firefighters, they want firefighters.If the government spends a lot of money on roads, they want roads.If the government spends a lot of money on murderers and rapists, they want murderers and rapists.
Flawed logic.
You do know that money goes into everything right?
So even if we were to kill murderers and rapists (all of them) it would cost a lot of money and a lot of paperwork to do that.
Just because the government makes prisons doesn't mean it wants harm.
If the government killed all the murderers and rapists, and took the money to build homes for the homeless, our society is in a better place. But our government has the living expenses of murderers and rapists as a higher priority than the homeless. You might as well tell any homeless person who is convinced they will never get a job to murder or rape someone so the state takes care of them the rest of their life.Murderers and rapists deserve death.
It's funny that you use the homeless for your advantage in the argument when it comes to murderers and rapists, but not with the border crisis.
There are many American citizens that matter more than immigrants that are not American.
Shouldn't American dollars go to American people and not immigrants?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
What cites are reliable?
Did you go to 3rd grade computer class?
Or do any research assignments in school?
What would a thriving civilization have to do with millions of dead jews?
I don't know it was Hitler's plan. Ask him.
Victim producing criminals also made bad choices. But we take care of them; give them free food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare. I don't think they should get it, just like the homeless. But ANY of these situations I would respect(not necessarily agree with, but respect):1) Homeless get taken care of and so do rapists and murderers.2) Homeless get taken care of and murderers and rapists do not.3) Neither group gets taken care of.What I do not respect is:4) The homeless do not get taken care of and murderers and rapists do.Our murderers and rapists don't deserve any better treatment than our homeless.
The homeless don't hurt anyone else, therefore they don't need money spent on them.
Murderers and rapists do, so we need money to pay for the police officers, law enforcement and court systems, to deal with them, and then money for jails to keep them away from doing that again.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Clearly, life begins when you draw your first breath. That is when God places your soul in your body. Your soul enters your body with your first breath and it leaves with your last. The body is just a vessel — your being, your humanity, is your immortal soul. That's what the Bible says, and for the life of me I cannot understand why so many people, especially supposedly religious people, get this wrong. There is no question, no moral ambiguity. Abortion destroys an empty vessel, it does not kill a human being. That is not to say that a fetus isn't alive, because it clearly is. So is a cow, or an earthworm, or a tree. However, simply being alive does not make something a human being. Having a soul is what sets us apart from other living things. Otherwise, every farmer and every lumberjack would be a murderer. And so would all of the rest of us who eat living things. Even the hardcore vegans would be murderers since they eat plants and plants are alive too.
You are most definitely wrong.
Why is it then, that John the Babtist was said to be filled with the holy spirit whilst in the womb of his mother in the bible:
Can a body without a soul be filled with the holy spirit?
Created:
Posted in:
There are many arguments that I have used that no atheists have been able to refute yet.
Let me say once and once only, that this is only for the argument of their being a God and not a certain God.
The Domino Example:
Think of our existence like a line of dominoes. Each domino before is affecting the next representing the flow of time as well as space, where the dominos are, and matter, the dominoes themselves. The dominoes falling represents time/space/matter working.
Now Atheists usually can't explain how the universe came to be, so they usually revert to the argument that the universe has just been infinite and gone on forever.
So, let's use the dominos in this example.
If the line of dominoes was infinitely long, then the dominoes wouldn't ever fall, because there would never be a beginning to start the chain reaction from.
So, in order for our universe to make sense there had to have been a beginning. But whatever started that beginning had to have been more powerful than the dominoes (time/space/matter) and exist outside that reality.
Take that in.
Atheism is too simple:
Atheism turns out to be too simple.
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning.
Just as if there were no light in the universe, then therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark.
Dark would be without meaning.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
So just to round this out, there are personal relationships and ...... kinds of relationships?
Friends, Lovers, Fathers, Mothers, Brothers, Sisters, there are many types of loves and relationships.
God even claims this when he says things like," Love your neighbor as you would your brother," constituting that there is a certain kind of love that you can show someone.
I apologise for my ignorance but how precisely do these verses convey "personal" relationships?
What is a loving relationship if not personal?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Sorry about that pause, back to the argument.
This represents the key difference between your argument and mine: you maintain that the unborn child is entitled to its mother's resources; I do not.
The child is entitled to the mothers' resources, because it was the mother that offered them in the first place.
If you bring who suffers from memory loss in a house and let them in, that is you choosing to let them in.
Then after a day if you shoot them in the head and kill them, then that is wrong, yes?
I maintain that it is only moral for the mother to submit her womb if and only if she provides the use of it voluntarily as a gift to her unborn child.
I cannot stress this enough:
She already provides the use of it voluntarily as a gift to her unborn child when she has sex. When she makes that decision.
Her body is always her body.
But the child she allowed in is not her body.
You don't get to allow another living human into your body, then kill it for whatever reason.
That is not how all abortions are conducted, though they do not mitigate the horrid method you've described.
Well, these are the types:
There are pills, which is intoxicating the baby. Still murder
There is the vacuum aspiration process, which includes the cutting open of the child's skull and vacuuming out the brains.
Then there is dilation and evacuation or (D&E), which includes the whole vacuum aspiration process but adds on the cutting off of limbs and parts of the body.
Those are the only two medical processes for abortions.
Any later abortions than that are considered illegal in most states.
But the states that allow them to have even worse procedures than that.
Honestly, I personally agree with some of what you've said. But my personal opinion does not at all qualify or modify a person's right to themselves. My opinion can only serve as a premise in persuasion or as a modifier or qualifier in my own body, resources, and decisions.
I'm glad we can agree on this.
Even if we entertain that she "put it there in the first place," it does not produce an entitlement that an unborn child, or proxy, can exercise to the exclusion of its mother's interests.
YES, IT DOES.
Listen to this:
The mother made the choice to put a child inside of herself. She did.
The mother created a human life without any decision made by the child she created.
Then she consented to the child existing in her womb by her own decision.
After all of this she is not allowed to kill that child in her womb that she created, let live in her, and made the choice for.
No you don't. Acknowledging the possibility of a car crash is NOT THE SAME as "consenting" to it. If we were to apply your reasoning, no one would be accountable for vehicular homicides because one would "consent" to death when they enter their car.
It does make sence.
Driving = Sex
Crashing = Pregnancy
The reason could have varied from a condom breaking = someone not seeing you turn, bad pullout game = someone texting on their phone, but it doesn't matter.
I think that vehicular homicide would = rape. And rape is a different story.
But no matter the reason, you still consented to the possibility that when you enter the car and start the engine and push the gas, you might get into a crash.
And the parties involved in the crash can deal with the aftermath of the crash however they choose because their cars are their property.
Yes, are we arguing abortion anymore, or cars now lol?
How is it wrong?
When killing yourself there always is a reason and that reason always has to do with the fact that you want to escape the misery of something in your life. Intentionally removing yourself from the pain and struggle is selfish because you are doing something bad to escape something hard. We all deal with hard things in life, and to take shortcuts out of them are selfish.
Now of course I wouldn't say that to a person about to commit suicide because that would make the situation worse, but still.
Yes, she is presumably consenting when having sex under the circumstances about which we discuss. But once again, acknowledgement =/= consent.
Consent: permission for something to happen or agreement to do something
It is acknowledgment with consent.
No she does not. That is merely a platitude used to justify coercing her. If she seeks an abortion, then she obviously did not give over her womb.
If she seeks an abortion after consenting to sex with another man fully aware that this might indeed lead to a pregnancy, then that is selfishness.
Even if she is in part responsible for how the zygote/embryo/fetus occupied her womb, it does not mean she's liable to submit her womb to the zygote's/embryo's/fetus's use. Her womb never stops being her womb.
She is not only letting the fetus use it, but she is the reason the fetus is there in the first place. She is not renting out her house to someone. She put that person there in her house, who doesn't understand anything.
And as long as it's her womb, it is up to her to dictate how it's used.
Exactly. So, don't go sleeping around with a bunch of men who want to get semen inside your womb.
Alright, let's entertain this scenario. Let's say that I put you into my home. There was no blizzard before you entered. You are inside my home for about half an hour before I decide to kick you out into a blizzard that started after you had entered my home. You succumb to the blizzard and die. Did I kill you?
Yes. Because let's not forget, I had no choice in any of this scenario. I was put in your home (not by my choice) and was kicked out (not by my choice).
So, in other words, you legitimately forced me into your house, then forcefully kicked me out and I died. That killed me, and you did that, so you killed me.
And yes, I'll continue to state that I'm kicking you out as opposed to shooting you because you're not being honest about the available methods of abortion, one in particular which does not include the destruction of the zygote/embryo/fetus.
I am being honest.
Doctors don't just take baby's out of the womb and leave them on a table.
But let's play this game.
If my father who has many years to live gets sick, and is not viable on his own is hooked up to a machine, if I unplugged or unhooked him to the machine, and he dies, did I kill him?
So does my putting you in my home grant you the right to occupy my home against my wishes?
The word wishes right their shows your contradicion.
Your (by definition) wishes at first was to put me in your home, then after, your wishes were to kick me out with full knowing that I am 100% going to die.
This scenario would be fine, if it didn't deal with a valuable human life.
Even if you were to argue that I had kidnapped you, would you be able to justify occupying my home and consuming my resources against my will? Or that I owe it to you to provide you shelter and resources?
Well seeing that you forced me into your home, if you didn't provide those things for me, I would die, therefore you would have killed me.
Here's the thing:
When you make a decision in which you know the person will die, yet you have the ability to save them without killing yourself, and you don't, that is killing.
If that decision is taking action to kill that is killing.
If that decision is not taking action to save, when you have a clean ability to, that is killing.
The father/boyfriend/husband has no more right to the mother's womb than the zygote/embryo/fetus.
Why not? He half created that child in her womb. He provides the materials, and she provides the shelter.
The bottom part of your argument I already answered and repeated many times over.
I like this debate and your argument is solid, but it has done nothing more than increase my opinion that abortion should be illegal.
I am just going to stick with that abortion is the murder of a child, and no matter what should be stopped.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Then your argument that abortion is murder is entirely circular.We're talking about what the law should be, so if your argument here is that it's against the law you aren't saying anything.
Ok...............so do you think murder is good?
The death penalty (whether it should be banned or not) is an entirely different argument from abortion, so I am not going to argue two arguments at a time.
Try to stay on topic.
No. First off and as I already pointed out, the man already has the qualities I listed, they're just laying dormant.
WHAT QUALITIES? You never listed any qualities. If you did, please enlighten me.
Second, there's no conflict which ending his life will resolve. He isn't growing in someone else's womb.
There could be. Abortion usually doesn't solve any conflict besides inconvenience.
Same with this situation. Someone could be inconvenienced of paying his bills or not wanting him there.
Also, he would defiantly be emotionally affecting others, in many different ways as well as financially and psychologically.
We're talking about what qualities make someone a person, not a human.
Ok, what qualities make someone a morally valuable human. Aka a human that has moral value.
The biggest single quality that differentiates a fetus from a person is the capability of surviving without the connection to another person's womb.
Again, with my coma example, the man would not have the ability to survive without the connection to a machine.
So, you are basically saying that viability defines a person, that is the ability to survive on their own makes them a valuable human.
Good luck keeping up with that argument.
And they are all willing to continue keeping him alive. If no one wanted to expend their time, energy, and money to keep him alive, there would be no moral force which could require others to do so. That would result in the removal of others rights thereby conflicting with the man's right to live.
Just the same as a mother.
A mother might not want to keep her child alive, but there is a moral force that requires her to.
A mother might not want to keep her child alive, but there is a moral force that requires her to.
You did not refute my argument here.
When a mother has sex, she is willing to the possibility of a pregnancy.
The fact that sex creates human life makes it a big deal in the sense that we as a species need it to continue our survival.
I agree.
That is irrelevant to any individual couple since no individual couple is responsible for that.
If they decide to have sex, they are.
So once again, you continue to assert that sex is a big deal without any justification as to why any other individual should adopt your personal opinion.
Sex is a big deal because it literally creates human life.
And if you involve yourself in it, then you are contributing to the possibility of creating human life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If they were biased, they would claim that virtually no scientists believe a zygote is a human being. If they said 95% of scientists believe a zygote is a human being, then you would be claiming that they are correct and that the liberals are anti science. But when you claim they are biased, that is also anti science.Chat GPT is reliable and your the biased one.
It is definitely biased.
But they are not biased to the extreme. They are biased whilst trying not to seem biased, but blatently are.
Let's not forget they claimed to be a reliable source of information (non-biased) when released. But they lied because its code was biased.
Therefore, you should not trust Chat GPT for your research and do it yourself.
That's cap; Hitler murdered millions of Jews because he was a bigot and the German people voted for him because they needed a scapegoat for their problems (instead of blaming the west for Germany's problems).
So just taking a wild guess from your grammar, you are either a very young adult or a teenager like me.
Anyways, yes you are right, Hitler did murder millions of Jews because he was a bigot, and blah blah blah.
But his defense for why he was right (this is even written in his book Mein Kampf) was:
He believed that as long as the end (which was a thriving civilization) worked, then whatever he did to get their (mass murder of millions of Jews) would be justified.
Would you be fine with paying for every homeless person to get a home? This costs about $30 billion. If not, explain why your unwilling to have taxpayers pay $30 billion for the homeless to get homes (when the homeless usually didn't harm anybody to get in their situation) but are fine with society spending about $200 billion a year taking care of prisoners (when they DID do something bad). Taxation if theft!
Easy. Especially nowadays, it is easier to make money and survive than it is to commit most crimes.
Most (not all) homeless people have either made bad financial decisions or bad life decisions, by their own choice.
We need to spend money on prison to hold the bad guys in and protect ourselves from them, to keep a civilized society.
So are you a virgin? Because only 3% of the US population waits until marriage to have sex. Granted, virginity is good, but it's rare.
Yes, I am a virgin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The scientists can't agree according to chat gpt, so I have to be unsure.
Chat GPT is super biased dude. It has already been proven in the code to have bias.
If your using Chat GPT to do all your research, then you are not doing research at all.
And also, you have to make your own opinions.
If you give your money to the poor, you get more money from your job and you use it to subsidize the poor (if human life was worth saving no matter what).
No, because then eventually there are no more poor people, and when there is no lower, middle and upper class in society, then society collapses.
You have to have those classes to have a functioning society. The goal is to make those classes more advanced.
Like in America, the lower class is equivalent to the upper class in some African countries. This is a good thing, because our lowest class is still advanced.
I'm saving more people, so I would kill one person to save 5 equally valuable people.
Again, the ends don't justify the means.
This was Hitler's ideology. He believed that as long as the end (which was a thriving civilization) worked, then whatever he did to get their (mass murder of millions of Jews) would be justified.
It's still a huge chunk of the population (that would use the money exclusively for their own selfish purposes, whereas I would use some of it to save more people and keep the rest). I think 90% of the US population would kill one person to save 5.
You think, but that's not what the data that you yourself provided.
I still don't want my tax dollars paying for it.
Well, you live in a society, where everyone works together for the good of that group.
Deal with it. We all contribute something.
A lashing is a lot of short term pain that people remember so they are less likely to re offend. Prison makes you unemployable, so you end up committing more crime so you can be in jail with taxpayers taking care of you. But lashings also heal quicker than a prison sentence, so I support replacing prison sentences with lashings for minor crimes.
This has so many contradictions to it, just from reading it, I think you need to re-read it, and then line it back up with you other arguments.
I was telling YOU that if YOU (a male) don't want a pregnancy, you shouldn't have sex.
Ok............I agree with that.
Straight women only have sex because of horny men like you.
No. Some women have sex for their own pleasure.
Some women have sex for reproduction.
Some women have sex for money.
Point is, if a woman doesn't want to have sex, she's not going to.
In the end it is her decision.
If you don't want to risk your girlfriend getting an abortion, don't have sex with her.
Great............I agree.
I'm a virgin and it's great; I've never had to worry about STIs or pregnency.
Good for you.
Created: