azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

In the modern world and in countries where abortions are common, safety of pregnancies is hardly a concern anymore. You are talking about quite a few nuances of abortion when most of them simply occur because the women does not want to have the child. Not because she was raped, not because it will kill her, but just because she doesn't want to face the consequences of her poor decision making. That is why the majority of abortions occur (abort73.com/abortionfacts/usabortion_statistics/). However, with circumstances such as rape, you get into murky territory, but like I said, those circumstances are few and far between.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

"In the modern world and in countries where abortions are common, safety of pregnancies is hardly a concern anymore."That's in part due to the availability of abortion. Risky pregnancies can be terminated before harms manifest."most of them simply occur because the women does not want to have the child"See my posts on abortion as self-defense.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

The first claim is reaching. The reason pregnancies are less lethal is because of advanced medical techniques and cleanliness. Let's not be ridiculous
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

"This study provides evidence that abortion law reform in countries with restricted abortion laws may reduce maternal mortality."https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1521693416300682 "Access to contraception reduces maternal deaths by preventing or delaying pregnancy in women who do not intend to be pregnant or those at higher risk of complications. However, not all unintended pregnancies can be prevented through increase in contraceptive use, and access to safe abortion is needed to prevent unsafe abortions."https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12905-018-0705-y
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

"Restrictive abortion laws and policies create risks to women and girls’ health by deterring them from seeking care and hindering providers from delivering services within the formal health system.1 Such laws and policies cause delays for women receiving care by creating complex and burdensome administrative procedures, increasing the costs of safe abortion services and limiting the availability of services and their equitable sociogeographic distribution.1 Such delays can also result in pregnancy advancing beyond legally allowed gestational limits, thus making women ineligible to receive safe services.1 Restrictions on access to safe abortion create inequalities both within and between countries, making access to safe abortion a privilege of the rich and leaving poor women little choice but to resort to illegal and usually unsafe practices and providers."https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/95/ 7/17-197442.pdf
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

"Access to safe abortion remains a public health concern worldwide. Due to laws restricting and criminalizing abortion, many women are forced to seek unsafe abortions or carry out a pregnancy, even where the pregnancy poses risks to the mother’s life or health."https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12884-017-1496-0
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

"Woman dies after doctors fail to intervene because of new abortion law in Nicaragua"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1647381/ "The woman’s doctors urged an end to her pregnancy, saying her life could be at risk and that the fetus would not survive anyway. El Salvador’s highest court rejected the plea"https://www.manrepeller.com/2017/11/high-risk-pregnancy-abortion.html "Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' at Galway hospital"https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

"We found that both a state's enactment of gestational limits for abortion and the Planned Parenthood clinic closures in a state increased its maternal mortality rates. Legislation that restricted abortions based on gestational age — often, in the time period we studied, by prohibiting abortions later than 20 weeks, though more recent bans are proposed to start earlier — increased mortality by 38 percent, primarily among white women, although rates were higher across all racial/ethnic groups.A 20 percent reduction in Planned Parenthood clinics increased mortality by 8 percent on average and negatively affected all women, increasing mortality rates by 6 to 15 percent among black, white and Hispanic women, as well as those identified as other race/ethnicity."https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/maternal-mortality-worse-washington-d-c- syria-abortion-access-one-ncna1136446
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

Considering the fact that abortion clinics aren't required to supply any information about abortion fatalities skews the idea that it is safer than having a pregnancy. Read this and see just how dangerous abortions really are compared to giving birth. The mainstream media is just feeding lies and filtered truths again.https://nifla.org/abortion-not-safer-women-childbirth/
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

The story I posted did not compare the mortality of abortion to pregnancy, it compared mortality between states with restrictive abortion laws and states with more lax laws.Moreover, when they added abortion restrictions, mortality went up, and when they made it easier to get abortions, mortality went down.So, unless the added or removed restrictions were accompanied by corresponding changes in reporting, the reporting wouldn't be a contributing factor.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

"The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions."https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271 A 1,466.67% difference is not likely to be an issue of some abortions deaths not being reported as such; it is also possible that some pregnancy deaths are not reported as such.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

If you look at the Finnish study that they refer to:https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.3109/00016349709024605 you will see that they are counting non-pregnancy-related deaths: accidents, homicides, suicides, natural deaths, etc. up to one year after the end of pregnancy.When they look only at direct maternal deaths, they found:"We classified 26 deaths as direct maternal deaths (23% occurred during pregnancy, 58% after a birth, 4% after an induced abortion, and 15% after a miscarriage)."They also rightly point out that higher rates of homicides, suicides, etc. were "probably because of factors related to social class and lifestyle"
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

Once again, all I can tell you is that abortions do not occur often to save the mother's life. Just reread that statistic. And in the case of abortion, there is always a life lost, even if it is not the mother. You can argue that it is not a life but that is an absurd view that was only created to support abortion, not by science. But unfortunately that is where we probably fundamentally disagree, so we won't be getting anywhere.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

And in the case of abortion, there is always a life lost, even if it is not the mother.Utter nonsense. You can't lose something which isn't there to begin with. Life begins at birth, not at conception. Until that point it is unable to survive independently of its host. Your argument here is just an infinite regression. If a woman chooses not to have sex with a man then -- in your world -- a life is lost.You can argue that it is not a life but that is an absurd viewYou are the one being absurd.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

Your last claim is ridiculous. I don't believe life begins with the idea to have sex. If life never began, of course, it can't be lost.... I believe in life at conception, which there is an abundance of evidence for. The zygote shows unique behavior and a unique set of DNA at its earliest stage, and is simply less developed. Instead of using angry comments and ridiculous claims, I suggest you use real arguments in the future. Also, a newborn baby cannot survive without a mother, so it is still entirely dependent on something, so with the argument that life is determined by sustainability would actually mean life begins closer to the age of three or four...
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

Your last claim is ridiculous.No, it's the logical extension of your argument that life begins before it actually begins.I don't believe life begins with the idea to have sexGood for you.If life never began, of course, it can't be lostThat is exactly the point. The zygote shows unique behavior and a unique set of DNA at its earliest stageSnowflakes are unique. That doesn't mean they are alive you sophist maniac.I suggest you use real arguments in the future.Oh, a "real argument" like, if something is unique, it is therefore alive?I suggest you stop being a retarded idiot in future.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

Snow flakes don't have DNA, and no your claim is not a logical extension, as not acting on an idea can't mean you terminated a life... also read the full argument in the future, here part of it again though since you like to make absurd claims based on nothing. Keep in mind these are doctors speaking, people with actual knowledge of this topic."It is also quite clear that the earliest human embryo is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction"https://www.frc.org/brochure/the-best-pro-life-arguments-for-secular- audiences
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

Snow flakes don't have DNADNA wasn't your argument. Unique DNA was your argument. Like all insane people, when your arguments are debunked you change them.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

It wasn't my argument, you're right. You brought up the idea of snowflakes, so I simply stated they don't have DNA so its ridiculous to compare the to something that has unique DNA. They may be unique but I was also arguing the other half which included DNA. I changed nothing. On the other hand, you have no clue what you're comparing a zygote to. First you say a dead person, but then you say a parasite. It can't be both, considering parasites are living, and if it were dead it couldnt be one and I've already clearly shown you why a baby isn't a parasite. Please read arguments more carefully in the future and don't be so quick to call names when you have no argument to begin with.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

"The zygote is composed of human DNA and other human molecules, so its nature is undeniably human and not some other species.The new human zygote has a genetic composition that is absolutely unique from itself, different from any other human that has ever existed, including that of its mother (thus disproving the claim that what is involved in abortion is merely "a woman and her body").[5]This DNA includes a complete "design," guiding not only early development but even hereditary attributes that will appear in childhood and adulthood, from hair and eye color to personality traits.[6]It is also quite clear that the earliest human embryo is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction."https://www.frc.org/brochure/the-best-pro-life-arguments-for-secular- audiences
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

The zygote is composed of human DNA and other human molecules, so its nature is undeniably human and not some other speciesDead people are comprised of human DNA and other human molecules. Following this retarded argument we are forced to propose that dead people are alive.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

Dead people's DNA is decaying, clearly the zygote's is not. Don't make ridiculous exaggerations. If the zygote were dead, it could not ressurect itself to life eventually. It is simply developing
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

Dead people's DNA is decayingLiving people's DNA is decaying you moron. That's why they die.Open a book and read about the subject you are attempting to have an argument about.Genes remain active after deathAnalysing post-mortem samples, an international team of scientists showed that some genes became more active after death.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43046905After You Die, These Genes Come to Lifehttps://www.discovermagazine.com/health/ after-you-die-these-genes-come-to-life
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

You also failed to read the part I showed you afterward. No one is arguing that a zygote is the same as a dead person, except radicals like you. Heres the section I hgihlighted that you conviniently ignored though."It is also quite clear that the earliest human embryo is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction"https://www.frc.org/brochure/the-best-pro-life-arguments-for-secular- audiences
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

You also failed to read the part I showed you afterward.Let's say you are correct and I did not read it. That is not a "failure" on my part. That is a failure on your part for not writing anything interesting or intelligent enough for me to want to read."It is also quite clear that the earliest human embryo is biologically alive."There is a saying in journalism. Consider the source. The title of your link alone is all that is needed to illustrate that it has a bias, but just in case there is any ambiguity:-Extreme Right, Hate Group In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) classified the FRC as an anti-gay hate groupFactual Reporting: LOWQUESTIONABLE SOURCEA questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence.https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/family-research-council/
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

All sources have a bias, especially on a topic like this where you are literally for or against it. I found a source that provided good factual information to support its claims, so it arguing from one side does not make it untrustworthy. It is a failure on your part as you still have not refuted it and if you don't you are yielding that point to me. It was a legitimate claim. Just because you personally are not interested does not put the fault on me.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

All sources have a biasI thought about continuing for a few seconds, but nah. You're just boring me now. Anybody who attempts to defend getting their information from an extreme far right hate group isn't worth having a discussion with IMO.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

It isn't a hate group. It is a group that has a different belief than you. Too bad you cannot handle others thinking differently than you. It provided medical information from reliable sources, making it reliable. You have provided hardly any sources on the other hand, and have only used ammature knowledge and insults to argue. You have been all over the place (comparing zygote to a dead person, then to snowflake, then to parasite) and I've refuted all of your arguments with logic and sources. Please do the same
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

Also, if the zygote were the same as a dead person, would those same genes that become more active after death also be more active in the zygote? The answer is an astounding yes. It wouldn't continue to develop either if it were dead.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

Also, if the zygote were the same as a dead personI get the impression that shutting up and listening isn't one of your skillsets. All of the data you have provided about the genetic composition of embryos also applies to corpses. Hence, it fails as an argument proving embryos are alive. Understand?
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

I get the feeling that in reality you have paid attention to nothing. If you read my sources, you'd see that my sources do not display attributes that are also in dead corpses. heres that passage again that you continue to ignore, it displays many attributes that corpses don't have (i.e reaction to stimuli)"It is also quite clear that the earliest human embryo is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.[7]" Also if it were dead, it couldn't eventually ressurect and become living.https://www.frc.org/brochure/the-best-pro-life-arguments-for-secular- audiences
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

I get the feeling that in reality you have paid attention to nothing.And anybody who posts the same source again knowing that it is from an extreme far right hate group is best avoided like the plague.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

It's not a hate group once again. Just has a different belief than you. Labeling it one doesn't make it one. find one sentence that could be described as hate speech in the article and then please come back and show me it. Have a nice day.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

I hope you know my sources have to be right-wing, just like yours would have to be left-wing (if you had used any). Right-wingers are the only ones arguing my side. But since for some reason you don't like my last source, here's another. https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

Also, your point that this piece of research would claim dead people are alive. This section was just a set up for the rest of the argument and was actually only proving that the zygote is undoubtedly human, the argument that is was alive came afterward.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

this piece of research would claim dead people are alive.You are the one claiming dead people are alive you insane troll. You defined arbitrary parameters for life without having the basic intelligence necessary to realise they also apply to dead people.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

The beginning of this specific thread was whether the availability of abortion reduces maternal mortality which I think has been established and I don't see anything in your post that further contests it, so I'll move to the ideas on life.Actually I am fine with people saying that embryos or fetuses are life - it makes no difference to my arguments. Namely that abortion should be considered as self-defense. You have the right to kill a fully-grown person in self-defense to prevent not just threats to your life, but also to prevent serious bodily injury if that is the minimum force necessary to prevent the harm. Every pregnancy poses a sufficient threat of harm to the woman that she has a self-defense right to prevent. The most common response I get to this is that the baby has no intent to harm, so I will point out now that intent is not a requirement for self-defense.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

Of course, the baby would need the intent to harm. Also, it is not the babies fault you brought it into being in the first place, so you can't place blame on the baby, you must place it on yourself, except in the few cases of rape that lead to abortions. Your argument that all pregnancies pose a threat has been refuted previously, considering most pregnancies are safe in the U.S, so that argument doesn't justify most abortions that occur.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

harmLegally intent to harm is not a requirement for self-defense. You don't need to know someone else's intent; the person may be mentally ill and lack intent, etc. - you still have the right to self-defense. The test is whether you have a reasonable fear of harm.faultIf you let someone into your house, do you lose the right to self-defense if they then try to rob, kill, rape, etc.? No.threatThat the vast majority of women recover, does not mean that pregnancies pose no threat. Every pregnancy brought to term results in either a Caesarean section or a vaginal birth - either poses sufficient harm.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

They do not pose sufficient threat, considering most pregnancies go fine. You cannot justify killing a life because you think that there is a slight chance it may harm you. You must have better evidence than that. As far as fault, I would say you cannot compare letting a person into your house and having that same person commit a crime against you. The baby has no malicious intent, and is not trying to harm you. It is more comparable to taking a substance that could have side affects. You know the possible consequences and the only one that will be at fault if it ends fatally would be yourself. The baby is simply trying to survive on its own, so one could argue that you defend yourself against the baby is taking away the baby's right to defend against you.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

sufficient threatThink of the situation of rape - just because women physically recover from it does not mean they don't have the right to self-defense to prevent the pain of going through it.I know people don't like these analogies, but pregnancy is such a unique condition and sometimes analogies are needed."you cannot compare letting a person into your house and having that same person commit a crime against you"The letting someone in your house part of the analogy represents initial consent (akin to consent to sex) - that consent does not revoke your right to self-defense.malicious intentAs I've said a couple of times - intent is not required.https://www.jbkatzlaw.com/blog/2018/08/self-defense-and-a-reasonable-fear-of-harm/ "taking a substance that could have side affects"You are allowed to mitigate those side effects - using ipecac to expel the substances, etc."taking away the baby's right to defend against you"The same way that killing an intruder takes away their right to defend against you - that's not a crime.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

Of course, there has to be some intent. You have to have proof that the baby is going to harm you in some way. I cannot harm a mental unstable person just because he could harm me or seems dangerous. There has to be some evidence that there was danger. In most pregnancies, this is not the case. Of course, there is a risk in all pregnancies, but most turn out fine in the modern world. There is also a risk of walking through a rough neighborhood, but you would not be permitted to attack someone just because you are on edge from being in such a situation.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

"there has to be some intent"Again - no there doesn't. Only reasonable belief of harm. I can provide more legal sources if that is what you require.If someone points a fake gun at you, you have the right to self-defense even though their intent is not to kill you. You aren't required to be a mind-reader."There has to be some evidence that there was danger."That is closer to the required standard. Basically, if a reasonable person in the same situation would fear serious injury, then self-defense is allowed."In most pregnancies, this is not the case."In all cases, there is imminent danger - a successful pregnancy ends one of two ways - C-section or pushing a grapefruit out of a vagina. If someone were trying to force a grapefruit the other direction surely a woman could act in self-defense.Again, I know the graphics aren't everyone's cup of tea, but I think you understand.