-
+ New Debate
- Debate Clubs
- Debate News
- About
- Support Us More
frame
Best Fist Bump Content
-
just good old god
Talking of morality do you think you could please answer me this question: "Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God"
-
Do you stand with Planned Parenthood, in protecting Title X?
@ethang5You say ......It is still a woman's body in incest. You said you supported a woman deciding how to use her body.
My reply ......I said I supported a woman’s right to bodily autonomy bodily autonomy meansa person has control over whom or what uses their body, for what, and for how long.
Your rant about incest is a typically stupid red herring
You say .........First, the woman give her consent when she opened her legs, and the baby was invited in, it is not an invader.
My reply ......She gave permission which may be withdrawn at her will
You say .....The baby does not consent to be hacked to pieces.
My reply .....The fetus is still there by permission
You say ......No, that is just you spinning because you can't debate the point.
My reply ......No spin on my part , you don’t debate you rant
You say ........I will just have to accept that you're either too dishonest or too stupid to get my argument.
My reply .....But that’s typically you when you are trapped by your own stupidity, you claimed owning people as property was evil , the Bible clearly states slaves are your property .....ouch ......still no defence have you?
You say .......Yet here I am with you dodging the fact that I said the bible says the person's service is what is bought. You have even dodged my analogy of sport stars and athletes being property.
My reply ......Actually the Bible does not state that , the Bible states clearly In several different verses slaves are your property , you need to get a Bible mate
.......Leviticus 25:44-46 New International Version (NIV)
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
I never read your “sports star analogy”there only so much of your stupidity one can tolerate
You say ......Stupidly, you want us to pretend with you that the word "property" has only one meaning.
My reply .....Who is us? I never said that but neat little twist to aid your dishonesty , I said Slave had one meaning as in .....owning another as property.....lost again E T
You say .....No woman has a "right" to kill another person no matter what any court says. For example, blacks were still men even when the supreme court said they weren't.
My reply .....A fetus is now a person? But you agree with slavery if the Bible is doing it , make your mind up will you?
You say ......It is there because it was invited in. And 50% of the baby is the woman.
My reply .....The invite can be withdrawn. So what?
You say .....Even if we grant that, the baby retains the right to life, as does any person.
My reply ....It doesn’t , Abortion is legal
You say ......Then you have no problem with homosexuality being illegal in most places?
My reply .....That makes no sense
You say .......The question here is not about the legality, but abut the morality.
My reply .....I get it you don’t like the law if you disagree with it , I don’t agree with the right to carry a gun in the U S so your point is?
Regarding morality what makes you demanding a woman give birth without consent moral?
You say .....This absurdist argument that the baby needs continuous consent from the woman is an unwelcome invader is ...... absurd.
My reply .....Nonsense, your argument that women must give birth because you say so makes you a bully and a tyrant
You say .......If a woman doesn't want a baby, let her keep her legs closed. She had control of her body before the baby right?
My reply ......Spoken like a true Victorian misogynist
-
Do you stand with Planned Parenthood, in protecting Title X?
@ethang5>So, here's a challenge for you, if you can actually demonstrate that A) the right to life, infers B ) a right to use someone body without their consent...
You haven't demonstrated anything as I correctly presumed... You tried to argue about the Duty to rescue principle, but there is no federal level laws regarding that in the US, and a majority of states do not either...
Easy. I cannot morally or legally leave a person to drown if I find him shipwrecked in the ocean. I cannot abandon flying a plane with passengers because I change my mind. I cannot go and take back a kidney I donated to someone if taking it will result in their death. Your "continuous consent" is made up stupidity you give validity only in the case of women.
In an 1898 case, Buch v. Amory Mfg. Co., 69 N.H. 257, 44 A. 809, 1897 N.H. LEXIS 49 (N.H. 1898), the New Hampshire Supreme Court unanimously held that after an eight-year-old boy negligently placed his hand in the defendant's machinery, the boy had no right to be rescued by the defendant. Beyond that, the trespassing boy could be held liable for damages to the defendant's machine.In the 1907 case People v. Beardsley, Beardsley's mistress, Blanche Burns, passed out after overdosing on morphine. Rather than seek medical attention, Beardsley instead had a friend hide her in the basement, and Burns died a few hours later. Beardsley was tried and convicted of manslaughter for his negligence. However, his conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court of Michigan saying that Beardsley had no legal obligation to her.
Some states such as Minnesota, Vermont, and Rhode Island make it a misdemeanor offence if it is known that someone is in serious danger and someone can intervene safely or call 911 and they do not (Trinh, Li, 2015).
There are Good Samaritan laws though, but those protect the helper from liability resulting from the help provided... If someone is bleeding on the side of the road you can legally move on without doing anything, you'd be an asshole sure but in any state this would be an nonindictable offense... There are criminal laws addressing that elsewhere in the world, but not in the US...
You haven't even got close to addressing the problem: How to you go from A to B... From a right to life to a right to use someone body without consent... Still going to evade I guess...>What the fetus is (a person, a baby, a citizen, whatever) is irrelevant,
Comprehension problems I see, unsurprising but I'll try to explain it like to a 5 year old: It's irrelevant because I already granted the fetus a legal person status, with all the rights a full grown adult may have...
I disagree. A person has undeniable rights.
When a crime is committed, who or what the perpetrator is, is irrelevant in assessing the guilt or not.. Do you agree? Whether a murderer is white, black, jewish, Buddhist, tall, small, fat, republican or democrat, doesn't matter at all right? It's in this sense that what the fetus is, is irrelevant... The only thing that matters is what this person is doing or has done...A) I can grant you that the fetus is a person no problem, but it certainly isn't a citizen...
Funny, you used "person" this time instead of "citizen", changing your terminology during the course of an argument now? LOL
All persons within the borders of my country get their right to life protected.
A person and a citizen are not the same... A citizen is a born person, there is no unborn citizens by definition...the baby did not invade the mother's body. The baby was invited in.
The association between pregnancy and sexual intercourse is a mere construct born of our traditional ways of thinking about gender and reproduction. Note that the US Supreme Court has maintained the view that specifically, "a man’s impregnation of a woman causes her pregnant condition”... The man is currently the responsible party under the law, not the woman... But I challenge that view that either of the man or woman are responsible...
Whereas a man can cause a woman to engage in a sexual relationship with him, a man cannot cause a woman’s body to change from a nonpregnant to a pregnant condition; the only entity that can do that is a fertilized ovum when it implants itself in a woman’s uterus.
The action of the man in “Moving sperm into a woman’s body” during the act of intercourse, certainly represents one of the “factual sequential links” leading to pregnancy. But I maintain, however, that this action is not the legal, or most important, cause of a woman’s pregnant condition. It is merely a preceding factual cause that puts her at risk for becoming pregnant, like choosing to get out of bed in the morning is a factual sequential link to anything that may happen to you on any given day...
This is so because “pregnancy is a condition that follows absolutely from the presence of a fertilized ovum in a woman’s body.” Not a nanosecond before... This being the case, we can identify the fertilized ovum to be the factual cause of a woman’s pregnancy state. In the eyes of the law, too, therefore, the fertilized ovum should be the legal cause of a woman’s pregnancy. Not the man nor the woman...
Men and women who contribute to a situation in which it is foreseeable that a fertilized ovum might be conceived and make a woman pregnant against her will contribute no more to the woman’s harm than does a woman who walks down a street late at night contribute to her own rape ... Men and women who engage in sexual intercourse, therefore, cannot be held as contributing to the harm imposed on a woman by a fertilized ovum making her pregnant without consent.
Your "continuous consent" is made up stupidity you give validity only in the case of women
Absolutely not, this principle is valid for anyone at anytime, I don't make exceptions for woman, you do... By denying her a right that everyone else has, the right to bodily integrity/autonomy...Consider this analogy. You volunteer to give me a blood transfusion directly from your circulatory system, and change your mind mid transfusion. If you stop the transfusion, I die. Here are my questions.
1: Yes. I can rescind my consent at any time for any reason... Unless we actually did sign a formal legal contract, then I would be guilty of a breach of contract... I would agree that it would make me a despicable asshole for doing so but being a despicable asshole is not illegal anywhere...
1. Do I need your "continuous" consent?
2. Once we start, do you have a responsibility to continue due to my life being on the line?
3. Can you tell us another situation where your concept of continuous consent is viable AND where a life is in the balance?
2: See 1...
3: Sure, I verbally agree to give you a vital organ (any) that'll help you survive, the morning of the operation before we go in surgery I can rescind this consent for whatever reason, you will die and I'll have to live with it but it still would be legal, even if questionable, yes (See 1)... It might be difficult to rescind it during the surgery obviously, because I won't be conscious then but at this point it's purely rhetoric...
Now, you deflect and evade but have yet to directly make the connections between A ) The right to life, and B ) A right to use someone else body without consent...
I guess you'll play around the bush and will not directly address my question as usual?
-
Do you stand with Planned Parenthood, in protecting Title X?
@TKDB
I haven’t a clue what you’re attempting to say , I take it my advice on curtailing your alcohol consumption has fallen on deaf drunken ears yet again -
Should Youtube silence the right?
@Plaffelvohfen I was just making the point that you can't simply force yourself to change your beliefs (e.g. if you're right wing). Apologies for repeating myself and thanks for a thought provoking exchange.
-
Do you stand with Planned Parenthood, in protecting Title X?
@ethang5
You say .....he same people championing a woman's choice here, are against a woman's choice in prostitution, pornography, and incest, and if women begin to abort only female babies.
My reply .....When did you ask my opinion on these topics or are you gifted with psychic powers?
You say ......The issue here is there are two bodies, not one.
My reply .....No one has the right to use someone’s body without permission
You say .....The woman is welcome to her choices concerning her own body.
My reply .....Abortion is a right she is exercising her right
You say......
The baby's body is another thing.
My reply ......The implied rights of a fetus are of no concern to me regarding the matter in hand
You say .......Choosing to kill a fellow innocent citizen of mine is indeed my business.
My reply .....Don’t do it then. A fetus is not a “citizen”
You say .....I will stay out of your "bedroom", but when you start murdering people in your bedroom because you think that because they're in your bedroom, you're have a right to kill them, you will hear from me.
My reply .....That statement is merely a typical emotional outburst void of anything meaningful -
God does not exist. Prove me wrong.
You have effectively laid the burden of proof on yourself by making the affirmative claim it’s up to you to prove there is no god. The opposite is also true when a believer claims there is a god the burden lies squarely with him /her to prove the veracity of the statement -
Do you stand with Planned Parenthood, in protecting Title X?
A woman’s body a woman’s choice , maybe people should mind they’re own business regarding what choices women make regarding bodily autonomy -
Who would you save and why?
Many things will influence my decision, and any decision will be biased...
If I know and care about someone in group A, I would save group A regardless of the number/age/status of people in the other group...
If I don't know or care about anyone in both groups, I may very well flip a coin to be honest and I wouldn't lose sleep over it...
Sure I could arbitrarily save the group with the highest number of people, but why? Because 20 is better than 5? Because utilitarians would expected it of me? Meh....
-
Abosulte Morality does not work with Theism as well as Atheism
@ZeusAres42 My understanding of Sam Harris' conception of morality is that it's morally good to increase the well-being of consciousness entities. As I independently came to essentially the same conclusion I will explain my rationale of why this idea doesn't require a God.
Consciousness is the only thing with independent significance or meaning. Other things can only be significant or have meaning through interacting with consciousness. If there was no consciousness or the potential for future consciousness then everything may as well not exist because nothing would be of any significance. It would be like a video game without a player, the environments and NPCs might interact but unless a player experiences it (or down the line indirectly experiences the consequences of it) it may as well have not happened.
From this, we know that the only significant effect we can have is via effecting consciousnesses. Further, from our own experience we know that positive experience is preferable to negative experience (relative to the individual's preferences of course). Moreover, the only reason to do anything is because the action will have significant consequences. Therefore we can know (at least in terms of ultimate result) what we should try to achieve and what we should try to avoid. As such, we can come to the conclusion that we should take actions which ultimately reduce suffering and/or increases positive experience. This is because doing so has an effect that is both significant and positive.
