azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

You say;There are various good reasons for terminating a pregnancy. I'd like to hear one.But to answer your question about the role of government in these affairs please consider the following: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Taking the life of another person is an injustice, destroys domestic tranquility, destroys general welfare and robs the individual of the blessings of liberty, If government has no authority to protect an individuals unalienable rights what good is it?This is how our Founding Fathers saw it: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"Please note the use of the word "all" The decision handed down in Roe vs Wade stripped a whole class of people their rights by denying their humanity.This ruling goes against the very Constitution itself; It is a disgrace. As I said earlier it turns the law on it's head, the very law it is supposed to uphold. It appears this court has become destructive of the purpose for which it was founded and according to the Deceleration of Independence it is our duty to do something about.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

There are various good reasons for terminating a pregnancy.I'd like to hear one.In some cases an abortion may be life saving to the pregnant woman. I don't think that a woman who chooses abortion to save her own life is committing an immoral act.Taking the life of another person is an injusticeIn general I agree that is true, but you yourself admit that sometimes it is justifiable to take a life DO YOU NOT?If government has no authority to protect an individuals unalienable rights what good is it?I never said that "government has no authority to protect an individuals unalienable rights". Whatever just authority it does have is derived from the consent of the governed.How far do we let government go "protecting" us. There are a million more laws I'm sure that can be shoved down our throats in the name of protection. Our right to privacy applies at some point, and I think health care decisions made in a doctor's office merit that privacy from government intrusion.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

That scenario of the endangered mother is rare. The vast majority of abortions are performed on healthy women and children. You don't make laws based on exceptions to the norm.The right to life is the most fundamental right, everything else stands or falls on this one issue. When we as a people deny that right to a whole class of people we have undercut ourselves.In regards the taking of life; I agree with you, but not when it comes to abortion. And just to be clear, an unjustified action is unjust. I'm convinced that an abortion is unjustified for the reasons commonly given.In regards how far: I think the Constitution makes that clear, but Roe vs Wade undercuts that very Constitution.This isn't a debate about some theoretically fetus somewhere. This is about the 1500 lives that are snuffed out daily in our land and it's about you and I because it affects you and I. Don't think laws like this can stand without serious ramifications.  Just consider that 1/3 of our population has been exterminated since Roe vs Wade. Do you think that has an affect on Social Security now that there are more people drawing from it than paying into it. What of the effects on health care? How many doctors and scientist were exterminated
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

You don't make laws based on exceptions to the norm.maybe not based on, but exceptions to the norm should at times bear heavily during the legislative process.The right to life is the most fundamental right, everything else stands or falls on this one issue.So the argument is... that since the right to privacy from government intrusion is not as of high a priority as the right to life, the government therefore ought to have full access to any medical health records related to pregnant women so they can follow up and make sure abortions are not performed by state licensed doctors? If a teen girl was found pregnant she could be arrested for underage sex and could carry to term while incarcerated........ready to be made into a movie...jeezI think that in a very real sense, the right to "reproductive privacy" precedes the "right to life". I would love to read a response to this particular point.In regards the taking of life; I agree with you, but not when it comes to abortion.Yes I understand you are a firm proponent of the death penalty....isn't it true?...oh right I remember the logic "You don't make laws based on exceptions to the norm"You don't have to convince me that high abortion rates represent the deepest poverty. I need to be convinced that government intervention (invasion to the privacy thereof) in doctor/pregnant woman relations is merited. Remember I think that the right to life depends on reproductive privacy.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

Let me address the point you are making here:that since the right to privacy from government intrusion is not as of high a priority as the right to life, the government therefore ought to have full access to any medical health records related to pregnant women so they can follow up and make sure abortions are not performed by state licensed doctors?If I'm torturing little babies in my basement are you saying that I have a right to privacy from government intrusion? And if I'm a doctor I have more of a right to do what I want? Don't you think this goes against one of the reasons for licensing doctors, public safety? Again I say; If a government has not right to protect life, what good is it.On the issue of the death penalty. The principal in play for me on this issue and abortion is the same; the sanctity of human life.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

If I'm torturing little babies in my basement are you saying that I have a right to privacy from government intrusion?It is true that laws enacted to protect privacy rights also provide opportunity for secret wrongdoing.Jstantall, you agree that abortions are sometimes medically necessary correct me if I am wrong.You think that a doctor/pregnant woman relationship should not be private but court monitored to make sure doctors don't commit murder. Again correct me if I am wrong.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

Very little of all abortions are performed because of the baby threatening the mother's life.Even less abortions are performed because the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.Most reasons are not enough money for a baby; partner/family does not want me to keep the baby.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

I would agree that abortions should be allowed if the mother/ is going to die. However, I don't believe that there are other situations where a baby should be aborted. I wouldn't put abortion under the category of healthcare. I get that privacy is an issue - but in terms of abortion, it's not private to the government/hospitals. If someone wants to kill their unborn baby, it shouldn't be a choice they can make because they don't want a baby, they're not ready or it'll affect their mental health. I think that a large amount of money that is used for abortion clinics should be instead used for either adoption agencies or support systems for people who think they aren't ready.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

I'd like to hear one.about 2% (not an insignificant amount) of pregnancies are ectopic; ectopic pregnancies are the leading cause of pregnancy-related death in the first trimester.http://www.aafp.org/afp/2005/1101/p1707.html
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

What about pregnancies that are a result of rape? Inability to raise the child? Teenage pregnancy?
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

Since abortion contradicts the law, the question is whether the law is right or not. For decades, the law has been contradicted by existing slavery. If the founding fathers thought that slavery contradicted 'all men are created equally' and 'injustice', then slavery would have disappeared a lot earlier. However, this thought obviously didn't occur to them. Therefore, if grown human beings such as 'slaves' don't even have rights, that makes 'unborn babies' even less probable to have rights. So to say that the founding fathers would have saw it as something wrong is an overstatement, rather, it's today's society which finds it wrong. But if it's really right or not, hard to tell because of so many factors
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

Taking the life of another person. . . is not what happens in an abortion, because a fetus is not a "person."Roe didn't strip any class of "people" of rights, because a fetus is not a person.Nothing about the abortion right is unconstitutional, because (get ready for it): a fetus is not a person.Never in the history of U.S. law has a fetus been a "person," and a fetus is not a "person" under the law of the EU either.Are you getting the part where you went wrong yet?
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

The question is not about person-hood, but humanity and that is genetically verifiable. Answer the question, what kind of being is it? Everything else is superfluous.And just so you know what side you stand on; your argument is similar to those who supported slavery, they are not full persons and therefore have no rights under the law.So let me qoute you using the word slavery in place of fetus and maybe you can see where you went wrongNothing about the right to slavery is unconstitutional, because (get ready for it): a slave is not a person.Never in the history of U.S. law has a slave been a "person," and a slave is not a "person" under the law of Britain either. A slave is property and therefore one can do with it as one sees fit.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

Your argument fails in that a human who has been born, whether freed or enslaved, is a life in being -- i.e., someone who is an autonomous life fully developed to the point of not being physiologically dependent on another being for basic bodily functions. We recognize that autonomous, born human beings share certain basic rights. These rights do not extend to clumps of cells which are wholly dependent on another living being for their existence. Therefore your analogy does not actually equate at all.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

A clump of cells is not what is aborted, do your research first. But let's say they are for the sake of the argument; what kind of cells are they? chicken? no they are human.On the issue of dependency: you are wholly dependent on other living beings for your existence. By your logic it would be OK to kill you if the issue of dependency was all that was needed to justify your death. And further more we could extend this to the mentally and physically handicapped. It could apply to the sick and suffering, people with cancer and all those in hospitals. The logic you use is exactly the logic the Third Reich used when it began doing these very things; long before it got to exterminating 6 million Jews.You may agree with the Third Reich that there is such thing as a life unworthy of life, but I don't. A child conceived is worthy of life and should have every opportunity to live it.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

Your argument is specious. The sick and handicapped are not at issue. People with cancer are not at issue. None of them have hooked themselves up to the bodies of autonomous adults whose physiological functions are then used to regulate their own.And of course, the first one to make an overblown comparison between the issue at hand and Nazism is inevitably the loser in any given debate.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

I'm questioning the underlying principle in play here and there is a connection between all the examples I gave. if you can't see the underlying principle here I don't know what to tell you. The argument looks like this:X is not worthy of life because of Y, therefore we're justified in killing it.Now just put Jews, slaves, embryos or what ever in place of "X" and put your reason in place of "Y" and you've got your argument.Can you see the analogy between them now? So my principal objection is with the "Y" when you have an embryo for "X"
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

Jews, slaves, etc. are all beings in their own right, not dependent on the womb of another. So no, your argument does not hold up.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

Notice what you have done; You've imposed an arbitrary standard (dependent on the womb of another) and then said it is OK to kill any human being who doesn't meet this standard. That standard can be slid anywhere up or down, from conception to old age. It's what is know as moral relativism and it's a morally bankrupt ethic. The question is not; at what point can we kill it, but what is it?You need to first establish that this standard of yours is morally justified because I'm not persuaded that it is.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

Old age? How's that work? No "human being" is going to be dependent on the womb of another for more than about 10 months. Once it's out of the womb, it is by definition no longer dependent on said womb for survival.The standard is flexible, not arbitrary. It is flexible to a certain defined degree (as it should be) and that degree should, to my thinking, correspond to the level of prenatal physiological development. In other words, rights vest as the being grows and matures.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: it depends on the situation

He has a good point: you are making a standard of "dependent on the womb of another," but that only serves to further your point that abortion is morally blameless. There are many other categories of human beings that are dependent on another in a manner very similar to that of a fetus to the womb. Handicapped people are a good example of this, and, depending on the severity of their handicap may be just as incapable of independent life as a fetus. I am in agreement that the government shouldn't be mandating the legality of abortion, but I am also of the belief that it is immoral. The two do not necessarily overlap since legality and morality are not synonymous. The question here is a question of legality, not of morality.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

All of us were once a fetus. That is a child. Obviously, none of you chose to watch the posted video, silent screams? Or how about the facts about a 10 week fetus. The whole argument is whether it is a person or not. Just because the law says it not, does not make that right. We are challenging the law. This is also our constitutional right.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

All of us were once a fetus. Agree.That is a child.Disagree: unsupported leap in logic. The organism passes through varied stages of development between "fertilized egg" and "child."Obviously, none of you chose to watch the posted videoIncorrect assertion. Watched it, multiple times, not in favor of outlawing abortion.We are challenging the law. This is also our constitutional right.Yup, that's your right, but since SCOTUS has already rejected "it's a person it's a child" not just once but many times, continuing to just assert "it's a person it's a child" while citing to a video from 25 years ago is probably not a very strong argument with which to challenge the law.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

If this matter is right and ethical, why are people trying so hard to make everyone believe that it's so? If it's a fact that unborn people aren't persons, then why are you bothering to tell us? It's like telling someone the grass is green. Everyone knows that, it's a fact. Why bother explaining it to someone? So if this is such an obvious fact, why do you have to make everyone understand it with an added disguise?
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

Denying it now eh? You are the pinnacle of devil worship. Your arguments are so corrupted and contradictive that you have been greatly deceived by the Devil himself. You are denying that abortion is not killing a baby?Have it your way. Let's do any experiment. Let's put you on the table for abortion. Than we'll see who is no longer existing. Abortion is killing the baby within a mother's womb, dumbass punk. You are a holocaust denier and you will pay for your crimes, serving life at Death Row Prison. There is no parole for the likes of scum like you. Your arguments are invalidated.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

In the third trimester it is actually safer to have a c-section than it is to have in an abortion.At nine weeks a baby has a heartbeat.At 4.5 months he can feel pain.There is no good reason to have an abortion!!!
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

Once the 20 week period has passed, the fetus has a small chance of surviving outside of the womb. Society can then decide if it wants to outlaw abortions after this period, when the baby can actually become a person independent of its mother.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

I'd like add a different perspective to your argument. I've changed one key word, tell me if it changes anything.The debate is not about whether or not slavery is sometimes the best course of action, but whether or not a government agency has the right to make laws mandating that a man may not have a slave. There are various good reasons for having slaves. There are even more reasons a man may choose to have a slave that are not good. Is it the business of the state to intervene and evaluate the reasoning process that the buyer and seller apply when making these tough decisions? I don't think so.Allowing government entities to have the final irrevocable say in such situations sets a precedent that puts the government in a too high of a position relative to our fundamental liberties.What can we do short of legislation to significantly reduce the number of slaves traded when there are better options? People like me who abhor slavery need to focus on putting the alternatives front and center.Hope that clears things up for you.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

Keeping slaves and aborting a fetus is not the same thing. It's an entirely different debate.A fetus that's not capable of survival without being directly attached to its mother via the umbilical cord is still not yet a person that merits society's involvement. It is the mother's property until this point and she must have the choice of keeping it or not. You must not force someone to keep something alive within her because you can't do it yourself. If you can keep the baby alive with milk then by all means take it out and do that if you want. The mother doesn't have to be involved any more.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

Keeping slaves and aborting a fetus is not the same thingNever said it was, only the logic behind it. Here is an example:It is the mother's propertyFYI that's the same logic that was used to justify the beating of slaves; it was the slave master's property.You must not force someone to keep something alive within her because you can't do it yourself.  That's called discrimination on the basis of level of dependency. Should I discriminate against you because you are dependent on the local grocery store to get your milk? I think not, that would be wrong.And finally, did you forget what we are talking about here? We are talking about a human being.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

The fetus really is the mother's property naturally (she created it and didn't have to buy it from anyone) , whereas the slave is bought or forced to be his/her owner's property. The 2 situations simply cannot be compared..That's called discrimination on the basis of level of dependency.No it's not. There's no level. The fetus is either completely dependent on its mother, or is completely not dependent. After a certain period of development, an incubator and some formula could totally replace its mother.As for me and the local grocery store, I won't die if the local store refuses to serve me.....did you forget what we are talking about here? We are talking about a human being.No, I agree that it's a potential human life. Not an actual life. The 2 things are not the same.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

Somebody flunked biology didn't they? No, I'm sure you didn't which tells me something else motivates your avoidance of the obvious.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

You keep saying that it's human, which I agree with you. The points of difference seems to be that I regard it as a potential up to a certain point, whereas you think of it more as a definite. You then argue that it deserves all the same rights as that of people. I don't agree I'm afraid. It doesn't deserve the same rights and you can call this discrimination based on level of development ;) (not based on level of dependency as you keep saying). Until it passes a certain stage in its development (mental and physical), it shouldn't have any rights whatsoever.