bmdrocks21

Being a prick is not a bannable offense on this site. Writing homophobic and sexist slurs are protected speech, as long as they are not directed at another member. As such, it wasn't considered when deciding the length of his ban.

Thank you for participating, everyone! Your support was much appreciated!

Thanks for setting all of this up, Bsh1!

Not from Alabama. Maybe some debaters are misogynistic. I can't speak for them.

I don't know why people say anti-abortion has to be a misogynistic stance. People aren't anti-abortion because they want to punish woman, except for maybe some super-minority. 

I am male. 

I don't see how preventing child murder is somehow misogynistic.

Did you just assume our genders, you fascist?

:P

I'm quite swell, thank you.

What do you do for fun?

You can rebut that, but I feel as though we are not making any progress.

How is life, my dude?

About as accurate as I can be: Let us say you sold your bike for $1. You regret your decision and want me to beat them up and take it back. I refuse to hurt the other party because you regret your poor life choices. They didn't force you to make that deal, but now that you did, you cannot hurt that person for the deal's result.

I am missing one organ. Why does it matter that I have "all of the rest"? Because I am still living? Well, a fetus is alive, too. The thing is, there is absolutely no science to back the claim that a fetus isn't human, nor that it isn't alive. It obviously isn't dead, and it isn't a non-human species. The only argument is whether that life matters. A scientist might personally think a fetus doesn't matter, but they would agree that it is a living human creature. And since they are human and living, I value their life.

I keep this definition loose and objective for a reason. Governments have historically considered certain groups of humans to be sub-human based on their race and religion. This is the same thing, except it is based on age.

Lol, of course you shouldn't help people in the way they want. If someone steals your bike and you want me to kill them and take it back, I'm not going to do that. Now, if they NEED an abortion, I'd let them get one. The only time when they NEED it is if they are going to die.

I don't know why the sperm and egg being "human" is so widely used as an argument. Sure those cells could become a human, but they aren't a human. They are gametes. As soon as an egg is fertilized, it becomes a human. It has all the chromosomes and DNA to prove it. No scientist has ever said that having organs is what makes you human. Again, I don't have an appendix, but I am still a human.

The sperm is the father's DNA and the egg is the woman's DNA. The fertilized cell is not the woman, nor is it the father. It is a separate person. You don't want to give value to a human life because it doesn't have kidneys, a stomach, etc. That is arbitrary. It is not at all arbitrary to say that once you have created a life, it becomes valuable.

No, I believe that you should help people that get hurt snowboarding. You should help people who have unwanted pregnancies to. I don't believe that help entails killing a baby. The entire biological point of sex is to reproduce, so I don't know why everyone is so shocked of "unplanned" pregnancies. 

Ok, if a fetus isn't a "human life", is it a dog? A cat? A mouse? It clearly has human DNA. You stated earlier that you value human life. It is alive and human. Just because it is in a different stage of development, doesn't mean its life doesn't have value. People with fully developed brains matter just as much as those who don't. People before puberty matter just as much as those who haven't gone through it. A fetus is just at an earlier stage of development. 

So: either human lives matter or they do not. Any requirement other than being human is entirely arbitrary. Anyone who said "kids who haven't reached puberty don't matter and can be killed for any reason" could base their entire argument from the same place that you are just as consistently if a culture puts arbitrary value on fertility.

Then why isn't there an official thread for this?

Are these real positions?

Are you running for president now?

I am not trying to abolish abortion. I am saying that there should be some sort of justification to have one. Someone's crime against her such as rape or if she would die are substantial reasons under what I would propose. You think that before a certain stage of development, any reason is permissible.

We essentially disagree on when personhood should be attributed.

Additionally, you are arguing that a toddler has the rights and protections of a person, while a fetus does not. That is certainly true based on current laws. I disagree with the current laws.

They protected slavery under their right to property. So, slaves were considered property, not people.

If I eat a cake, is that cake violating my right to have a slim body? Or is that decision the normal consequence of eating unhealthy food? By making bad life choices, you have become pregnant, which is the normal consequence of intercourse. Nobody forced you to do that(typically), so I am saying that from your decisions, you have given birth to a new life. That fetus is not the woman nor the father, it is a unique, living human life. I don't think you have the right to end a life because you make poor decisions. 

I'm glad we are coming to an understanding. :)

For the final one.... ladies sometimes don't like the mess.... lol

But typically "the pill" or depo shots are the most effective and most insurance companies cover a lot of their cost.

I was saying that anti-vaxxers must be somehow connected to a recognized mainstream religion. Personally, I think that if that is the route they want to take, they should live in separate communities like the Amish.

Yes, unfortunately these easily avoidable birth defects aren't taken seriously enough. It seems like a common sense bill to me. Sure the implementation might take a bit to work out, but preventing the ruination of someone's entire life is motivation enough for me.

Your first point was worded a little oddly. I think you are wondering why I make a distinction between "birth control" and abortion. Might just be a force of habit. When I refer to "birth control" I am talking about contraception- things that prevent you from becoming pregnant in the first place. So condoms, shots, and pills that prevent pregnancy are fine by me. Terminating a pregnancy is very rarely acceptable in my opinion.

I think we should encourage and educate people about birth control. Abortion should not be used as a form of birth control. It should be strictly for emergencies.

It is somewhat hard to catch people selling alcohol to minors. It is a low priority crime as well. But yes, enforcement should be improved somehow.

I do wonder what would happen. I think that religion can only be invoked if it is a "recognized" religion. There must be a certain amount of members and certain criteria to meet. Not sure if they could use it, but perhaps.

Yeah, if I get around to it, I was planning on using my one change. I was just voting on the two I felt most strongly about for now.

Yes and the majority of people believe that third trimester abortions should be illegal. You probably agree with that. My problem here is that you are saying that what the majority of people agree with or desire is what is best policy-wise. You probably don't like Ronald Reagan, but he won 49 states. You might think he was bad for our country, but he was popular. The average voter isn't informed on issues. Just because Roe v Wade is popular, doesn't mean it is right. 

Now, part of the reason that most people want to keep Roe v Wade is because they don't know what it is. They think that if it is overturned that abortion becomes illegal. All it would do is take the federal government out of the picture and states can pass any laws they wish.

I'm treating this like the crime of murder, essentially. If you get an abortion because you would die, it is self-defense. I don't think it is okay to get one for monetary reasons, just like I don't think you should kill your toddler because of financial reasons.

"No one is forcing you to have an abortion" isn't quite a strong argument. Someone back in the 1800's could say "no one is forcing you to have slaves". I thought we agreed earlier that the fetus wasn't part of the woman. That would mean that anti-abortion laws aren't violating what a woman can do with her own body. It is protecting against what a woman will do to her child's body.

I can't think of a much better alternative to fix this problem. It may be a bandage fix, but across most states, there is essentially abortion on demand for any reason and it has been for years (excluding Georgia and Alabama and maybe a handful of others). The problem still widely occurs. So, since we cannot eliminate addiction and abortion doesn't prevent it, I can see no better choice.

Sure there might be videos of people online giving kids alcohol. This isn't a perfect, 100% deterrent. However, it is still illegal to give kids alcohol. Getting caught involves fines and can be either a misdemeanor or a felony based on the circumstances. https://www.alcohol.org/laws/supplying-alcohol-to-a-minor/

Yeah, I kinda despise anti-vaxxers, myself. I don't recall any mention in the Bible about vaccinations. I don't think any recognized religion requires you to drink alcohol.

Yes, there would be a lot of nuance for implementing these laws. I am not really prepared to write a fifty-page proposal on all the specific details right now. 

I agree that poor people are more likely to experience these issues. Perhaps classifying this as child neglect will act as a deterrent.

With regard to the household buying alcohol, they would not all be banned. The same could be applied to any parent with kids because they child could get ahold of the alcohol. It is, however, illegal for a parent to buy alcohol for the purpose of giving it to their underaged kid. That is how the law would work.

I don't think it is a violation of the right of someone to buy alcohol. It is preventing the violation of the kid's right to not have permanent brain damage.

Yes, but I feel as though the only consistent argument is a fertilized egg. That is the point at which it becomes a distinct human. Any other argument such as viability can change based on the wealth and location of the parents. You could say a millionaire in New York has a kid that is worth more than a Kenyan woman's fetus because one is viable while the other is not, even at the same stage of pregnancy. If economic conditions matter, that raises the same argument. 

People also draw a false equivalence between brain dead people and a fetus. The brain dead individual can't ever regain consciousness, while the fetus almost always will. So, I don't find that brain waves are consistent, either.

That is why legally speaking I would only permit it in cases of rape and if the mother will die from the pregnancy not being terminated. These constitute precisely 3.5% of all current abortions. The rest are related to money and not thinking you are ready for parenthood, which I find to be unjustifiable reasons to have an abortion.

Rational Madman

Virtuoso

Oromagi

Well I won't have a fully functioning brain until I am 25, but I still hope that I am a person. Am I less of a person because of my age? I don't have an appendix, either, so I don't fully meet the organ criteria.

I will become a fully developed human if I am not killed or die of natural causes. The same applies to a fetus.

So passing through the birthing canal gives your life value?

Not sure if we can do that quite yet, but scientific advances have no bearing on what is or isn't human.

I say all humans have inherent value. If they don't, then that means the government can decide which humans matter and which don't. Kinda the justification of slavery/genocide/any human rights abuse ever done by the government. 

Science says it is a person. It has DNA that is different from the mother. What kind of DNA? Human DNA. It is alive. Now, what a "legal person" is would depend on the laws of the country.

I said to leave bad marriages.

Really, the reason for my position is that I don't believe that a fetus is the woman. I don't believe that the science supports that. So, I don't ban eating dessert because that only affects you, but I would put restrictions on abortion. (I am for junk food taxes if we have government-run healthcare, though, so I guess I kind of want to ban dessert ;)   )

I agree we need economic reform. Just probably the exact opposite of what you are thinking.

Well I think that promiscuity is a rather large problem. It breaks up marriages, leaving kids with only one parent. I'm not telling you to stay in a bad marriage. Having relations with someone causes a chemical bond to form, which makes it less likely to bond with whoever your spouse ends up being. 

Yes, further reflection on abortion must be completed before these laws would come into effect. I'm glad we find that we often have the same goal, we just go about it differently. 

I would say, "only eat when you are hungry". As in "only have sex when you want a kid". In both cases, if you do it more than you should, various problems will arise.

No, I'm saying that throwing money at the problem will result in more kids that are dependent on welfare. If you cannot afford a kid, don't have one. Sure, buy contraception, but if that fails, deal with the consequences of your actions like an adult. Don't make me pay for it.

I can see where the religious folks are coming from. They want you to wait until marriage, which is the best result. People have higher divorce rates based on how many sexual partners they have had before that marriage. So they try to prevent all of that. Realistically, I don't think that works, and we should teach about contraception to avoid as many unwanted pregnancies as possible.

I think we will have to disagree on who poisoned what. In the future, we can discuss this more in general. I tried to hold back my strong opinions on the matter and just keep it about the drugs aspect.

Roe v Wade was passed based on the "right to privacy", which is something never expressly stated in the Constitution. Then somehow abortion is related to privacy. Based on the Constitution, it had no right getting passed. Not sure how "excessive government restriction" is classified.

Republicans don't force people to have sex. If people don't want a child, there is a 100% chance method to not get pregnant: don't have sex. Throwing money at the problem doesn't fix it. When you do that, they can afford to have more kids. Especially when you provide more money per kid.

Sure, teach better sex ed. People need to cut the disconnect between sex and pregnancy and the responsibilities that come with it.

I feel like we need an abortion thread, lol. Any other thoughts on using drugs during pregnancy?

"Right to have an abortion". No such thing exists. Also, a gang rape was used for the specific purpose of wrongfully swaying the Court decision.

https://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/2017/02/jane-roe-tells-true-story-behind-roe-v-wade/ 

Again, how have Democrats made it "Safe, legal, and rare"? It is legal. It is kinda safe. But it is certainly not rare. Do you in any way discourage it? Do you think over 600,000/year is rare?

Ok, I see. So you are for this law because there would be indirect costs associated with their less productive (and likely government-dependent) lifestyle?

I think you put an undue amount of blame on Republicans. As you know, many of them consider it murder, so you can't really blame them for what they do. If they don't have such objections, do you really think they are like "muahahaha women have to raise a child now. How devious of us. Now they cannot dispel clumps of cells."

But anyways, Virginia tried to make post-birth abortions legal. What ever happened to "Safe, Legal, and Rare"? What do you guys do to discourage it and make it 'rare'? Or was that just a lie used by Democrats to make it legal? And Roe v Wade was a false case. The woman lied about being gang raped! So if you want to talk about lies used to push an agenda, don't try to act like this is on Republicans when these laws were passed on the basis of lies.

Yes, thanks for point that out. To be fair, I am in favor of reforms.

Would you think that CPS involvement would be fair in these cases? I am quite concerned that their little regard for their child's safety during pregnancy would also translate in the same sort of disregard after birth.

Yeah, but can you ever pay back that child for the brain trauma that the alcohol might cause? This obviously interferes with the "life" inalienable right when you decrease their quality of life and possibly their life expectancy.

I don't even find it quite necessary to consider the fetus a person for this particular law. Assuming no miscarriage or stillbirth occurs because of the smoking, that child will be born. They will likely have serious health issues. Many of these birth defects can be directly linked to the drugs, and from there you obviously know the culprit.

This gets a bit stickier with current abortion laws. Let us assume that cutoff is now first trimester: that after that point you consider the parent to be perfectly on board with having the child. At that point I have an issue the most issue with it. Now, if laws stay the same, you would have to judge intention to have the child, and would essentially coerce an abortion unless they want jail time. That would obviously be terrible. Having the kid taken away would probably be the best bet with current abortion laws.

I see. Could you move this to a different thread? 

Also, are you a Type1 second account? 

That would only relocate them to prisons, where they will drain the h-white man's resources.

Why would you propose that?

Smoking while pregnant raises risk for preterm birth, low birth weight, sudden infant death syndrome, and birth defects. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/substance-abuse/substance-abuse-during-pregnancy.htm

Additionally, alcohol is linked to cognitive debilitation and other issues for the child.

This usually causes irreparable harm to another being, the child, and therefore should be considered as some sort of child neglect or child abuse. At the very least, this child should be taken away. It should probably also be illegal to sell either substance to a pregnant woman. As far as I know, all of these are merely discouraged, but not illegal.

What is your opinion on this? The only thing that I could see causing issues is the cutoff point(by when does the pregnant woman know that she is pregnant and is still neglecting her responsibilities). 

Wanna hear a joke?

The WNBA.

You're not wrong. I'm very disappointed in how we have conducted foreign policy for the past few decades. I'm angry that we are continuing this cycle of backing and then screwing people over.

Not sure about the Mujaheddin point, though. We helped them drive the Soviets out.

Lay some on me, my dude! :)

What do black guys have that's double the size of white men and gets bigger every time they touch a woman?

Their criminal record.

Why doesn't Mexico have a good Olympic team?

Because all of them that can run, jump, and swim already crossed the border.

What is the difference between a black man and a large pizza?

A pizza can feed a family of four.

Well, if they could keep selling and manufacturing AR-15s, what would keep me from buying them and selling them back to the government for a 15% profit?

Whiteflame- In my opinion, Whiteflame is likely the best debater on this site. I have had the pleasure of debating him twice, and both experiences have made me much more informed on my position and the opposing viewpoint. This respectful discourse is what debating is all about! He has also exchanged hundreds of PM's with me discussing a handful of topics. Thank you, sir!

Ragnar- He is a veteran, and he likes Richard Nixon. Each of those alone is enough to win my respect :)

He is a very active voter, experienced debater, and a pleasure to talk to. Truly a pillar of the community.

RationalMadman- He is a legend. I have had great pleasure reading through the comments and forum posts and seeing him say some very wacky things. He has done tons of debates, and I am always excited to hear his point of view on whatever topic comes up. This site would not be the same without him.

Limiting this to just three was incredibly difficult. There are so many intelligent and friendly people on this site. Such a great community! Thank you all.