azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

First of all, adoption is awsome. I have two cousins who were adopted, and they are both great people, one's a professor as a matter of fact.However, I don't think there is anything wrong with abortion up to the third trimester (except in extreme circumstances which is the current law anyway). By definition self-awareness is when one becomes aware of their own being, that's in the dictionary, and most psychologists don't even believe ID is surpressed until a child is a toddler and later, so not literally "self-aware".The definition doctors use to come up with the third trimester, is that is the point where the fetus' instinct knows enough to want to live. This is actually a very conservative view of life, since technically there is no proof a fetus in this stage has any more will to life than an insect.Yet though, it is a human life at that point I think, so I am comfortable with the definition.The problem with outlawing abortion, is it has been done in the past, and has never been shown to save a life.It is better to allow a woman to do it in a safe environment (as opposed to a basement, or however it would be done if it were illegal) and before that fetus is aware enough to instinctually want to live.Now, as macabre as it all sounds, it is important to note that before that point, there is no sadness, feeling, pain, or any other human emotion on the part of the fetus. It's not like a puppy or something. It's like a plant, and an insect at most, there is not emotion there. It is not much different than jerking off into a sock for all the emotion your sperm has, none in the laundry will ever make a baby.It is not right to outlaw what has been going on since the beginning of man anyway, and force via this moral indignation, women who are often children themselves into dangerous situations where they cannot get this procedure done in a safe manner.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

We must consider the fact that even a single celled zygote is a functional, unique human cell. I think that uniqueness (from other members of a species) is what gives cells their person-hood. Also, to discredit your "self awareness = person-hood" argument, newborn infants have less self awareness than chimpanzees, but yet the newborn infant has a right to life and the chimp does not. So if anything with self-awareness has a right to life, then eating anything smarter than oysters would be illegal.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: We have enough presidents

As soon as all males agree not to have sex also, I would agree with you. But, oh wait..people get raped by the millions worldwide......Sex is not avoidable especially in a species that is driven to reproduce. There is a whole industry on it.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

also, there it is possible to become spontaneously pregnant. it occurs in about 2% to 7% of women with Turner's Syndrome.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15749515
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

The case you stated was the first of its kind to carry a pregnancy to term. Managing that aspect of TS is by reducing HCG levels in the patient. As to prevent pregnancy from occurring in those females with the illness. And defending an extremely rare disease with an even more rare percentage of those people becoming spontaneously pregnant is deplorable. A rare condition does not justify murder.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

Yes, this was the first documented case of a healthy child being carried to term.but if a child lasts 8 months, and is then stillborn (as is mentioned in the study) it is still unpleasant.I simply rejected the notion of it being impossible
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

"Yes, this was the first documented case of a healthy child being carried to term." Your point was to show that sexual intercourse is not required to become pregnant. You have done this by quoting an extremely rare disease, and an even more rare occurence within that disease. And how does this make abortion acceptable? A child is a beautiful gift. Don't forget we all were children at one point.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

do you realize that in addition to healthy children being born, there are also unhealthy children born?2%-7% of TS girls and is associated with a high rate of miscarriages, stillbirths, malformations, and chromosomal aberrations. Besides fetal problems, pregnancy in TS girls is of high risk for the mothers as well.turners syndrome occurs in 1/2000 womenhttp://adc.bmj.com/content/91/6/513.abstract meaning around 1/40000 women have spontaneous pregnancies.this sounds like a small numberbut there are 7 billion people3.5 billion womenthats around 87,500 people.which is more than the combined population of Greenland and the Virgin Islands.That means that, by not allowing abortions on the grounds of irresponsibility, you would be subjecting two entire country's worth people to not only high risk, but also forcing a baby that they did not even get to enjoy making.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

"do you realize that in addition to healthy children being born, there are also unhealthy children born? 2%-7% of TS girls and is associated with a high rate of miscarriages, stillbirths, malformations, and chromosomal aberrations. Besides fetal problems, pregnancy in TS girls is of high risk for the mothers as well." This is eugenics here. Get rid of the undesirables for the strength of the population. "That means that, by not allowing abortions on the grounds of irresponsibility, you would be subjecting two entire country's worth people to not only high risk, but also forcing a baby that they did not even get to enjoy making." You could think about that you are exterminating two countries populations too. That is genocide there. So, if a women doesn't enjoy the sex then it's reasonable to 'abort' (KILL) a child. The hormones of these women can be managed. They must seek out the proper medical treatment. Just because a child might be deformed doesn't mean they should die. How would that be different then eugenics anyway?
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

"This is eugenics here. Get rid of the undesirables for the strength of the population."i am not suggesting that these children would be undesirable.miscarriages, stillbirths, and chromosomal aberrations would probably result in a late-term miscarriage rather than a baby.so, not only would these fetuses NOT have odds of making it to term, but by being in the uterus they are dangerous to the mother."The hormones of these women can be managed. They must seek out the proper medical treatment."This is of women being treated for turner's syndrome. otherwise they would probably die. But if you have the cure for turner's syndrome with nothing more than a simple application of hormones: please share it with the world.I would be highly interested in knowing how it would work.Since turners syndrome is a polyploidal disease, not endocronological."So, if a women doesn't enjoy the sex then it's reasonable to 'abort' (KILL) a child." My point was, as is obvious concerning the original thread, that not all women make a poor decision to have sex."The hormones of these women can be managed. They must seek out the proper medical treatment"I believe I have already adressed this"Just because a child might be deformed doesn't mean they should die. How would that be different then eugenics anyway?"I made no mention of saying that these children should die because they would be deformed.as mentioned earlier, most of these problems would result in late term miscarriage, not deformed birth.The reason for the abortion would be for the health of the motherYou could think about that you are exterminating two countries populations too. That is genocide there.No: fetuses are not self sustaining organisms, they are parasites.and genocide is the systematic eradication of a group of people: not all fetuses are under attack.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

With all of these definitions, how do you derive that a child is a parasite?All of those definitions except one (exploiting the hospitality of the rich) can be applied to the relationship between a fetus and the mother. Its existence is dependent on her, it leeches nutrients from her body, and does not supply anything in return.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

"No: abortions are not self sustaining organisms, they are parasites."I am terribly sorry, I meant to say thatFetuses are not self sustaining organisms, they are parasites.and fetuses are "2: an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism"the fetus lives in the mother's uterus"3: something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return"The fetus leeches the mother of nutrients, and in return gives the mother nausea, fatigue, absentmindedness, and mood swings.So one of the main treatments is hormone therapy. With infertility being one of the biggest effects of this condition, why cite it as a reason for abortion? Despite the 'supposed' complications with pregnancy shouldn't the woman be grateful for a chance at having a child?Yes, there are treatments in hormone therapy- you implied that the women in the study were not being treated.Even with these treatments, spontaneous pregnancies occur.and since this is a spontaneous pregnancy, not an embryo donor, these women did not even choose to have a child.If they are grateful, then they would not have an abortion.But if they are not grateful, why should they have to undergo an unwanted pregnancy?
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

"But if they are not grateful, why should they have to undergo an unwanted pregnancy?" Because it can become a human life. I bet that child who was born in the 'very unusual' case, is happy to be alive. You don't believe having a child is an adequate return? "The fetus leeches the mother of nutrients, and in return gives the mother nausea, fatigue, absentmindedness, and mood swings." And the end result is a beautiful child. If it wasn't worth while for the mother, then why do so many women desire to have children (multiple children as well)? I contend the return is quite adequate, in fact I believe it supersedes the negative by far. Although, I see that this would not be the case for you. Someone who would even consider a child to be a parasite. This kind of selfish logic is what leads to so much sin. That's why our country has such a "self entitlement" mentality. Perhaps if these murderers (abortionists) would consider someone outside themselves, then we would have a much better society. Isn't it funny, the more liberal (lack of morals) the world gets the more crimes and problems we face.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

Because it can become a human life. I bet that child who was born in the 'very unusual' case, is happy to be alive.This requires that the child actually be born. Fetuses are not happy or sad about anything.You don't believe having a child is an adequate return? Not if one does not want pregnancy or a child at that particular time. I would think this would be obvious.And the end result is a beautiful child.Unless it is aborted. If it wasn't worth while for the mother, then why do so many women desire to have children (multiple children as well)?Um, because she wanted to have a child. Women who seek abortions do not want a child. I would think this, too, would be self-explanatory.I contend the return is quite adequate, in fact I believe it supersedes the negative by far.Unless someone doesn't want the child, of course.Although, I see that this would not be the case for you. Someone who would even consider a child to be a parasite.The assertion that the fetus is a parasite is both neutral and factual. Fetuses that are carried to term and end up as loved, wanted babies, were also parasites. Parasitism is simply a description of the relationship, not a statement about the value of a fetus. Perhaps if these murderers (abortionists) would consider someone outside themselves,They are, by preserving the right to bodily autonomy.then we would have a much better society.Or a worse one, in which a citizen's body is subject to the whims of other people, and the interests of a potential person override the interests of an actual person. Isn't it funny, the more liberal (lack of morals) the world gets the more crimes and problems we face.There are many complicated variables that influence crime, and you cannot hope to distill them into a single cause-effect scenario in which liberalism = crime. Additionally, violent crime rates in America are dropping.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

"This requires that the child actually be born. Fetuses are not happy or sad about anything." You know this how exactly? Since a fetus is from 8 weeks until full term. How do you know their mental status? "Not if one does not want pregnancy or a child at that particular time. I would think this would be obvious." Murder for the mother's convenience. That's a great reason (sarcastic of course). "Unless it is aborted." Why not just say murder? It's a child in development. Children who are feeble bodied can't survive without the support of others. Should we kill them too? What about adolescents, they are still developing as well? Why not kill them, if it's not convenient for the mother to be a parent? How far can we go with the definition of a developing human? How much mental awareness does a child have when it's born? If it can't be happy or sad why then should we care? "The assertion that the fetus is a parasite is both neutral and factual." I would like to submit the negative connotation that parasite implies. Although it may be factual by definition, it certainly isn't neutral. "Unless someone doesn't want the child, of course." How is this different from 12 weeks gestation to 7 years old? Birth or not you can clearly see it's a human. "They are, by preserving the right to bodily autonomy." This is an act of self preservation. And this isn't selfish how? When you murder another person for your own benefit, that is an act of selfishness. "Or a worse one, in which a citizen's body is subject to the whims of other people, and the interests of a potential person override the interests of an actual person." That is the society we are in now. Is not the child's fate subject to the 'whims' of the mother? Not a 'potential person' a human in development. While it does have the potential to be a fully developed human being. It is human nonetheless. "There are many complicated variables that influence crime, and you cannot hope to distill them into a single cause-effect scenario in which liberalism = crime." I am not saying liberalism is the reason for crime. I am saying the liberalism ideal (which includes a major lack in morals). And the symptom of that is a lawless society. If our society can accept the genocide of millions of developing humans, what should stop anyone from killing 'developed' humans?
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

All species are driven to reproduce or else they would not be around,only one kills their children in the womb and is the most advanced.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Wait, are you arguing that humans are advanced enough to have abortions?or that it is unnatural for humans to have abortions-but they just happen to be the most advanced?It is true that people are the only animals to have abortions. It is used to allow society to advance, allowing children to be born only when the parent feels they are ready.Saying that an ape does not have an abortion is one thing. Saying that it is bad for it to have an abortion is another thing entirely.The fact of the matter is that people abort fetuses inside the womb. Many animals will instead force themselves to have a miscarriage through other means- or even eat their own children.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)#cite_note-Hoogland-0 #cite_note-Hoogland-0)
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

"It is used to allow society to advance, allowing children to be born only when the parent feels they are ready."Would not then killing the unwanted members of society work as well?
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

that, my friend, is a concept known as eugenics.And the difference between abortion and eugenics is about who gets killed.If every type of person is allowed to have an abortion, then it is only preventing young parents-to-be from having children. Since children are a large responsibility, these parents-to-be would most likely end up dedicating their time to a low-paying job and taking care of children- rather than pursuing higher education, or acquire as well of paying jobs as they would otherwise.This concept only becomes eugenics when abortion is forced/encouraged among a certain group of people- the unwanted members of society.The goal of eugenics is to remove these so-called unwanted from society.whereas the goal of abortion is to allow young people to live their own lives before they have children of their own. In effect, it is postponing childbirth- not terminating a group of people
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

"The goal of eugenics is to remove these so-called unwanted from society." Don't you then consider it an 'unwanted pregnancy'. You can call it post-poning, but it is murder and population control. So then life only happens on the parents terms? Even if they are already pregnant? I find it funny you say it's not murder. Maybe you should tell that to the people who write our most prevalent dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion  Definition of ABORTION1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage b : induced expulsion of a human fetus c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy — compare contagious abortion 2: monstrosity 3: arrest of development (as of a part or process) resulting in imperfection; also : a result of such arrest Choosing what child lives and dies is a form of eugenics. Especially when it is for the benefit of the people directly affected. It might not be for the progression of the race, but it is for the progression of the mother. If it's not a 'convenient' time for a child, if she has too much life going on to allow the child to live.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

abortion is to eugenics as plague is to genocide.abortion is choosing to not have a child be borneugenics is pressuring/ forcing a certain group of people to not have a child be born.plague kills a lot of peoplegenocide kills a lot of a certain group of peopleand where does our most prevalent dictionary say murder?abortion results in the death of the embryo in the same way that amputation results in the death of an arm.it is simply stating that the fetus does not continue to grow, not that it is murdered
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

even if the person did not wish to have the baby, is it right to get rid of a potential living being. Do you KNOW if you are going to adore the baby or not? The current population is dropping all over the world and to help revive the economy we need more people. And Abortions are doing.... NO GOOD!
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

you are exactly right and if she has an abortion she is only hurting herself it is a painful experience and she could become sterile now go look at your ultrasound pictures and tell me that is just a cell
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

People are going to have sex no matter what. If she doesn't want the mistake, she doesn't have to live with it. Freedom 'O Choice.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

hm...good way of thinking, not really. If they are going to have sex they need to be ready to deal with anything that comes from it. Babies are created by having sex, the sooner people figure that out the better.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

Everybody knows how babies come about. I'm just saying that if the would-be mother doesn't want it nor does she want to go through child-birth, she doesn't have to. Besides, the fetuses and embryos are useful for their stem-cells.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

The child should have the right to live too. Just because the mother doesn't want it doesn't mean that it doesn't have the right to life.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

"The child should have the right to live too"The "child" isn't fully developed or even close to being born. That's why there's a limit to the time you can abort it. It has no rights.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

But abortion can cause psychological issues for the mother. Her knowing that she killed a future human being, would weigh a lot on her mind.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

"But abortion can cause psychological issues for the mother."No more than giving birth to it and raising the child. If anything, I'd say raising kids is more psychologically harmful than abortion."Her knowing that she killed a future human being, would weigh a lot on her mind."XD Maybe to you. But, thousands of women get abortions every day and they don't think twice about it afterwards.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Freedom of Choice (abortion) equals murder. You wouldn't be here to argue if your mom wanted her freedom.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

"....equals murder."It isn't murder if it technically isn't alive. You're merely regurgitating pro-lifer propaganda."if your mom wanted her freedom."Wow. Nice way to contradict yourself.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

There is no contradiction here "if your mom wanted her freedom" I was using quotes to imply a satirical response to the question.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

If abortion is murder, then that means Blow Jobs are cannibalism, and Masturbation is mass genocide.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

"Blow Jobs are cannibalism"if she swallowsotherwise I suppose it would just be the murder of roughly 1000 'people'.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

There is the true expanse to your intellect. You do realize that male genes have to meet with female genes right?
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

"There is the true expanse to your intellect."A christian trying to understand intellectuality? XD
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Every step of the way it should be treated with love and care. It is precious, and it should be respected because it is what was us.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

no because it is immoral its murder its messed up and most of people must face consequences for their actions therefore if you have sex and dont goprotected you must at least have the baby and you can give it up for adoption afterwards
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

I believe that no one's right should be taken away to have an abortion but I do believe it is wrong. They should be responsible and go through with it. You never know, that baby might be the next president.