azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

Then a child isn't a live until they're 18 years old or legally emancipated?Do you not understand the difference between a fetus being physically dependent on its mother and no one else, as a host to parasite, and a child requiring someone (anyone, really) to provide it with resources? Or are you deliberately constructing a strawman?Organs are not sentient, and they never will be.Fetuses are not sentient either, and aborted fetuses never will be. There is potentially some gray area as to consciousness in the third trimester, but abortions beyond this point are exceedingly rare and many times are performed for the mother's health or because the fetus is inviable. never will be. And I'm sure if we could prove certain animals (I'm banking on Dolphins, Gorillas, and African Gray Parrots) are sentient it would quickly become a crime to kill them.Great apes are self-aware and very intelligent. However, they are not physically dependent on another sentient being for survival. If they were, then their host should be able to make the call on whether or not they continue to be. You could probably even argue that human babies under a certain age (say, 13 months) aren't sentient, as they can't speak (Parrots, Dolphins, [and whales], and Gorillas have them beat, there), and are totally dependent on other life forms to live (same as a virus or parasite).After birth, an infant is no longer dependent solely on its mother. Someone else can provide care for it, if she does not want to, so it is now possible to protect the interests of the baby and the mother. Prenatally, this is not possible. I am still curious about your response to my final paragraph.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

Do you not understand the difference between a fetus being physically dependent on its mother and no one else, as a host to parasite, and a child requiring someone (anyone, really) to provide it with resources? Or are you deliberately constructing a strawman?You said 'independent' so I used 'independent'. I do understand the difference, but you didn't specify. And if you get pregnant through stupid choices, it's your duty to your child to keep it alive until you do have the choice to give it away. It's criminal for parents to not care care of their born children, but why isn't it criminal for parents to not take care of their unborn children?Fetuses are not sentient either, and aborted fetuses never will be.I have actually been thinking about this for a while (ever since I read it), and I cannot come up with an equally ridiculous argument. I keep trying, but I can't. I'm sorry. This just doesn't work that way.their host should be able to make the call on whether or not they continue to be.Not if their hosts aren't mature enough to vote.After birth, an infant is no longer dependent solely on its mother. Someone else can provide care for it, if she does not want to, so it is now possible to protect the interests of the baby and the mother. Prenatally, this is not possible.Yes, it is. The fetus deserves to have a chance at life. Why should we kill just because it's inconvenient to the mother? By that argument, I could just refuse to go to jail for theft because it would be inconvenient to me. If I steal and get caught, I'd have to take responsibility for that and go to jail. If you foolishly get pregnant, you need to take responsibility for your actions and carry the child.I am still curious about your response to my final paragraph.I actually did answer your question. You assumed I would say something else, but I didn't. Thus, your final question ("where would you draw the line?") become irrelevant.---But I fail to see how any of this matters. It could be solved thusly: unprotected sex produces unwanted pregnancies. Solution: take birth control. That gets rid of the cause. If minors take BC regularly, there would be less teen pregnancies, and less life-changing decisions so early in life. If you don't want to get pregnant, take birth control. It's that simple. Does it matter if your parents force you? You get to the same result!It's like if my parents 'forced' me to climb Mount Saint Helens. I love climbing! It would be a blast. I wouldn't care if my parents were 'forcing' me, as I'd do it anyway!
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

You kind of have to supply a better rebuttal than this, if you cannot answer an argument. Aborting a fetus destroys its potential before it has any awareness of that potential, or anything else for that matter.Okay, I'll try:"It's easy to be right if you shoot anybody who has a different opinion""If we kill all the poor people now, we wouldn't have to worry about taking care of them""If we kill all the rich people, we could stop arguing about tax breaks for the rich""If we kill all the baby whales, their kind would eventually die out, and then we wouldn't have whale huggers"These don't pertain to abortion, but I hope they sound as ridiculous to you as your argument did to me.Having your autonomy removed and placed in the hands of someone else, so that your body is no longer your own property, just a vehicle for incubation, is a nightmare.But that's what comes with sex. But that's supposed to me with marriage (or some other relationship) where the husband can support the wife in all ways. I'm not saying it's pleasant, it just is that way. Nothing we can do can make childbearing any easier on anyone. But if you don't want that to happen, then don't have sex. It's just that easy. If you have sex, even with contraception, you run the risk. If you don't want the risk, don't have sex. It's that easy.If someone catches a disease from sex, they are going to seek treatment and get it cured if they can.Pregnancy isn't a disease. It goes away after 9 months (plus 18 years, or 13, if teens can suddenly become independent). Comparing pregnancy to an STD is like comparing a tipped gas can to the Gulf Oil Spill.No contraceptive is 100% effective. Not all pregnancies are the result of stupid choices.I understand this. And that's why I'm not advocating shutting down abortion. But when you have unprotected sex, the odds are much, much, much higher, and you should be prepared to deal with this.Yes, it absolutely matters if someone's bodily autonomy is steamrolled because of what someone else wants or thinks is appropriate.It's not your autonomy at risk. It's a pill a day. I take pills for my acne, my dad for vitamins, my mom for arthritis. It's not what someone else 'wants or thinks', it's what the general population 'knows'. People under 18 years shouldn't be getting pregnant and raising families! If the general populace thought otherwise, the census would start at 13, not 18.I can't believe I'm having to explain this, but if you would do something anyway, then you are not being forced to do anything, by anyone.And yet, we're arguing. Teens don't want babies. Thus, they get abortions. Instead of that, paying oodles of money and weakening your body, you could take BC pills and use contraceptives and greatly reduce the chance of pregnancy. Kids don't want to be pregnant. BC reduces pregnancies. What is there to argue about? I want to get to the top of Mt. St. Helens, I don't care how I get up there! I'd prefer the cheaper way, personally, and that would seem to be BC and contraceptives in this argument.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

Okay, I'll try:"It's easy to be right if you shoot anybody who has a different opinion""If we kill all the poor people now, we wouldn't have to worry about taking care of them""If we kill all the rich people, we could stop arguing about tax breaks for the rich""If we kill all the baby whales, their kind would eventually die out, and then we wouldn't have whale huggers"These don't pertain to abortion, but I hope they sound as ridiculous to you as your argument did to me. None of the things you mentioned are physically dependent on a person who does not want them to be, thus there is a massive difference.But that's what comes with sex. But that's supposed to me with marriage (or some other relationship) where the husband can support the wife in all ways.What? No, that's what comes with not being allowed to have an abortion if one wants one, or being forced to have an abortion, or being forced to take a contraceptive. Someone who chooses to have sex or be supported in a relationship is still exercising bodily autonomy.If you have sex, even with contraception, you run the risk. If you don't want the risk, don't have sex. It's that easy.Pregnancy is a relatively rare outcome of even unprotected sex, and sex has other purposes beyond procreation. This is like saying if you don't want to get in a car crash, don't ever drive, and if you do get in a car crash, don't seek treatment because your broken bones are your responsibility.The comparison of pregnancy to a disease doesn't have anything to do with its length or severity, and some diseases are curable so do not even last that long at all. The metaphor is that they are both consequences of sex, and both can either be erased, or allowed to run their courses. It's not your autonomy at risk. It's a pill a day. I take pills for my acne, my dad for vitamins, my mom for arthritis.No one is forcing your family to take these pills. You are all taking them voluntarily. If someone was forcing you to take medication you didn't want to take, then your autonomy would be violated. And yet, we're arguing. Teens don't want babies. Thus, they get abortions. Instead of that, paying oodles of money and weakening your body, you could take BC pills and use contraceptives and greatly reduce the chance of pregnancy. Kids don't want to be pregnant. BC reduces pregnancies. What is there to argue about? I want to get to the top of Mt. St. Helens, I don't care how I get up there! I'd prefer the cheaper way, personally, and that would seem to be BC and contraceptives in this argument.The question is not 'Would most teens refuse to take birth control if their parents offered it to them?' and nowhere, ever, did I state that I do not think the vast majority of teenagers would not take advantage of this opportunity. The debate is over the principle. If anyone, a teen included, does not want a certain medication to enter their bodies, they should not be forced to. Maybe they are not having sex and have no intention to, maybe the pill makes them sick, maybe they have a different religion or moral outlook than their parents and think it is wrong to take pills.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

Pregnancy is a relatively rare outcome of even unprotected sex, and sex has other purposes beyond procreation. This is like saying if you don't want to get in a car crash, don't ever drive, and if you do get in a car crash, don't seek treatment because your broken bones are your responsibility.Yes, you could say the first part is true, except most people are required to drive to be able to work or go to school. If you don't want to get in a car crash, don't get in a car. It's simple. Sex is not a requirement for daily living or a job. Having reckless sex and then having an abortion to 'cure' pregnancy would be like driving drunk and, in crashing, killing somebody's dog (but you get away unharmed, along with the other driver), and telling the judge it's your right to not compensate the owner of the dog. Or something like that. I hope you're getting what I mean, and not what I say exactly, because this isn't coming out right.If anyone, a teen included, does not want a certain medication to enter their bodies, they should not be forced to. Maybe they are not having sex and have no intention to, maybe the pill makes them sick, maybe they have a different religion or moral outlook than their parents and think it is wrong to take pills.I agree, somewhat. In the end, parents still have the final say, however. But, once again, good parents will take their child's concerns into consideration before forcing a pill on them. Especially if it makes them sick or it's against their religion.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

None of the things you mentioned are physically dependent on a person who does not want them to be, thus there is a massive difference.How about this: "People in comas are taking up valuable life support equipment and room in hospitals. We're not sure if they'll ever wake up, so they could be hogging the equipment and room for a few decades. So why don't we just kill everyone who goes unconscious, thus making their chances of waking up to zero?"I assume you wouldn't do that. And the odds of a fetus becoming conscious are much higher than somebody waking up from a coma. Yes the unconscious thing is a little tough, but that way we'll never have to worry about people actually entering comatose, because they'll be dead!
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

How about this: "People in comas are taking up valuable life support equipment and room in hospitals. We're not sure if they'll ever wake up, so they could be hogging the equipment and room for a few decades. So why don't we just kill everyone who goes unconscious, thus making their chances of waking up to zero?"Still not physically dependent on another person. If there was a way to keep person A alive by hooking them up to person B, then yes, person B should have the right to decide if they continue to function as a life support system for person A. But this not possible, so your scenario puts money and space over a citizen's rights, while abortion puts a citizen's rights over a fetus's interests. I think all human life, fetuses included, is more valuable than money and space, but I think a fetus is less valuable than its mother.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

if you dont like what we think is right or not right then dont came back to this site just bc your not getting your way and u have to complain about it doesn't mean your right. if you think people shouldn't have birthcontrol and have the kid good for you. but i think birthcontrol is right if you dont want a kid. but if your not using it and you get prego dont kill it bc your to immature to have it. so im with birthcontrol if you can get it and if you still do get pregent dont go kill it have it. and give it a better life then the one ur parnets gave you.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

Your grammatically horrific babble is nearly impossible to decipher but you appear to be telling me that if I do not agree with you, that I should not come back to this website. That is not how things work here. If you have an opinion, you are expected to logically defend it, not get your feelings hurt and tell your opponent to go away when you can't back up your empty statements.Please take the time to formulate actual coherent sentences next time.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

yes our parents should be able to put us on birthcontrol because just in case someone rapes someone else then they would have a 99% chance of not getting prego by the person that raped them.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

Parents pay and raise chidlren of pregnant teens. So yeah, they should. Kids are dumb...Oh I'm sorry. Does this argument not live up to logical standards? Give me an instance where a parent would have the authority to force birthcontrol on a child under 18 in which they were not primarily responsible for the upbringing and I'll bother arguing.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

"Give me an instance where a parent would have the authority to force birthcontrol on a child under 18 in which they were not primarily responsible for the upbringing" - that's a rather ambiguous phrase; what do you mean by that? Forcing birth control on a teenaged child they're not raising? Or forcing birth control on a teenaged child whose future baby they don't want to raise?Parents may choose to pay for and raise the children of their pregnant teens. If they make that choice, good for them. If they don't want to, other options are available, among them abortion and adoption.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

I'm all for adoption and abortion. No idea why you're disputing me.I'm saying in the meantime.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

So even though parents don't need to raise their teenage children's offspring, they should be able to force them to go on the pill to prevent them getting pregnant? I don't get your argument.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

In some areas parents can not force their child to abort or put their child up for adoption(which if your arguing that parents should be able to do such, but not force their child on birth control I have further inquires), and if they are under a certain age the parents may not be able to kick them out of the house.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

Well, we've already been through this point in other posts. Here I'm asking iamdavidh for clarification on his stance. His statement "I'm all for adoption and abortion... I'm saying in the meantime" was too vague for me to base further arguments on.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

I'm saying that if a teenager is already pregnant, it should be up to them what to do with their body - adoption, raise the child, abort before the third trimester.However in the meantime, if a child is lucky enough to have parents who are overseeing their rearing, part of the "caring" for an adolescent is making them do some things they may or may not want to do. This I believe should include birth control if the parent chooses. After all, it is far easier to get a kid to take a pill than to not have sex, and it is far easier to take a pill than to raise a child, especially when one still is a child.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

I disagree... but I've already written a foot-long post against enforced birth control today. The thought of having to do that again is giving me a headache >.<Not that I'm ignoring you, I just don't want to write a long response that isn't all that different from what I've already written to casper. My other post is somewhere on this debate page, if you feel like seeing what arguments I made.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

I don't believe you're exactly right on that one. Yes, it's their body, but if you were stupid enough to get pregnaut, it's not the baby's fault. I don't think we should have the right to kill it off.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

parentss always want that there children would not indulge in such worst conditionss.that thay have to face problems.mostly girl got pregnant in dere seventeen or eighteen ...its not good for them to be a mother at this age..she shuold avoid such condition so that they suffer sevral problemss..regarding her life..or his children.......so people have think.....
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

I would very hard living alone with no parents and no one to take care of you.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

If a teen is promiscuous, the parents should order their daughter to take the pill.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

The odds of shit like rape happening to you is very small. It's impractical to think that things like that are why birth-control should be FORCED unto minors. Birth-control can make girls uncomfortable, or it can make them more comfortable. Either way, it is a drug that fucks with their reproductive system. If a teenage girl doesn't want to take it, it is her choice. And if she fucks with no method of birth-control, so be it.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

even if a child falls under the jursidication of her parents, she has a right to lose her virginity when, where and to whom she desires
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

The odds of shit like rape happening to you is very small.There's almost a 1 in 10 chance that a woman will be raped. That's actually not that rare.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

Even if only 37% of all rapes get reported, the odds would be about 1 in 1000. This doesn't include false crimes and repeat crimes.link
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

"In a federally funded nationwide survey conducted by the National Victims Center in 1992, 14 percent of women reported a completed rape, not counting cases where the victim was unable to consent."http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1218Where are you getting this 1 in 1000 figure? I did not see it in your link.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

I apologize, I realize that the percentage is based on woman and not the entire population.Still, your odds are in your favor, even if a girl.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

I apologize, I realize that the percentage is based on woman and not the entire population. Still, your odds are in your favor, even if a girl.Nevertheless, 14 percent is not all that rare.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

I think teenagers have the right to reproductive autonomy as much as adults. Parents can encourage and provide birth control for their children, but mandating it crosses a line.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

Do they really have "reproductive autonomy" if they themselves are dependent on another and the ones they are dependent on are legally required to take care of them? Autonomy suggests independence, which is something many teenagers do not have.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

There are different levels of autonomy, and I believe physical autonomy (the right not to be assaulted, the right to accept or deny medical procedures, the right to choose sexual partners and control ones' own reproductive future, etc.) is very basic. I do not think that being financially dependent, or unable to make other decisions regarding things like career or education, should disqualify someone from controlling their own body on this level.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

In many cases where a teen has a child, the grandparents of the child/ parents of the teen, act(out of necessity of their obligation to their teen) in many ways as parents to the child; it is as if they have another child. If control over how many children(biological or otherwise) you have is a fundamental right, then it seems the teen and parents both have the same right, but both can not simultaneously apply their rights. It seems that other rights are needed to determine to who gets to decide correct?
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

There is nothing 'necessary' about the grandparents of the baby caring for it. If the teenager retains custody, they are free to offer or withhold whatever assistance they feel is appropriate, and if they have custody of the baby and do not want it, they can surrender it. Participation in its upbringing is voluntary.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

Your legally responsible for your child in till the age of 18 or 17, unless they become emancipated at 16. The same is true of the teen being legally responsible for her child. If you refuse to care for her child, you force her to provide a roof over her child's head, to feed, cloth etc. In the mean while you must still house, feed, cloth her. it is impossible for most teens to provide for a child (child labor laws, education, etc) and have all their own needs provided for by themselves, as the parent of the teen you are still legally obligated to provide the needs of your teen. since the teen providing for the child means the teen sacrificing their own needs this means providing for their child as well. Its necessary by law.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

Do they really have "reproductive autonomy" if they themselves are dependent on another and the ones they are dependent on are legally required to take care of them?That's an odd view for a professed anarchist. If you don't recognise the moral right to control one's own body, what moral rights do you recognise?
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

...Its small minded to think that i do not accept that people should have control over their own bodies.read my reply to zombee, one level down from where you replied.