1 year ago
Which side makes a better case?
avatar
194 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • a year ago

    If a miscarriage happens on it's own it is not murder. If there is a physical force from someone which causes the abortion, that constitutes murder.

    • a year ago

      @jdh03 is birth control murder?

    • a year ago

      @daniel_jongeward Jeremiah 1:4-5 The Call of Jeremiah
      4 The word of the Lord came to me, saying,

      5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew[a] you,
      before you were born I set you apart;
      I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

      There are many forms of birth control. I would need you to elaborate to answer more correctly.

    • a year ago

      @jdh03 that verse has nothing to do with it only in the case of Jeremiah or whomever he is talking to. But it means nothing and is not significant. It's like me making the claim " I knew your parents before you where born, they were assholes, I knew you before you were born would also be an asshole." It's not significant, just making the claim of being all knowing without giving any creditable info of being so.

    • a year ago

      @daniel_jongeward This is the last time I am going to urge you to keep on studying and learning. Those verses have everything to do with it. If God knows you before you are born and even before being formed in the womb, how is any form of birth control not murder than? He never said I know your parents but even if he did he knows them better than you, I or any human. I mean it is God so.

    • a year ago

      @jdh03 okay I'll urge you to keep studying and learning too :) after all it's how I became an athiest.

    • a year ago

      @jdh03 You are not being logical.

      A. The passage is referring to a specific individual Jeremiah, not to all human beings. While it demonstrates god has this capability, it does not demonstrate he uses it for all humans. Only for this specific human, he chose to be a prophet. After all, not every person is a prophet to all nations.

      B. If God knows you before you are formed in the womb, then he knows who will be formed and who will not and humans, ignorant of such matters have no control over who is born and who is not. With no control, you have no culpability, and thus it cannot be murder by any rational moral standard.

      C. Murder, by any human standard, involves someone who is alive. People who are not yet conceived cannot be considered alive, so they cannot be killed and thus cannot be murdered.

      D. This passage claims God makes babies, so he could make them anytime he needs to. He is all powerful. So he could make a baby no matter how much contraception you use, indeed he can make a virgin pregnant apparently. That would make god a murderer for any pre-imagined people that don't get made by these same standards.

      Instead, if you take the passage in context, none of that nonsense need apply. God is saying that Jeremiah is part of his plan for spreading knowledge of God and that God, unlike men, knows the future and is in control of it.

  • a year ago

    Until you realize what the Holy Trinity is and how they all work within one another you will not understand much. Keep on studying though.

  • a year ago

    And yes God allows abortion. God allows sin. He has given us free will.

    • a year ago

      Jesus never preached violence.

      • a year ago

        @jdh03 except if there are money changers in a church then Crack that wip?

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward The definition of violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

        Did he intend to hurt damage or kill someone or something? The answer is no. Yes Jesus Christ got upset but he never used physical force upon anyone.

    • a year ago

      And we are supposed to be "Christ-Like" not a "God" or "God-Like"

    • a year ago

      It's a sin to intoxicate/pollute the mind, not drink.

      • a year ago

        @jdh03 is there a place where all sin is listed? Seems that would come in handy.

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward Definitely! There's this big book called the "Bible". Check there.

      • a year ago

        @rhology that is not a list. Has anyone even taken the Bible and made a list?

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward As others have said it's in The Bible. Read it, research it and live it. Also I'm guessing you never did a simple google search for it? Once again do your own research. I want to point you in the right direction but I want you discover the truth for yourself. It will mean more to you that way and you will appreciate it more.

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward, to ask has anyone made a list of all the sins is ridiculous. I don’t have a list of all the rules for my kids but I trust that after an issue comes up we deal with it and they remember.

        The Bible is a collection of written accounts of mistakes that others made. This is in hopes that we don’t need to repeat the same mistakes.

      • a year ago

        @jdh03 I think it's very arrogant of you to assume I haven't done my research and come to a different conclusion. the main reason it's so vauge and confusing. Is it gets to contradict itself, because it allows those in charge to control the masses easier. It allows authorities to determined when killing another human being is Justified and when it is sin. In short it was crafted to be a product of control. It's so obviously a product written by flawed humans, to govern other humans, in a different time.

      • a year ago

        @the_peoples_champ right cause we are born broken, with sin right? So only by grace can one be saved not by works, so that no one can boast. So sin is irrelevant, but then there is no moral standard so we need laws, but laws are complicated. But we do understand and have a list of laws. Yet the religious don't have that. Is it because religious morality is more subjective and open to interpretation? Is that why in Christianity alone there are more than 350 divisions and different churches. Heck if even all Christians could come together and come to a conclusion on what they believe, it would make my job a whole lot easier but they can't even do that.

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward you’re just spouting off random things you watched in a YouTube video.

        I have no problem with those who are atheist. I do have an issue with atheist forming their opinion about Christianity based off bad information.

        I really don’t know what you mean that Christianity has no laws. And actually most of what you wrote.

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward I don't assume you have not done research, I urge you to keep on researching and learning as I am. I mean I don't know everything, I never claimed to and never will. But what I do know I do know. I know that is very vague but it is what it is. Once you free yourself from mental slavery you will be free even in a controlled earth by the elite. Murder is a sin whether the elites do it or you and I do. The only time I can justify murder is during self-defense, once acted upon first with physical force. Yes it was written by humans who are flawed, just like you and I. I don't let other humans govern me. I govern myself. I live how I want. I am not bound by the "laws of the land" especially when they are inhumane laws.

      • a year ago

        @the_peoples_champ how dare you! I never once suggested that your thoughts were your not your own. If I'm getting bad information that's why I'm asking questions to get better information. I'm aware this is by a case-by-case basis because Christians can't come to a consensus on it. My comments is critiquing Christianity and if they wanted to make some clear and concise rules, they should make it clear not go digging around in the book for the answer.

      • a year ago

        @jdh03 so you just admitted there are cases where murder is moral. I'd like to take this time to quote Richard Dawkins, normally you would have good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things, about to get good people to do bad things that takes religion.

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward To me that is not murder, it is defending yourself, your loved ones and others from harm. To me that is an act of love. Now I'm not saying you should try to kill the person. If you can disarm or apprehend them you should. You should only use deadly force as a last resort. You shouldn't have the mindset of "I'm going to kill this man, I'm going to shoot him 10 times in the head, and go after him with a vengeful heart. You should approach the situation with love and care in your heart such as "I'm going to defend my family and protect them." Protecting yourself and others from harm is not murder if acted upon first.

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward When I first got on Qallout, majority of my debates were christianity debates with atheists. With the exception of a few (@chasuk and @sigfried) the atheists I have debated were less interested in actually listening to the christian side and only interested in trying to make christians look like idiots.

        I watched this debate twice and for the most part your biggest downfall was that some of the verses you spoke of were misinterpreted by you. And that is not to say that is only something you do. ALOT of people christians and atheists misinterpret scripture.

        I wish it wasn't the case that people misinterpret the Bible, but I know people misinterpret the constitution just as much and it's not half as old as the Bible.

      • a year ago

        @the_peoples_champ I guess my question to you would be how do you know what is a misinterpretation what is not? What's the standard? How do we know what is true and what is misinterpretation?

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward This is only my opinion. First you start with the presupposition that the Bible was written by multiple authors thousands of years ago.

        Some of the verses are in dealing with troubles of that specific time and some verses are dealing with permanent Christian Dogma.

        Next as a person reading the scripture you start humbly acknowledging that there are some things you may not understand. It is my finding that a lot of people try to twist scripture into meaning what they want it to mean.

        Finally you always read at least the entire chapter when trying to decipher a verse. Taking scripture out of context is a bad habit of a lot of people (both Christians and Atheists).

        And then you take it back to its original context be it Greek or Hebrew and whatever it says it says. Leave it pure and without manipulation.

      • a year ago

        @the_peoples_champ so basically it's all down to opinion in speculation? My favorite is when people quote Psalms. Those are literally just poems written by David. They're not meant to be taken literally. Lol

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward The truth is that no one knows the truth until you die. You may find out or you may just die and never find out. But what most people do, as do I, is try to spread what you believe as truth in order to help others. Now some people spread lies intentionally. I'm not talking about them. I believe they have evil forces working on them. Now I believe there are evil forces working on people who don't spread lies intentionally either. Probably even more. And yes everything n the Bible is not meant to be taken literally. That is why 1 should continue to research and learn what it truly means. Some most won't ever truly understand, some will.

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward no it’s not. I guess I should expect you to only see what you want to see in the words I wrote.

      • a year ago

        @the_peoples_champ writes:

        'And then you take it back to its original context be it Greek or Hebrew and whatever it says it says. Leave it pure and without manipulation.'

        I stopped attending a church because the minister, week after week, took delight in imposing new meanings to the same verses - without ever trying to discover the intent of the original author.

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward
        \\Has anyone even taken the Bible and made a list?\\

        I didn't realise "simplify stuff for the intellectually lazy" was part of the mission requirements for the Christian.

    • a year ago

      Just because you may not Understand the Bible doesn't mean it contradicts itself. Like I said earlier please keep researching.

      • a year ago

        @jdh03 So many contradictions we don't have time to cover them all http://remnantbride.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Bible_Contradictions1-530x300.jpg

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward I've seen that chart, and it's all garbage. I guess I shouldn't expect any better from online atheists.

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward How do you know if you don't have time if you don't take the time to try?

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward each contradiction is not a contradiction. It’s a list that an atheist put together to try to shoot holes in Christianity.

      • a year ago

        @the_peoples_champ Keyword "Try" I didn't even open the list so I had no idea.

      • a year ago

        @the_peoples_champ Christianity already has enough holes without this. Talking animals, ritual blood sacrifices, a flood of which there's no physical evidence for. Also the constant times it's not even unique and plagiarize another older works. But I get it you're raised to believe something and rather than admit that your beliefs may be wrong you bury your head in the sand.

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward Do you know when Christianity was formed? Did you know it doesn't talk about Christianity in the Bible? More than 1 religion use the Bible, not just Christians. Even Satan Worshipers and Devil lovers acknowledge the existence and truth of The Bible. Even if it plagiarizes older works, it is supposed to be of the original story then? Just told differently but has the same meanings and lessons? And no you don't get it because you don't know me or anyone else replying to these comments. You only know yourself, hopefully. I have studied and researched multiple other religions, faiths, teachings to see if my faith would grow stronger or something else made more sense to me. It's not about religion. It's about having that relationship with God.

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward literally everything you wrote is wrong in this last response.

      • a year ago

        @jdh03 yup! Historically we can trace the origins of Christianity to emperor Constantine in forming a unified religion in Rome. He gathered many of the Christianity Cults and constructed what we know of the religion today. Many things were discussing this meeting, including if Jesus was the son of God or not, or a god in general. Since emperor Constantine was a stout follower of Apollo, many of the themes and images of Apollo kind of blended into the Jesus we know today. Including but not limited to being a defender of mankind Against The Gods, and self-sacrifice for mankind. I'm sure your fantasy relationship with a higher power makes you feel good and warm and all fuzzy inside, but that does not mean it's grounded in reality. I consider your relationship with God is basically your relationship with your self. It's how you make sense of the universe, which may seem chaotic to you. It's an easy security blanket to explain the things you don't understand. It was most likely taught to you based on where you grow up and the culture you grow up in at an early age where you had to take an authority as word for it. And rather than question what you were taught you have decided to double down on the delusion. Like that somehow makes it more real to you. In today's day and age we have information to explain biology, and natural phenomenon. Science is constantly offering Solutions that we used to replace with God or gods. We know why it rains we know what causes thunder, we know the origin of all species. We know how the cosmos came into place. Everything has a natural explanation even if we don't know it. Where do we need to invoke a god?

      • a year ago

        @jdh03 I studied Christianity in the Bible for 18 years. Your assumption that I didn't take the time to try as laughable.

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward Once again you say you are sure about things about me and you don't even know me so please stop trying to be sure about things about me, thanks. And my fantasy relationship is anything but a fantasy but believe what you would like. Here you go again considering "my relationship", once again you are wrong. To me the universe is chaotic. I am at peace with myself, life, daeth, everything because I know God is right there with me. It is an organized chaos and if you can't understand that than so be it. I already told you I have studied and researched other religions. Maybe you should pay attention. Yes over time we have become more knowledgeable about biology and what not. We still don't know everything now do we? The answer is no. So science is offering solutions to replace God. First off, if God isn't real, there should only be one truth (or solution) that is the answer. Not multiple theories obviously. So because we have learned things over time we do not need to believe in God now? That's just ignorant. And no we do not know the origin of all species. There are new species being found in the past year and presently so you are wrong there. We, you, I, the scientists cannot fully explain the cosmos and everything about it. That is why they keep doing research on it like I have told you to do so about this. Yes everything does have a natural explanation even if we don't know it. Even if science doesn't know it. God is more than just answering questions. Get to know him.

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward Yes I read from 8-26 years of age. You must of been really studying the Bible day and night as an 8 year old right? I never assumed that you haven't done research. For the millionth time I have been urging you to keep researching. But if you can't even understand that than I don't know what to tell you any longer.

      • a year ago

        @jdh03 yeah I studied the character Yahweh, I find him to be a moral monster. What kind of deity create something flawed and then punishes it for being flawed? That and Yahweh is jealous, and demands to be worshipped by that creation. I heard the god of the gaps argument before, just because we don't know something we cannot assume God it's ridiculous. Even if we did God is just an ever-shrinking deity in a space of what we don't yet know.

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward I don't know what material you studied but it sounds like you studied the wrong stuff. I'm not even going to answer the rest of your comment here. Just keep studying.

      • a year ago

        @the_peoples_champ pppft the Bible doesn't even know what stars are. It also clams that light came before the sun.

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward the ignorance of your comments shine as bright as the sun.

        Have a nice night.

      • a year ago

        Just feel the anger against the God he says he doesn't believe in as it radiates out of @daniel_jongeward. He is made in God's image and knows it but doesn't want to profess it. Look at the way he posits moral outrage like any of that stuff matters. It only matters if his worldview is false.

      • a year ago

        @rhology I'm not angery, maybe a little frustrated cause I am trying for you to see your own hypocritic statements. Heck even in your last statement is full of inaccuracies. I'm trying to get you more on the evidence-based thinking, but you're just spouting off nonsense like false world views. There is no such thing as a false world view, cause it's up to the individual prespective. I don't think you have a false worldview. I believe you absolutely believe what you believe. I just believe what you believe is false. It's like a cancer infecting your mind. And like people with cancer you can't help it, unless you try to open your mind think objectively about what you're saying and what you believe. But so far I see no evidence of that. last question is what sort of evidence would it take to change your mind?

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward I definitely don't see any hypocritical statements on my part. May I ask which ones you refer to?


        \\There is no such thing as a false world view, cause it's up to the individual prespective.\\

        Is the truth of that statement itself "up to the individual perspective"? Maybe you're using the terms differently.


        \\so far I see no evidence of that\\

        Might be fun to debate "If atheism is true, there is such a thing as evidence". You affirm; I'll deny.


        \\last question is what sort of evidence would it take to change your mind?\\

        First I would need evidence that evidence can exist in an atheistic universe. Atheism is so laughably and obviously false, and everything is evidence for Jesus' existence and lordship. It is literally impossible that anything be evidence that Jesus is not Lord.

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward I'm glad you take everything so literally. Doing that you will see all the great wonders that life has to offer!

    • a year ago

      ABORTION IS MURDER!!!

      • a year ago

        A product of it's time. I guess we should all go murder people now since it's a different time.

        • a year ago

          OK this guy just lost all credibility right there.

          • a year ago

            We are and everything is truly just one energy. So if you kill someone or something, including animals, plants, everything you are killing a part of yourself. Live in peace and love and we can have a better world. But not until then.

            • a year ago

              @jdh03 so if an animal hunts and kills to feed itself its killing itself to feed itself? I get that all earth life is related but this is ridiculous. also by the same moral standards then abortion is no different than picking a leaf or stepping on an ant, cause its just you living in the world doing what you like. If its all you, then you get to choose what to do with you still.

            • a year ago

              @daniel_jongeward Yes. Fortunately humans are more superior than animals and we can understand life and things about life much more differently than the animals. Look into Quantum Physics and Quantum Mechanics, once you break down the building blocks of life you should be able to start to understand what I understand. And yes picking a leaf or mowing the grass is killing the energy that we all are. It is all you but all you is everyone else therefor it is not all you. You have to understand that we are spiritual beings experiencing a physical reality and not a physical being experiencing a spiritual reality.

            • a year ago

              @jdh03 I think you're experiencing some bad confirmation bias right there.

            • a year ago

              @daniel_jongeward Think what you want. That's fine. Just keep on learning.

          • a year ago

            So humans and chickens are the same now!

            • a year ago

              @jdh03 Well, yes, according to you:

              'We are and everything is truly just one energy. So if you kill someone or something, including animals, plants, everything you are killing a part of yourself.'

            • a year ago

              @jdh03 He's got you there, man. I recommend you move to a biblical worldview.

            • a year ago

              @chasuk I stand by what I said. We are all one. So yes you kill a chicken you kill part of the energy that everything is. I know it is hard to tell sarcasm through plain text but I was joking with the first response here.

            • a year ago

              @rhology yeah murder children with bears if they insult you just like in the Bible!

            • a year ago

              @daniel_jongeward You shouldn't take every part of the Bible so literally. I urge you to keep on studying and you will come upon the truth. And you should look at the context of the situation. Do some research on that particular verse and I am sure you will learn something.

            • a year ago

              @jdh03 I am pretty content with the amount I have studied. I have studied the Bible since the age of eight till about the age of 26 when I came to the conclusion it's pretty much bullshit.

            • a year ago

              @daniel_jongeward See that is the problem. You have become content. You should always strive and try to learn everyday. Not be complacent. But to each their own.

            • a year ago

              @jdh03 once you learn something is false why go in and study more of it? I can understand if you're a fan of it and once in awhile you know memorize every single little detail like a nerd. If I happen to learn more about the Bible I guess that's okay, but I feel I wasted enough time on it, and see no evidence of why I should waste more time on it. But if you feel that you have some evidence of to why I should study it more feel free to bring It Forward. But I doubt you do.

            • a year ago

              @daniel_jongeward Other religions that I don't believe to be truth do have beautiful teachings in them that I admire and agree with also. Feel how you want. One day you will know the truth. Everyone will. I don't want to convert you or change your mind. I want you to keep learning and either further your beliefs in what you currently believe or change them if you start to believe differently. God Bless You.

            • a year ago

              @jdh03 I find it funny what you implied there. Ironically none of us will know the truth when we die. Cuz our knowing muscle is the brain, and when our brain is dead so goes our ability to know any sort of Truth.

            • a year ago

              @daniel_jongeward As I said earlier we are a spiritual being living in a physical reality, not a physical being living in a spiritual reality. Once again look into Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Physics to start to understand the basic building blocks of life and everything that we and everything else consists of. Our brain is a physical part of our body. There is a lot to the brain. I'm sure you have heard of the pineal gland, things about it and what it can and does do correct? If not, research that. Keep digging as I do. Knowledge is power and we should never stop striving to learn.

            • a year ago

              Just a guess but you're using quantum mechanics and quantum physics, which seems to be something you don't understand to justify God?

            • a year ago

              @daniel_jongeward A guess is an assumption. But to answer your assumption the answer is no. I believed in God way before I knew anything about Quantum Physics/Mechanics. Once I started to learn and research about it though it just further reassured me that my beliefs are right and makes sense from the point of view of Quantum and well as Spiritual. Now do I know everything about Quantum Mechanics/Physics? Of course not. The more you learn about it the more interesting and complex it becomes. Just like the Bible. But you should never give up learning and researching about things you believe in and things that you don't believe in.

            • a year ago

              @jdh03 of course you did. You have to start at an answer to make something fit your answer. It's called confirmation bias.

          • a year ago

            "Every woman in the bible who is pregnant is said to be “with child”. For example, Genesis 16:11 - And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction."

            http://ahanorthidaho.com/AbolitionArticles_01252015.html

            • a year ago

              So now babies are weeds? Come on now.

              • a year ago

                Flowers are not people!

              • a year ago

                That is what he said, he is ok with chopping up babies.

                • a year ago

                  No Evidence? Look all around you!

                  • a year ago

                    @jdh03 is there anything particular you want me to look at?

                  • a year ago

                    @daniel_jongeward Have you ever seen a miracle? Something that cannot be explained by the laws of physics? I have. Not that it matters but I'll tell you one. I was in a rollover accident 10 years ago in a delivery van. I rolled it a few times. When I came to I woke up in the back of the ambulance. The top half of the van was totally smashed and crunched into the bottom half of the van. I had 1 small cut about 1/4 inch on my head. THAT WAS IT!!! I was not hurt one bit. I saw the van. I should of been hurt. By the GRACE OF GOD I WAS SAVED! I have seen other miracles also. I know you have. Maybe you just have not recognized them.

                  • a year ago

                    @jdh03 surviving an automobile accident is a miracle? I'm sorry but I don't consider that miraculous at all. But I can see how you might think that, heck I bet after that ordeal a bunch of dopamine was rushing to your brain making you feel special. But your accident can be explained by the laws of physics. And your survivability has less to do with God, and more to do with your cars makers manufacturers, which design your vehicle to be more survivable in that situation. Maybe you should give thanks to the men and women who designed your vehicle, and not your Supernatural best friend.

                  • a year ago

                    @daniel_jongeward Having the top half of the van being smashed down and crunched and me not being injured is a miracle. You weren't there and I was so I have a better understanding of the situation than you do. There have been other miracles in my life as well. That's just one. Here you go betting on things that you have no idea about again. Yes they try to make vehicles safe. Too bad the airbag didn't go off. Believe what you want, I know what I know.

                  • a year ago

                    @jdh03 first of all, I have no reason to believe this story is true to begin with, as it's been my experience that Christians definitely like to invent Tall Tales if it helps confirm their bias. Second your argument that this is a miracle is a good example of argument from the state of ignorance. You don't know how you survived there for God. It's an assumption your survival had no way of occurring without Supernatural help. Also you will assume the type of Supernatural help it must have been. Have you considered it might of been aliens, ghosts, thor or Odin, any of the 5000 other gods humans have invented? Maybe it was fairies. Maybe it was witches or Satan. I'm assuming you think all of those are ridiculous. So we mostly agree. I just choose to believe there must have been a natural explanation. And you assume it was specifically your God. To me that's just as ridiculous as saying fairies saved you.

                  • a year ago

                    @daniel_jongeward You are right. You don't know me. A lot of people, including Christians, do lie and sin. I am only myself whom you don't know. All I can say is I am not lying. I have not been trying to convert you. I have only been telling you things about me and to continue to research for yourself. If I was lying I don't believe I would be telling you to do research. I believe I would be saying "Please believe me because if you don't you will go to Hell or something drastic like that. Just curious did you ever truly believe in your heart in God, Jesus Christ, The Holy Spirit, that Jesus was crucified on the cross for your sins and all that?
                    Why would an alien, ghost, Thor, Odin, fairies, witches of Satan, or any other "false god" intervene and save my life? I can answer why God would but why would any of those others do that? And no I don't think all of those are ridiculous. Stop assuming once again.

                  • a year ago

                    @jdh03 oh sheesh you just used an argument from the state of ignorance on why would other Supernatural creatures want to save your life. Um... same reason, they love you, and you are special.

                  • a year ago

                    @jdh03 okay I'll stop assuming you are a rational human with a grip on reality I'm sorry.

                  • a year ago

                    @daniel_jongeward But you see the difference to me is that I have seen and spoke with God. Not just once either. I have never seen an alien, a ghost, the others or so on. Since I have read, prayed, studied, researched the Bible and so on I, well somewhat know (at least believe why) God would save me but not the others. How would I be loved and be special to an alien, ghost or so on? I'm asking with real genuine authenticity here. I would like to know more. So please answer that question and I would greatly appreciate it.

                  • a year ago

                    @daniel_jongeward You should never assume anything. Assuming makes ignorant people look ignorant. Knowledge is power. And reality? Please enlighten me on what reality is? I would like to hear your perception on it. And why are you sorry for something that you had no control or effect over? I'm not sorry for your ignorance. You should be sorry for it. But don't be sorry for something about me. That is just stupid.

                  • a year ago

                    @jdh03 unfortunately human senses are very easily prone to being tricked. So even if I assumed you were telling the truth and we're just full of shit. You could also be seeing or hearing things. So I advise you the next time you think you hear God or see God please seek medical attention immediately. To answer your question it is just as, outrageous to say you are loved and rescued by a ghost or alien as it is to say you were rescued by your God. Just because your delusion is a more popular one does not mean it's correct.

                • a year ago

                  Your translation is wrong my friend.

                • a year ago

                  It sounds like the proabort is actually justifying God with the gardener analogy. Everything depends on God, who gives life and breath to everything. So, he has every right to command His people to kill justifiably. He will command the Angels to bind the chaff into bundles to burn them.

                • a year ago

                  Yeah because God commanded women everywhere to have abortions! YOU GET AN ABORTION AND YOU GET ABORTION, ABORTIONS FOR EVERYONE!!!

                • a year ago

                  It's called adoption.

                  • a year ago

                    @jdh03 didn't say adoption wasn't a choice, but that's a choice for the mother to make.

                  • a year ago

                    @daniel_jongeward Shouldn't it be the choice of the mother to decide to get pregnant or not? Maybe make the dude throw on a condom. If not you should live with the choice you made then. Not make another choice to kill the baby that is inside of you.

                  • a year ago

                    @jdh03 I think we can all agree accidents happen, heck now men stealthily remove their condoms without the woman's consent, I think they have a word for it but I forget what it is.

                  • a year ago

                    @daniel_jongeward I'd call that rape since the women doesn't know that the man may impregnate her without her knowing. Or at least sexual abuse or something.

                  • a year ago

                    @jdh03 When the "dude" starts having responsibilities similar to the mother then maybe we will start approaching abortions in a more honest and realistic way..

                  • a year ago

                    @gigi Now I know marriage isn't perfect and a lot end up in divorce but I think this is why in the Bible it says to go find your mate, be fruitful and multiply. It's talking about a mate that you are supposed to be with forever. If more people were abstinent until marriage and stayed married til death there would be way less abortion than there is today.

                  • a year ago

                    @jdh03
                    Oh absolutely, we all wish that our lives were fairy tales and that we meet our other half when we are teenagers, marry, have family and live happily ever after. Unfortunately life is usually not that perfect so not having sex until marriage doesn't mean a happy life, your other half is not always the right person and staying in unhappy marriages till death (abusive, cheating etc) can be harmful.
                    So, I was referring more in these realistic scenarios and I'm hoping that at some point the abortion discussion will start focusing on the rights and responsibilities of all parties i.e. fetus, mother, father and not just fetus rights and mother's responsibilities.

                  • a year ago

                    @gigi I don't wish my life was a fairy tale because that's what it is, a tale. Not reality. We manifest our own destiny so if we want to live our lives a certain way we ca do so. it just takes a strong will-power and dedication. Your other half is not always the right person, in most cases it is not in today's day and age, that is why people should really get to know one another before becoming married and making that commitment. And yes some people change over time but if they change, they can always change back to who they were once before.
                    I also hope that all responsibilities and rights fall on all parties but first and foremost I believe the fetus should have more rights on it's life than the so-called "parents"

                  • a year ago

                    @jdh03 I agree. Any sort of sexual activity without consent can be considered either sexual assault or rape.

                  • a year ago

                    @daniel_jongeward There we go! We agree on something! Also I don't think Americans should glorify the military. I think you debated that also correct?

                • a year ago

                  There is no what?

                  • a year ago

                    I think you won

                    • a year ago

                      @daniel_jongeward Thank you, sir. I enjoyed the event. Blessings to you and your family.

                      • a year ago

                        @rhology likewise, will both have to practice talking in 3 minutes won't we. I know we couldn't cover everything, but I am available to answer any questions you may have.

                      • a year ago

                        @rhology Just checked my bible cause I noticed an inconsistency Numbers 21-22-25 says " 22. And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman’s husband makes demands of him, and he shall give restitution according to the judges’ orders. 23. But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life, 24. an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot. 25. a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise." but in context its worth noticing this is under the "how you should treat slaves" chapter in numbers

                      • a year ago

                        @daniel_jongeward I'm sure you mean Exodus 21.

                        Note that numerous chapters deal with various topics. Trying to woodenly structure the book of Numbers (or Exodus) like that leads to absurdities of interpretation.

                        Probably best that you simply concede - if there is life lost, the magistrates are to take life for life. This passage condemns abortion as a capital crime, murder.

                      • a year ago

                        @rhology you are correct, it's Exodus. I wrote numbers by mistake. What version are you reading from? I swear people have changed the Bible more than George Lucas changed starwars...

                      • a year ago

                        @daniel_jongeward The heck? What does creating a new translation have to do with "changing the Bible"? That may literally be the second most ignorant thing you have said to me in our (admittedly short) interaction (the most ignorant by far having been that the unborn child isn't alive).

                        As for translations, I usually read the NASB, the Louis Segond, the ESV, the Reina Valera 1995, the NKJV, and the HCSB. Mostly in that order of frequency.

                      • a year ago

                        @rhology it's really hard for me to believe you who have studied the Bible cannot see the changes were made through each iteration of it. At this point I would call it willful ignorance.

                    • a year ago

                      Wow swimming in some delusional soup here

                      • a year ago

                        Debates like this one are a waste of time, as is any debate where their is no possibility of either party convincing the other to change their mind.

                        This wasn't a debate at all, but rather an opportunity for one of the interlocutors to fulfill the Great Commission disguised as debate.

                        • a year ago

                          @chasuk wait! there are debates where people change their mind? where!?

                        • a year ago

                          @daniel_jongeward Speaking personally, I change my mind after debate all of the time. If the possibility doesn't exist, then no debate has actually occurred - just two dudes lecturing.

                        • a year ago

                          @chasuk I at one point did the same. I used to be a conservative christian who thought abortion was wrong, but I learned I didn't have the whole picture or enough evidence so I changed my mind, and here we are. :)

                        • a year ago

                          By the way, I want to make clear that I don't think that either interlocutor needs to change sides in order for the debate to be legitimate. However, the possibility does need to exist, and your opponent made it clear in his initial declaration that his mind was made up irrevocably.

                        • a year ago

                          @chasuk I'd like to think everyone can change their mind, if its open, I am still waiting on evidence of a god, that would be extraordinary.

                        • a year ago

                          @daniel_jongeward I would love to believe in the existence of God, although, sadly, few Christians believe this.

                          I do believe there is evidence, just of insufficient weight to constitute proof.

                        • a year ago

                          @chasuk \\an opportunity for one of the interlocutors to fulfill the Great Commission disguised as debate\\

                          You say that like it's a bad thing. :-)

                          But the fact remains that Daniel didn't give us anything beyond some twisted Bible and his own moral opinions to overturn the commands of God.

                        • a year ago

                          @chasuk Literally everything that exists is evidence of God, which the unbeliever denies because he is suppressing the truth in wickedness.

                          As for debates about God's existence, there are hundreds, and I've watched/listened to hundreds personally. In well over 95% of them, the atheist loses badly. But I see no need to rehash those debates, which have been done a million times already, the atheists have lost (badly); now let's deal with other topics.

                        • a year ago

                          @rhology I'm an unbeliever, and yet I have no problem accepting that 'everything that exists' can reasonably be interpreted as evidence of God.

                        • a year ago

                          @chasuk Why don't you follow Jesus?

                        • a year ago

                          @rhology It is a bad thing, in a debate.

                          I'm not opposed to proselytizing, but there is the right time/right place for everything, and the preamble of a debate is neither the right time nor the right place. Not because proselytization is bad in any way, but because it is actually counterproductive in the wrong contexts.

                          Credentials: I was an effective witness for many years.

                        • a year ago

                          @chasuk I barely proselytized. My case was a presuppositional one.

                        • a year ago

                          @rhology The answer is much too long to fit into a comment box on QallOut.

                        • a year ago

                          @rhology If your case was a presuppositional one, what was the point of debating? I mean, presups literally can't debate secular folks, considering that they consider Christian faith to be the only basis for rational thought.

                          Irreconcilable paradigms makes authentic debate impossible.

                          If you tell me any differently, you will be the first presup I've ever met who felt that way.

                        • a year ago

                          @chasuk Same reason I do anything - to glorify Jesus Christ in all things. :-) As an added bonus I get to proclaim the Gospel and to shut the mouth of the foolish unbeliever by pointing out his foolishness.

                          \\Irreconcilable paradigms makes authentic debate impossible.\\

                          I totally disagree. I aim to expose the groundless, foolish paradigm for what it is - foolish and groundless.

                        • a year ago

                          @rhology If both parties don't have equal opportunity to change the mind of their opponent, no debate has occurred. You might succeeded in your mission, but you haven't engaged in debate. Ergo, neither of you have.

                        • a year ago

                          @rhology just remember Colossians 4:6.

                        • a year ago

                          @rhology it was not on me to give anything, burden of proof is on you, I was just responding to your claims. Well it's a good thing we live in a country that's not run by religious dogma. Our current laws are not perfect but a much better improvement to the Bible. I just quoted Bible verses for what they are, they funny thing is anyone can say I'm twisting then and taking them out of context. I can say the same about you. You twist the Bible to justify your personal beliefs even more. But you are too close minded to see it.

                        • a year ago

                          @chasuk sometimes you have a mass-debate and it's only purpose is to make yourself feel good.

                        • a year ago

                          @daniel_jongeward
                          \\You twist the Bible to justify your personal beliefs even more\\

                          I suppose you can assert such things, but we saw no evidence of it in the debate. It was actually you who twisted the Bible.

                      • a year ago

                        Why does everyone who debates this topic skirt around the actual issue?

                        If there is a child in the Mother's womb, then killing that child would be murder, and abortion is wrong/sin.

                        If there is not a child in the Mother's womb, then terminating a pregnancy is a personal medical decision by the woman of how she can deal with her own body.

                        So the logical conclusion would be, each of you need to prove if there is a child or not. If yes, Pro wins, because abortion = murder and thus, sin. If no, Con wins, because abortion is not always and everywhere sin.

                        Quite frankly, you both wasted 40 minutes because you ignored the central issue (when life begins) to focus on completely meaningless interpretations of bible verses which had no hope of actually answering the topic.

                        • a year ago

                          @debateme13 I think that's a fair critique. I am here to improve my debate game, so I appreciate it.

                        • a year ago

                          @debateme13 \\If there is a child in the Mother's womb, then killing that child would be murder, and abortion is wrong/sin.\\

                          Not if atheism/humanism is true. Nothing is wrong or sin if the universe is atheistic.


                          \\So the logical conclusion would be, each of you need to prove if there is a child or not.\\

                          I don't actually need to prove such a thing. It's beyond controversy.


                          \\you ignored the central issue\\

                          I guess we disagree on what the central issue is. Maybe you and I should debate that topic. :-)

                        • a year ago

                          @rhology well we could get into philosophy and how even human flourishing being good is an assumption on our own bias, because we are humans.

                        • a year ago

                          @rhology

                          1. Atheists have morals too lol. It's rather biased of you to assume that only Christian's can say something is wrong, when logic and philosophy can say that same thing.

                          2. Uh, you absolutely do need to prove that. What's beyond controversy?

                          3. Ok, yeah let's debate this. "When Life Begins is the Central Issue to the Abortion Debate."

                          https://www.qallout.com/debate/3905-when-life-begins-is-the-central-issue-to-the-abortion-debate/record

                        • a year ago

                          @daniel_jongeward
                          \\we could get into philosophy and how even human flourishing being good is an assumption on our own bias\\

                          Exactly. Your moral choices are entirely arbitrary, which means those of anyone are arbitrary. Which means that you have no grounds on which to condemn rape, necrophilia, carpet bombing civilian populations, racism, etc.

                        • a year ago

                          @debateme13 \\Atheists have morals too lol\\

                          That's a disappointingly shallow thing to say. Nobody is questioning whether they have morals. The problem is that if atheism is true, any and all moral choices are entirely arbitrary, with no way to know which one is correct.


                          \\What's beyond controversy?\\

                          That the offspring produced by mammalian sexual reproduction is a member of the same species from conception.

                      • a year ago

                        Scratch what I said earlier - its even easier to rebut this argument.

                        The nature of sin requires that someone be capable of making a choice. Removing someone's ability to choose does not remove their ability to sin. Restricting choice could arguably be considered a sin in and of itself.

                        • a year ago

                          @tomokun interesting observation!

                        • a year ago

                          @tomokun So criminalising rape is wrong. Got it.

                        • a year ago

                          @rhology how do you get that from what I said? Rape is the ultimate example of restricting someone's choice as it is a tyrannical action which violates a person's bodily autonomy.

                          Rape, in this example, would BE the sin. Rapists have chosen to sin, and are thus subjected to the consequences of their actions. Actions which restrict the rights of another.

                        • a year ago

                          @tomokun
                          \\Rape is the ultimate example of restricting someone's choice as it is a tyrannical action which violates a person's bodily autonomy. \\

                          Actually you just described abortion.

                        • a year ago

                          Removing someone's ability to choose to rape does not remove their ability to sin. Restricting choice to rape could arguably be considered a sin in and of itself.

                        • a year ago

                          @rhology error 404 file corrupt do to paradox. A fetus literally doesn't have the capacity to choose. No one asks to be born.

                        • a year ago

                          @rhology Incorrect. Abortion is about bodily autonomy. If you were to go up to an infant, shoot it in both of it's kidneys, there is no legal authority which could or would force you to donate just one of your kidneys so that infant could survive.

                          Abortion is literally just giving the same rights to their womb as a murderer or a corpse has to their kidneys.

                        • a year ago

                          @rhology So, you're assuming that ALL choice is fine, but as the saying goes, your rights end where my toe begins. So you don't have the right to harm others. You essentially have negative rights - so long as your right requires nobody else to take any other actions then it's fine. Positive rights on the other hand, are not defacto rights you have. Murder and rape as you describe them are positive rights.

                          Abortion is a negative right by my argument, and restricting abortion on behalf of the fetus would be the expression of that fetus's POSITIVE rights. The woman's negative rights trump the fetus's positive ones (if indeed it has any rights at all considering it is not a human being).

                        • a year ago

                          @rhology his argument is correct, IF the child is not human, and is merely part of the woman's body. That's why the central issue to the abortion debate is and must be the question of when life begins.

                        • a year ago

                          @debateme13 actually I'd go so far as to say even if the child is human and NOT a part of the woman's body. For example, if a mother went up to her infant and stabbed it in both of its kidneys, can she be legally compelled to donate one of her kidney's to save the infant's life?

                          That's why the central issue is about bodily autonomy, because even under arguably the worst case scenario when it comes to abortion, if it is restricted in any way, murderers and corpses have more rights to their bodily autonomy than women.

                        • a year ago

                          @tomokun no that's taking an accurate premise to an inaccurate conclusion. You're right that bodily autonomy is central here, but if the child is human, then the child has bodily autonomy as well. The first and foremost position of autonomy is the right to be alive. If the child is human, then killing that child is inherently opposed to the concept of bodily autonomy.

                        • a year ago

                          @debateme13 If the child is alive, and for argument's sake let's cede that entire point at this time, then it's the equivalent of an infant.

                          Abortion, as a procedure, does not require "taking the life" of the fetus. It simply requires its removal from the womb. If the fetus cannot survive outside of the womb, that is the equivalent of pulling someone off of life support. It isn't murder, because they were "already dead" because they could not breathe on their own.

                          Being able to breathe on your own is the requirement for something to be considered "alive".

                          So, again, conferring all the rights of bodily autonomy onto two people, is there a scenario where person A can stab person B in the kidneys that results in the State FORCING person A to donate kidneys to person B in order to prevent their death?

                          Again, in that example we are talking about a situation where someone is clearly violating someone's bodily autonomy, and the life of the victim is put in jeopardy as a result. If the state cannot mandate that the victimizer give up their bodily autonomy to save that life, why should they be able to do so just because that life originates inside of the person in the first place?

                        • a year ago

                          @tomokun That's a clearly inaccurate position.

                          1. Why on earth is "breathing" the standard to be alive? If someone can't breathe without a machine to help their lungs, or if they require an inhaler, are they not human? Are people with asthma less human because they have less breath? That makes no sense. Most humans can breathe on their own, but there's no logical or philosophical position that breathing is part of the standard of being human.

                          2. Location has no impact on whether or not you are alive. I am human now, and I will be human even if I'm in sub-Saharan Africa. I will be human if I'm in space. I will be human if I am underground. My location has no impact on my humanity. An infant on the first day of it's life is exactly the same being it was 24 hours ago when it was in the womb. The only thing that has changed is it's location.

                          3. Being able to survive on your own has no impact on whether or not you are alive. According to your argument, infants are not alive. They cannot survive on their own. They need food, they need clothes. They'll die in their own shit if they aren't cared for. That doesn't mean an infant is dead. It just means the infant needs assistance. The same is true for the elderly. They can't feed or clothe themselves. They'll die in squalor without care. Does that mean they're dead? Absolutely not. Requiring assistance does not change your humanity.

                          4. If we remove someone from a location where they can live, and put them in a location where they will die, then we have killed them. As previously mentioned, they were human in the first location, and they were human in the second location. The only thing that has changed is their ability to survive, which has been compromised by the act of putting them into a location where they will die.

                          For instance, a Nazi throwing a Jew into a gas shower has killed them. If you put a person with a peanut allergy in a nut packing facility, you've likely killed them. If you send an astronaut out into space without a suit to breathe in, you have killed them. They were human before they went out to space, they were human while they were in space, the only thing that has happened is we put them in a location where they would die.

                          If we assume (like you were saying for the purpose of argument) that a fetus is human, then it is human in the womb, and it is human outside of the womb. All that has happened is we took the human from a place where it could live, and sent it to it's death.

                          5. Abortion kills anyway. You're acting like abortion is just taking a fetus and putting it outside the womb. That's not actually the case. Surgical abortion uses a vaccuum to yank a fetus from the womb, which then rips it's undeveloped body apart, often yanking off it's arms and legs, and then killing them. That is an inherently violent, and direct act of aggression.

                          Even if you were right that abortion is a nice little procedure where we go "ok child we're taking you out of the womb and putting you out in the world now" that would still be killing the child, but we don't even need to ask that, because abortion doesn't work that way. It is a violent procedure that actively kills the fetus. If that fetus is human, then abortion has killed a human being.

                          Overall, this isn't even that complex of an issue. If the fetus is human, and we agree that killing humans is wrong, we've already agreed that killing the child is wrong. If the fetus is not human, then it is part of the Mother's body, and thus her personal autonomy is at stake, thus abortion is acceptable. The central question is whether or not the child is human.

                        • a year ago

                          @debateme13

                          1. Why on earth is "breathing" the standard to be alive? If someone can't breathe without a machine to help their lungs, or if they require an inhaler, are they not human? Are people with asthma less human because they have less breath? That makes no sense. Most humans can breathe on their own, but there's no logical or philosophical position that breathing is part of the standard of being human.

                          ---As you framed it, I agree, but fortunately, your framing is not accurate to the actual medical and legal position.

                          https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=33438

                          "The permanent cessation of all vital bodily functions. (This definition depends upon the definition of "vital bodily functions.") See: Vital bodily functions. 3. The common law standard for determining death is the cessation of all vital functions, traditionally demonstrated by "an absence of spontaneous respiratory and cardiac functions." 4. The uniform determination of death. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1980 formulated the Uniform Determination of Death Act. It states that: "An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards." This definition was approved by the American Medical Association in 1980 and by the American Bar Association in 1981."

                          So no - an inhaler is not the absence of spontaneous respiratory functions (AKA "breathing on your own"). Neither is needing an iron lung, etc. I'll take it on the chin for not quoting this more specifically, but I figured the short-hand was good enough until it wasn't.

                          2. Location has no impact on whether or not you are alive. I am human now, and I will be human even if I'm in sub-Saharan Africa. I will be human if I'm in space. I will be human if I am underground. My location has no impact on my humanity. An infant on the first day of it's life is exactly the same being it was 24 hours ago when it was in the womb. The only thing that has changed is it's location.

                          --- I never implied that location has an impact on humanity. I was pointing out that the location is someone else's property, and so the fetus has no right to someone else's property.

                          3. Being able to survive on your own has no impact on whether or not you are alive. According to your argument, infants are not alive. They cannot survive on their own. They need food, they need clothes. They'll die in their own shit if they aren't cared for. That doesn't mean an infant is dead. It just means the infant needs assistance. The same is true for the elderly. They can't feed or clothe themselves. They'll die in squalor without care. Does that mean they're dead? Absolutely not. Requiring assistance does not change your humanity.

                          --- This is a straw man of my position. Being able to survive off of life support is a critical point, because a woman's womb is only 1 form of life support available. If a fetus can in fact be considered "alive", then it must be able to meet the legal and medical definitions. If it is "not viable" outside of the womb, then it is not alive by that definition.

                          But more importantly, if a fetus can survive "with assistance", who is obligated to provide that assistance? Certainly, the government can't force you to provide a homeless person room and board. If a woman is choosing to abort for immoral reasons, immorally taking away the rights to their body doesn't make the situation better. Two wrongs don't make a right, and that's ASSUMING that the woman isn't making a decision to protect her OWN life by aborting something which can arguably be considered the biological equivalent of a tumor.

                          4. If we remove someone from a location where they can live, and put them in a location where they will die, then we have killed them. As previously mentioned, they were human in the first location, and they were human in the second location. The only thing that has changed is their ability to survive, which has been compromised by the act of putting them into a location where they will die.

                          --- So a landlord whom evicts a tenant who can't pay in the middle of winter is responsible if that person freezes to death? Is Burger King responsible for me eating too much of their food and getting diabetes? Are bars responsible for the actions of the drunk drivers that leave their establishments because its "closing time"?

                          If someone is in my house during violent riots and I force them to leave my house, have I murdered them by denying them access to my property?

                          Conversely, if a fetus that is brought to term by a woman who wanted to abort, and the woman dies because she wasn't legally allowed to abort that fetus... then doesn't the State responsible for the death of the mother and guilty of murder?

                          (ran out of room)

                        • a year ago

                          @tomokun

                          Perhaps we should debate this. "Even if a fetus is human, abortion should still be unrestricted." Wanna challenge me?

                        • a year ago

                          For instance, a Nazi throwing a Jew into a gas shower has killed them. If you put a person with a peanut allergy in a nut packing facility, you've likely killed them. If you send an astronaut out into space without a suit to breathe in, you have killed them. They were human before they went out to space, they were human while they were in space, the only thing that has happened is we put them in a location where they would die.

                          If we assume (like you were saying for the purpose of argument) that a fetus is human, then it is human in the womb, and it is human outside of the womb. All that has happened is we took the human from a place where it could live, and sent it to it's death.


                          ---This is a gross oversimplification that ignores the most salient points.

                          Mainly because you are ignoring the difference between positive rights and negative rights.

                          I'm not going to explain the difference, you can watch this video and get an excellent primer if you need it: http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/positive-rights-vs-negative-rights/

                          Essentially, your examples conflate the negative rights of the mother with the positive rights of the fetus.

                          When the Nazi's murdered the jews by putting them in gas chambers disguised as showers, they were intending to kill them, thus violating the negative rights of the Jews to live and exercising the Nazi Positive rights to take their property/murder them.

                          If an astronaut CHOOSES to go into space without a suit, that is their right to choose what to do with their property. If you make that choice for them, you have violated their right negative right to their property. IF, as the owner of NASA, you change your mind and say they must leave the space shuttle immediately even if it means their death, you have violated an agreement that you had made with them to exchange usage of property (their time and body for use of your equipment and monetary compensation).

                          And a mother, who has no agreements with a fetus, chooses to evict the fetus from her womb according to the best available medical procedures is well within her rights to protect her body. She is not responsible for the medical procedures that deal with treatment of the fetus while it is in or after it has been removed from her body. The State could easily take responsibility for the Fetus and the abortion doctors would comply, removing the fetus from the womb and placing it into whatever life-support will sustain it. If it's possible for it to remain viable outside of the womb.

                          However, the fetus has no negative right to the woman's womb. It has a negative right to life, and the woman has a negative right to her body. Providing the fetus a POSITIVE right to the woman's body not only violates the woman's negative rights to her own body, it also puts her life unfairly at risk because the State cannot guarantee that in violating her rights to her body that she will A) survive or that B) the fetus will survive.

                          5. Even if you were right that abortion is a nice little procedure where we go "ok child we're taking you out of the womb and putting you out in the world now" that would still be killing the child, but we don't even need to ask that, because abortion doesn't work that way. It is a violent procedure that actively kills the fetus. If that fetus is human, then abortion has killed a human being.

                          ---I'm not acting like abortion is JUST taking a fetus and putting it outside the womb. It's not. It's a medical procedure.

                          However, it's also not murder any more than a doctor taking someone off of life support is murder.

                          The medical facts are that fetuses can't survive in the womb.

                          The legal facts are that no person has RIGHTS to another person's body for any reason.

                          If a fetus is a person, it has no rights to a body that's not its own, which is why the integrity of its "body" is not a priority during the procedure.

                          If a fetus is a person, it has legal guardians. If it has legal guardians, that is the mother. Parents are able to make medical decisions for their children, such as determining if they should be removed from life support.

                          Parents do not get to decide how a fetus is treated by medical professionals. Those are standards set by medical professionals.

                          So, if there is a problem with the medical standards for handling fetuses... that is not the woman's responsibility. That is not her decision. She should not be held responsible for the actions of others.

                          The only thing the mother is responsible for is deciding if she wants to allow the fetus to use her body.

                          If the problem is that the medical procedure "kills" the fetus, that should change nothing about the woman's ability to choose. I doubt that pregnant women would object to the fetus being removed and implanted in another woman, their concern is they want it out. Period. And that should be enough.

                          So again, even if the fetus is a human BEING, it still has no rights to her body. Treatment of the fetus can be handled without involving the woman.

                        • a year ago

                          @debateme13 Sure! Most of my argument is already listed, lol, but sounds like fun! :p

                        • a year ago

                          @debateme13 I would change that to "human being" though, as human and human being are different things, and the difference is important to my overall argument.

                        • a year ago

                          @tomokun That's fine, so "Even if a fetus is a human being, abortion should still be unrestricted." You'll have to make it though since you'd be pro on that. Just go to start debate, go through the steps, and then send me the link and I'll accept :).

                        • a year ago

                          @debateme13 @tomokun
                          You can also challenge directly a user by clicking at the "Challenge" under one of his comments or from the his profile :-)

                        • a year ago

                          @debateme13 WHAAAA! It's not letting me!

                        • a year ago

                          @tomokun next to my name click Challenge, then type the name of the debate and any keywords you'd want. Then click non-moderated, then click anyone on Qallout, and then copy the link it gives you and post it here :).

                        • a year ago

                          @debateme13 I DID IT! That time it worked! I'm bushwacked today, have a time etc for another day?

                        • a year ago

                          @tomokun Funny thing here. I'm about to debate @debateme13 on basically the same thing as this:

                          \\"Even if a fetus is a human being, abortion should still be unrestricted."\\

                          Except we both think abortion is bad. :-)
                          It'll be a debate between an agnostic pro-lifer (him) and a biblical abolitionist (me).

                        • a year ago

                          @rhology many facets to the debate! :P I'm an ignostic pro-choicer :p