azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

"some pregnancies may cause reasonable fear of harm, it is unreasonable to claim that all abortions do"I explained exactly how it is reasonable: "every successful pregnancy results in either a Caesarian-section or a vaginal delivery. If anyone were to attempt to perform similar actions on a woman outside the context of pregnancy, she would surely have a self-defense right to defend against it."A woman has a right to defend herself against things like injecting her with drugs, slicing open her stomach, and penetrating her vagina with an object the size of a grapefruit.The father (or strangers for that matter) aren't required to donate a kidney, or even to donate blood."we are justified in killing just about every human being who we feel threatened by"The main difference is the available alternatives - as I discussed under "proportional force"."it admits that pregnancy is a unique circumstance"It says that some people do treat pregnancy differently, not that they should. The point of the self-defense argument is that we shouldn't."Pregnancy does not cause harm as unavoidably and as deadly as an asteroid."unavoidably - yes, it does.deadly - this section was about imminence/unavoidability - so it is better to refer to the other areas for level of harm, etc., though asteroids often do harmlessly impact Earth."this has nothing to do with abortion. Abortion is not simply a woman changing her mind."This is about whether the sex was consensual or the woman was on contraception when she got pregnant, etc. changes a woman's right to self-defense against serious bodily injury. You're right that, as my argument states, consent is not a factor."In most pregnancies, there is no reasonable fear for the mother's life. So it is not justified."People have a self-defense right to protect not just their life, but also to prevent serious bodily injury. Therefore, the justification is the near certainty of serious bodily injury.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

Zygote, blastocyst and embryo. None of these are human beings.A better question would be: Do religious fanatics have the right to force women to bear children they don't want?Answer: Are you crazy? Of course not!
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

A better question would be: Do religious fanatics have the right to force women to bear children they don't want?You skipped right over the obvious question. Do people have the right to wear protection or close their legs? Answer: uh duh George.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

You assert: "Zygote, blastocyst and embryo. None of these are human beings."Yet you provide no evidence for this. Indeed, it is contrary to the findings of science.Let me here quote some of the leading embryology textbooks."Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." [O'Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote." [Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]And, for your information, there is a consensus on this matter among biologists. Just see the link at the top of this page.No, religious fanatics don't have the right to force women to bear children. But notice the debate isn't about whether women should be forced to have children. Rather it is about whether it is right to kill their children.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

Yet you provide no evidence for this. Indeed, it is contrary to the findings of science.You assert that a Zygote, blastocyst and embryo are found by science to be human beings. Then you quote excerpts which assert the complete opposite, for example:- "Human development BEGINS after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the BEGINNING, or BEGINNING primordium, of a human being."So development into a human being only begins after the ovum is fertilized, disproving your assertion that it is human at the point of fertilisation.Congratulations on disproving yourself you idiotic Bible-bashing halfwit.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

This is a really silly argument, as I never ever appealed to the bible or god, or any religion. I quoted leading embryology textbooks. Your variant reading is not the interpretation of over 5000 biologists. You simply read into it something that it did not mean to say. If you would do more thorough research (I can provide plenty more evidence from various reliable sources) you would discover that.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

You do not understand what it is saying."Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)."The reason it says after is because fertilization is a process that takes 24 to forty-eight hours to complete. There is no dispute, however, that after the process of fertilization has successfully completed, it is a new human being. Also, you equivocate on the word "beginning". That means the start. That does not mean that it is not a human being. It just means it is in its early stages of development.It is only refering to the beginning of development.That much should be clear by reading the other quotes which clarify that"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

Notice that it nowhere says "potential human being." or it "become a human sometime after conception."
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

Notice that it nowhere says "potential human being." or it "become a human sometime after conception."Your excerpt was absolutely clear you retarded little troll. Development into a human does not begin until AFTER conception, and it does not end UNTIL birth.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

DEVELOPMENT does not begin until after FERTILIZATION, because prior to fertilization it is not a human being. But after "the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization" "Human development begins." And that is in complete accord with what I was saying. Also, you cannot say human development begins at conception if it is not a human being.Yes, the quote is clear, except to you.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

DEVELOPMENT does not begin until after FERTILIZATION, because prior to fertilization it is not a human being.If it hasn't DEVELOPED into a human being yet then it ISN'T a human being, is it, you stupid, delusional twit?
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

Caterpillars develop into butterflies, but until they become butterflies they are still caterpillars. What the hell is so difficult to comprehend about that, dummy?
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

Let me quote a paper that will make things clearer."Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a �potential� or a �possible� human being�not a real existing human being."Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It�s an actual human being�with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities."
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

Let me quote a paper that will make things clearer.You've linked a sociology paper. I don't even need to read it because I know that sociologists are not medical professionals, they have no medical training and their opinion about what is medically human is completely irrelevant. Let me show you a paper too:-One key manifestation of motivated reasoning is the confirmation bias. Confirmation bias (also known as the "my side" bias) denotes the tendency to seek and process information in ways which are partial to one's interests, beliefs and expectations.Behavioral Law and Economics, Eyal Zamir, Doron TeichmanConfirmation bias is why you are linking sociology papers and misrepresenting them as medical opinions.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

You can insult me, but you aren't even making an effort to understand. "If it hasn't DEVELOPED into a human being yet then it ISN'T a human being, is it, you stupid, delusional twit?"Yes, it isn't a human being until fertilization takes place, but once that process takes place--one to two days later-- it is a human being. It's really that simple.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

Its amazing how thousands of biologists can come to a conclusion, and yet pro-choicers will twist it into a denial of their very conclusions!
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

Its amazing how thousands of biologists can come to a conclusion, and yet pro-choicers will twist it into a denial of their very conclusions!That's literally what you've just done you insane dope. Your passage says, in crystal clear terms that a five year old could grasp, that a fetus is developing into a human.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

Are you implying that it is not a human because it is developing? But that logic no child or infant is a human being. They continue to develop until adulthood!
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

By the way, if you launch into personal attacks instead of reasoning, you will be banned, because you are contributing nothing.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

By the way, if you launch into personal attacks instead of reasoningYou are the one who is not reasoning you delusional halfwit. You are making arbitrary statements of fact, calling it science and then posting passages which contradict you. This is exactly why arguing with religious people is pointless. Whatever is black you will say is white. You're contradicting yourself, contradicting the sources you post which are supposed to corroborate you, and literally just sitting there turning factual reality upside down.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

I warned you not to engage in personal attacks, and right after reading that, you do just that, so you have no right to be angry.It is you who does not understand what the science is saying. I'll bet you never even researched the issue.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

I warned you not to engage in personal attacksListen pal, if you don't want people to point out that you're a fucking idiot, then stop saying things which are obviously not true. As pointed out you are insane, and so when you make other people angry by saying offensive and ridiculous things like "hospitals kill babies", you automatically hold them 100 percent accountable. In actual fact when people get angry there is usually a reason, and no sane person would ever dispute that.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

I never said "things like "hospitals kill babies." You entirely made that up.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

I never said "things like "hospitals kill babies."Yes, you did. Stop lying please. That also makes me angry.A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its motherhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

You do not understand what it is saying.It is crystal clear you pointlessly stupid retard. You are the one who does not understand what it is saying. It is saying an embryo is not a human yet.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

That is utterly false, it never says the embryo is not human. I've already explained that it is referring to the beginning of the process of fertilization."Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs whichcharacterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human malemeets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The termembryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

Using this played out topic as a means for points harvesting is blatantly obvious.Write out 100 times;- I must create more original debates in future.What about;- Do black lives matter more than those of unborn babies?.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

Nothing you said is relevant to whether abortion is right or wrong.In fact, you didn't even argue anything. You just said things."Do black lives matter more than those of unborn babies?"I believe in human equality, so I would say no. And what about black babies who get aborted? Do their lives matter? It's no secret that Planned Parenthood has a greater presence in the black community.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

"It's no secret that Planned Parenthood has a greater presence in the black community.""About six in 10 abortion providers are located in neighborhoods where more than half of residents are white.""Fewer than one in 10 abortion providers are located in neighborhoods where more than half of residents are black."ref
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

You reference "abortion providers". But Planned Parenthood isn't the only abortion provider. I was specifically talking about Planned Parenthood. If I was wrong for saying that Planned Parenthood has a greater presence in the black community, then I concede that. But my real point was that black babies matter too. And there's no dispute that they kill lots of black babies.“A startling 2016 study exposed (https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/vs/2016sum.pdf) that in New York City, more black babies are aborted than there are born. Similarly, in 2010, Planned Parenthood fell under scrutiny after a census suggested that the abortion giant was preying on black communities as 79% of their surgical abortion facilities were within walking distance of African American or Hispanic communities."http://www.theradiancefoundation.org/theleadingkiller/ Also, "Life Issues Institute documented in its 2012 research that Planned Parenthood targets women of color for abortion by placing 79 percent of its surgical abortion facilities within walking distance of minority neighborhoods."(http://www.protectingblacklife.org/pp_targets/index.html) However, abortion is unjustified no matter what the race, so it is unnecessary to argue these points further.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

And there's no dispute that they kill lots of black babies.A fetus is not the same thing as a baby and the links you posted just the other day made that VERY clear. Unfortunately, it is obvious that you are insane and as such are incapable of taking a step back and recognising your own fallacies. Idiots like you are all the same in that, in order to argue with you, you try to force people to accept premises which simply are not true.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

A baby is just an informal term for a very young human offspring. A fetus is simply a human being in it's earlier stages, and it's exactly the same organism as the newborn baby. So denying that it is a baby is simply arbitrary. You deny it because you don't like me humanizing a fetus (which also means offspring).There is no difference between a fetus and a baby. It's a biologically human organism and remains that same human organism throughout its existence. The sources I gave proved rather than disproved this claim.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

A fetus is not the same thing as a baby and the links you posted just the other day made that VERY clear. Unfortunately, it is obvious that you are insane and as such are incapable of taking a step back and recognising your own fallacies. Idiots like you are all the same in that, in order to argue with you, you try to force people to accept premises which simply are not true.Exactly. And if you won't accept them as true you get banned. This is the only way retards like Sir Idiot can debate: when THEY set the parameters for discussion, because they can make them as openly ridiculous as they like.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

I ban people for only one reason--personal attacks. If you could be respectful, as JustIgnoreme has been, I would not ban you.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

I ban people for only one reason--personal attacks.It is not a personal attack to point out that you are not well. It is a self-evident, observable fact.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

Calling people names and insulting is a personal attack, and when people resort to calling names, there's no point in continuing the conversation.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

Calling people idiots is a personal attackNot if it is true. Then it is simply a fact.in the early stages of pregnancy the fetus is not fully humanhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetalrightshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal rights
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

Would choosing not to wear a face-mask during a pandemic be morally justifiable?Can the government require it?Isn't that a much easier demand than carrying a baby to term?
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

It is unclear what exactly you are arguing for.Are you arguing that the government has the right to impose restrictions, so they are justified in imposing at least some restrictions on abortion?Or are you arguing that the government shouldn't impose any restrictions on abortion since pregnancy is a greater demand?Or are you simply making an irrelevant point?I think it is the latter, since this is a question of the morality not the legality of abortion.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

You'll have to make a better argument. And it will have to be relevant.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

After all, this is about whether abortion is morally justified, not whether the government can require us to wear masks.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

And if you are arguing that the government should require people to wear masks, then that seems to contradict the pro-choice case.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

If you reply to your own post, the other person won't receive any notifications.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

The suggestion that the government can require people to wear masks to protect others has many people incensed and some even filing lawsuits. This is to elucidate the hypocrisy for anyone within the intersection of those people and the ones who believe the government should require a woman to carry a child to term.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

I did not argue that because the government requires people to wear masks, then it should also require women to carry their babies to term. I was only arguing that it is a bad case for abortion justification.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

Natalism is the most reprehensible position. Procreation, the most reprehensible act. It is reprehensible because it is harmful to intentionally force sentient life into an existence where it is guaranteed to suffer, especially given the purely selfish interests of the procreators. This is exactly what procreation does.Although the unborn are genetically distinct members of our species, the unborn and infants up to 15 months of age are not individuals or persons in any meaningful sense because they do not posses a self-concept. [A]An entity which lacks self-conception is not an entity that can be harmed or benefited. Absent a self concept, there is no person - no "I" - in which harm or benefit can adhere. It makes no more sense to talk about harming or benefiting the unborn (or infants up to 15 months) than it does to talk about harming or benefiting a rock. Permitting the unborn or the infant to mature until they develop a self-conception is the original and necessary foundation for all harm and benefit that will accrue to the organism. Harm and benefit do not exist as in an accountant's ledger, where the good may balance out the bad; any suffering experienced is experienced and nothing undoes that. If it is reprehensible to harm another being, then it is most reprehensible to procreate because it is the original and necessary condition for all suffering. Not only is abortion not immoral, procreation is reprehensible and there is an imperative to abort and commit infanticide up to the age of 15 months.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.Therefore abortion is wrong.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.Therefore abortion is wrong.Nice false syllogism.A) The universe contains no such thing as right and wrong. B) Abortion terminates a loose collection of cells which cannot be human since it cannot survive independently of a host, feel pain, or breathe.C) Therefore, you're making an appeal to emotion and trying to disguise it as something which is logical.