The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! If you don't do these things, you are NOT CONSISTENTLY PROLIFE!in Politics

YeshuaRedeemed

1. Suppor Medicare For All. 2. Support access to birth control and CONSENSUAL sterilization for all who are able to consent and reproduce. 3. Abolish the death penalty. Either stop killing, or admit you are NOT prolife. Duh. 4. End the wars saved for a direct attack on country or allies, and through Congressional approval ONLY. 4. Gun control. Pretend born people are a fetus and value that life. 5. Abolish the meat and dairy industries. A life is a life, and animals have the right to live. 6> Restrict abortion to medically endangered mothers. 7. Be good stewards of God's Creation and stop poluting the environment. Conclussion: Conservative Republicans are NOT consistently prolife. They only care about the fetus and military age people. If you think any of God's human or animal creatures don't deserve to live, you are NOT prolife!

Zombieguy1987

YeshuaBought said:

Here's what pro life REALLY means... Opposed to abortion

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-life

What you're saying (expect 5) for isn't prolife...

1. Support Medicare For All. 

2. Support access to birth control and CONSENSUAL sterilization for all who are able to consent and reproduce. 

Oh, cool. Have the government intervene in the free market... Nice

3. Abolish the death penalty.

So, if the next Hitler, or Stalin is captured, they should be allowed to live, even if they kill millions of people? That's some flawed logic right there

 Either stop killing, or admit you are NOT prolife. Duh. 

Oh, so, if someone, or an animal is threating my life, in order to be "pro-life" I should let the danger kill me? #Yeshualogic

4. End the wars saved for a direct attack on country or allies, and through Congressional approval ONLY. 

Not going to happen

4. Gun control.

Sounds like you want tyranny

 Pretend born people are a fetus and value that life. 

O_O You actually got what pro-life means...

5. Abolish the meat and dairy industries. 

Again, disregard the free market, and the fact A. some people can't eat fruits and vegetables and B. plants are also living, so supporting a vegan diet means you're not pro-life for plants. Which makes you hypocritical.  

A life is a life, and animals have the right to live.

But what if it's endangering your life?

 6> Restrict abortion to medically endangered mothers. 

That's common sense

7. Be good stewards of God's Creation and stop polluting the environment.

Again, intervening in the free market, and using religion instead of actual logical reasons.

 Conclusion: Conservative Republicans are NOT consistently prolife. 

Last I heard, they are against abortion, so they are pro-life!

They only care about the fetus and military age people.

Since when was that surprising?

 If you think any of God's human or animal creatures don't deserve to live, you are NOT prolife!

Ok, first of all, stop using religion in your arguments. Save that for your religious debates, and you ke- You know, I'm going to stop explaining your flawed reason

YeshuaRedeemed

@Zombieguy1987 Thanks for showing up. I am a center left prolife Democrat. The enemy came to steal, kill, and destroy. For me, prolife means don't kill chit unless you are physically in danger. It really is that simple. If you want to be consistantly prolife, you just cannot devalue a life. As to Hitler and Stalin: Nice ppeal to emotion fallacy. Wow.

K_Michael

there's no reason she can't cite religion. That not against the rules.

YeshuaRedeemed

@K_Michael Thank you. I don't want to force my Christian faith on people, but Jesus is a major part of my life.

Zombieguy1987

YeshuaBought said:

@Zombieguy1987 Thanks for showing up. I am a center left prolife Democrat. The enemy came to steal, kill, and destroy. For me, prolife means don't kill chit unless you are physically in danger. It really is that simple. If you want to be consistantly prolife, you just cannot devalue a life.

But what you are calling "pro life" isn't pro life

 As to Hitler and Stalin: Nice *appeal to emotion fallacy. Wow. 

It isn't though. It called challenging your stance on the death penalty. You can't go around saying X fallacy as a means to counter my argument. 

YeshuaRedeemed

@Zombieguy1987 I don't care if people challenge me, and i will answer your question. It is only okay to kill to save your own life or someone else's. Hitler and Stalin were endangering the lives of many humans and animals and in the emergency moment, they had to be stopped or more would die. I am not a pacifist to my knoweledge, but i do think all forms of forced death are usually murder.

MayCaesar

Every time you take a breath, thousands bacteria in the air die. It literally is impossible to never kill except for self-defence, while staying alive oneself.

There is no way around it: different lives are valued differently. You cannot be "consistently prolife" in the sense that you try to preserve all lives, because that is impossible to do.

Zombieguy1987

YeshuaBought said:

@Zombieguy1987 I don't care if people challenge me, and i will answer your question.

Well, instead of saying "Ppeal to emotion fallacy" actually counter argue my argument then.

 It is only okay to kill to save your own life or someone else's.

So, you're now contradicting yourself? 

 Hitler and Stalin were endangering the lives of many humans and animals and in the emergency moment, they had to be stopped or more would die. 

Which why the death penalty should be legal. Because people like Stalin and Hitler shouldn't just rot in prison.

I am not a pacifist to my knoweledge, but i do think all forms of forced death are usually murder.

So, what about the hundreds of bacteria that die when you breath? You're not killing them in self defense...

You're failing at your own logic here...

Zombieguy1987

YeshuaBought said:

@K_Michael Thank you. I don't want to force my Christian faith on people, but Jesus is a major part of my life.

But the existence of Jesus is unprovable, and as such, isn't a very good source in a debate like this.

Climate Change, is a valid source when it comes to your mention of the environment 

CYDdharta

Zombieguy1987 said:

YeshuaBought said:

@K_Michael Thank you. I don't want to force my Christian faith on people, but Jesus is a major part of my life.

But the existence of Jesus is unprovable, and as such, isn't a very good source in a debate like this.

Climate Change, is a valid source when it comes to your mention of the environment 

Not to get too far into the weeds, but Man-Made Climate Change isn't any more provable than the existence of Jesus.

cheesycheese

MayCaesar said:

Every time you take a breath, thousands bacteria in the air die. It literally is impossible to never kill except for self-defence, while staying alive oneself.

There is no way around it: different lives are valued differently. You cannot be "consistently prolife" in the sense that you try to preserve all lives, because that is impossible to do.

Bacteria aren't sentient they don't suffer while dying murdering bacteria and mutilating plants is not wrong because it causes no harm.

John_C_87

@YeshuaBought ;
Okay...………
Anything else?

John_C_87

Noted: John_C87 not Prolife.

By the way John_C_87 is not Prochoice. Admission of guilt, or accusation of guilt are no choice outside of crime under order of law. They represent in basic principle only one side of law.

MayCaesar

@cheesycheese

When I chop off a deer's head with one strike of an axe, it does not suffer either, because the neural system ceases to function before the pain signal reaches the brain.

The original argument was about "living beings", not "beings that suffer" - but your notion fails at both.

AmericanFurryBoy

@YeshuaBought
You consistently cite religion as a reason for many of your arguments, and when anyone disagrees you you cite it again. If you don’t call that forcing your religion on others I do not know what is. Anyway, I think you can be a ProLifer without agreeing with some of these things.

AlofRI

A "pro-life" Catholic doctor was willing to have my first wife die and leave two daughters without a mother to save a fetus. I would have a son if I'd sided with him, and my daughters would have lost their mother two years before they did. Sometimes you have to make tough decisions. I did, and at that time, in my state, I didn't have the "right" to do it. The SCOTUS has been correct on this, so far. It would be criminal to change that! That "right" is important! Women should have what could be a necessary one. (To men, also)! I missed my wife, sorry for the boy, but, I'd HAVE to do it again.

Oppolzer

@YeshuaBought

Whether you find war, capital punishment, abortion, etc., unacceptable, it is purely your opinion. Since it’s your opinion, it doesn’t make it right or wrong, and your moral views shouldn’t dictate the law. You seem to be confusing your opinions with facts, stating that your conclusions are needed to be “consistently pro-life.” In addition, “pro-life” itself is a subjective concept and different for the individual. As @AmericanFurryBoy mentioned, you don’t have to be all those things to be pro-life.

K_Michael

The bacteria that die when you breath are not killed in self-defense. Those that are crushed by your feet are unavoidable. And your body automatically defends itself from harmful bacteria, without any conscious choice on your part.
If you were to attack Prolifers on the basis of killing non-animal organisms, I would suggest using plants instead.

The main problem I have with vegans and vegetarians is that they consider the killing of animals to be wrong, but not plants, which seems to me fallacious. Humans can not feed themselves on anything but organic materials, either made by or made from a living thing. We could all drink milk, and harvest fruits and vegetables without killing any organisms, but vegans consider drinking milk to be wrong.
So there is a way to never intentionally kill anything, but bacteria pose a large problem. We can't just get rid of them, because they're microscopic, and the only viable options of removing them from an environment is by killing them. Nor can we just let them live however they want, building colonies everywhere, because it would be unsanitary. Unhygienic conditions would kill humans. So at what point do we draw the line? Is it morally OK to kill bacteria for the good of an animal or plant?

piloteer

Shucks . I guess I'm not consistently pro life. Meh.