azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should abortion be made illegal?
Side: pro choice

TO ALL PRO-LIFE SUPPORTERS OUT THEREWell, of course, I would be very happy if an anti-abortion law was passed...on one condition. Since we passed an anti-abortion law, why don't we pass a law similar to, say, the buddy system. This way, all pro-life supporters who really really really wanted to take away the rights of Americans should have to pay 118,590 dollars over 18 years (average expenditures for a child in a low-income single-parent home). I'm sure when they are finally frustrated with paying for that child unnecessarily (like a mother who could have had an abortion), the pro-life supporters will stop denying the rights of others.Because, you see, not all Americans are as rich as you are and many can't afford one or more child to take care of, especially teenage mothers. Forcing a mother to have a baby will, in most cases, exacerbate the economic conditions and welfare of the child as well as the parent(s).
Debate: Should abortion be made illegal?
Side: pro life

So my answer to you is should we pay rapists not to commit rapes and cause unwanted pregnancies too? What about their rights? If you are saying that because we believe abortion is wrong then we are taking the rights of Americans then what about the rights of the child as a developing human too? Isn't that an American too?
Debate: Should abortion be made illegal?
Side: pro choice

[If you are saying that because we believe abortion is wrong then we are taking the rights of Americans then what about the rights of the child as a developing human too?]Isn't that an American too?Its not an American till it's born. [So my answer to you is should we pay rapists not to commit rapes and cause unwanted pregnancies too?]No, they should pay. Them causing unwanted pregnancies is just as bad as people that would deny a woman an abortion. People taking away the right to have an abortion. Screw the "morals" your thinking about. You are trying to take away someone's right. That's another common thing with gun control, people are trying to take away other people's rights. You are taking the rights of the citizens of America. You sir, are the kind of people who send our country down the drain.
Debate: Should abortion be made illegal?
Side: pro life

Really? Then why don't you try telling that to the laws that prevents a woman from prostitutions, suicide or use of drugs. Doesn't these laws prevent a woman from controlling her body?Arent the laws taking away the rights of a woman here? And further more why don't you check up on the statistics of woman with repeat abortions, yearly death of the mothers from abortion, effects of abortion on a mother and also the horrific methods of abortion
Debate: Should abortion be made illegal?
Side: pro choice

Of course not. Pro-choice doesn't mean forcing every pregnant woman to get an abortion. Every pro-lifer seems to have deluded themselves into believing so. Pro-life means forcing every pregnant woman to have her baby even if she doesn't want it. There are plenty of women out there who want to have children. But if it's just some teen who got screwed over (No pun intended (Just kidding. Pun totally intended)) and she isn't ready to take on a child, especially since her boyfriend is likely to desert her after finding out she's pregnant or if it was just a one night thing between two strangers, she should be aloud to get rid of that extra conglomeration of cells (since that's all it is) and go on with her life. There's no need to change your life for one kid you don't even want. Besides, the fetus can be used for it's stem cells.
Debate: Should abortion be made illegal?
Side: pro choice

Also, don't isn't seem a little ironic that pro-lifer women all look like they can't get laid in the first place? Just saying.
Debate: Should abortion be made illegal?
Side: pro choice

This is my argument for all the pro-lifers out there:Pro-lifers argue that all human beings, born or not, have human rights. And with those human rights comes the right to live. Therefore abortion should be made illegal. Here are the holes I have found in this argument:When a mothers' unborn child is in the womb, pro-lifers claim it has human rights and the mother should not be able to terminate the pregnancy. But in the instance that the unborn child is harming the life of the mother, the pregnancy is terminated. So in this case, the unborn child is then stripped of its human rights, and the mothers rights trump the unborn child's. So which is it, pro-lifers? Does an unborn child have human rights or doesn't it?
Debate: Should abortion be made illegal?
Side: pro life

So my question to you also is a man who holds a gun to shoot another man also has legal rights but wouldnt the cops kill the one holding the gun to save the life of the other one, even though both have legal rights of personhood?
Debate: Should abortion be made illegal?
Side: pro choice

If someone is irresponsible enough to avoid having the baby, they are not responsible enough to have the baby. If there is choice, then there is chance to ruin only one life. But if a baby is raised by people not ready, or incapable of raising a baby, then that would ruin two lives. The babies and the mothers at least. Maybe three, including the father.
Debate: Should abortion be made illegal?
Side: pro choice

I admit, I am very unapologetically not pro-life. I also know that most abortions are done as a form of birth control (not good). But wanting to make abortion illegal is saying that the life of a woman is not that important.
Debate: Should abortion be made illegal?
Side: pro choice

If abortion were to be made illegal we could safely say that the government has taken away our right to our own bodies. Not to mention the higher death rates that would be caused by the "back alley abortions" that were extremely prominent when abortion was outlawed.
Debate: Should abortion be made illegal?
Side: Pro Choice

RapeIs the unborn child a human 'when is a cake a cake'Rights to our own bodyDouble dutchall these questions and many more must be addressed i have written a huge essay for ethics and will edit and upload later since it does give a balanced overview on this exact question :3 But answering this quickly i think the women has a right to her own body.
Debate: Should abortion be made illegal?
Side: Pro Choice

No one pro-life is really pro-life because if they were they wouldn't be alive. You have to eat, and everything we eat comes from something alive, that's just the way things work.The life those hypocrites are supporting is a human's life and the question I have is why? Because they'd feel guilty to let something that's going to look like a human die? What is the importance of a human life, I mean really? There are so many of us that we have no major role on this planet, no individual anyway.
Debate: Should abortion be made illegal?
Side: Pro Choice

I think that once the foetus has started kicking, abortion shouldn't be allowed, but otherwise I think that it is necessary to lose an unborn life in the case of something like a teenage pregnancy or parents that are unable to provide for their child. Women have the right to control their own bodies and the government should not be telling them what to do with their gift of reproduction.
Debate: Should abortion be made illegal?
Side: Pro Choice

No. Life begins at birth and women have the right to choose. Forcing a woman to give birth is wrong.
Debate: Should abortion be made illegal?
Side: Pro Choice

If someone is a strict constructionist who interprets the Constitution word for word, the sanction for abortion is given under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution defines a citizen “a citizen” at birth. If a woman is carrying a fetus in the womb, the U.S. Constitution does not designate the fetus as “a citizen.” It would take an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to declare a fetus a citizen. You have to be born in order to be recognized as a citizen. Therefore, a woman does have the right to choose. A fetus inside the womb is not designated as a citizen according to the U.S. Constitution so by default is not entitled to life, liberty, or prosperity. You have to be born in order to be endowed with those privileges. To conclude, neither the Federal government nor any of the States can deny a woman the right to choose. If abortion is murder, abortion would have been terminated years ago due to the cruel and unusual punishment clause under the Eighth Amendment. Again, proof that a fetus is not recognized as a citizen of the United States of America.
Debate: Should abortion be made illegal?
Side: pro choice

what if the women was rapped and then she would have to look at that monsters child for the rest of her life.
Debate: Should abortion be made illegal?
Side: Pro Life

Untrue, she can easily get an adoption. ..................
Debate: Should abortion be made legal?
Side: no

Of course not!Listen to the excuses from the Left. They talk about the mother being able to exercise her authority over the child, or not being forced to keep her child.CAN YOU IMAGINE THESE TOTALLY SELFISH EXCUSES FOR HUMAN BEINGS?Using that twisted logic, a mother shoud be able to kill her new born baby if she deos not want it, or she thinks she would be a bad parent, etc. etc.WHAT ABSOLUTE DRIVEL!This is why we have mothers throwing their babies unto dumpsters after they are born!There is no difference between that late term viable baby before or after birth!An innocent human life is the most precious thing in this world, and you don't make excuses for taking that life.
Debate: Should abortion be made legal?
Side: yes

People distmiss the specifics of this. There is always different circumstances of whether this could be morally correct or not just like in other situations like euthanasia. Examples of obscure circumstances are happenings of rape, should the mother have to birth the child she did not want? what if the pregnancy was an ectopic pregnancy where the mother's life really is at risk. It is also impossible to counter act this. I believe the woman should have the right to do what she pleases with her body as she is in a current living state and my personal belief would say that she is not more important than the foetus in question but she takes priority in the sense that she is present in life and is living so should have the right to carry on doing so the way they want. In many countries woman can't just have them for the sake of it and have them at a constant rate which cuts down the number of abortions. It is legal in most western countries anyway.
Debate: Should abortion be made legal?
Side: no

As always, bring up life of mother, or rape excuses to condone the vast vast vast vast vast majority of abortions done purely for birth control.I'm so sick of deceptive people like yourself.NEWSFLASH, a woman has a couple days to go to the doctors to get pills to prevent conception after a rape!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In the very rare occurences of those types of pregnancies. The GOP has already compromised on rape abortions, life of mother abortions, and other extreme case abortions, but FOOLS WILL KEEP USING THOSE PATHETIC EXCUSES!
Debate: Should abortion be made legal?
Side: yes

1. It's a fetus not a baby2. This debate is asking about abortion in general, not late term. It is possible to legalise abortion without having it legal during the third trimester.3. Up until 25 weeks the fetus has no regular EEG (brain activity) and therefore has no mind, is not truly alive. But I guess anything scientific means nothing to a religitard young earth creationist like you.
Debate: Should abortion be made legal?
Side: no

To the idiot that pretends to not know what he supports when voting for Democrats.THE GOP HAS A NUMBER OF TIMES TRIED TO COMPROMISE AND ALLOW ABORTIONS UP TO 20 WEEKS(WITH EXTREME CASE EXCEPTIONS UP TO BIRTH) AND THE DEMOCRAT PARTY ALWAYS STOPS THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!You just said it would be possible to not have third trimester abortions legal. THE DEMOCRT PARTY WILL NOT ALLOW IT.WHEN YOU VOTE FOR THEM, YOU ARE SUPPORTING KILLING ANY BABY UP TO BIRTH FOR ANY REASON!
Debate: Should abortion be made legal?
Side: no

Abortion should not be made legal. If scientist found a single cell organism on mars they would classify it as life on mars, but people won't call a human fetus life. Abortion is murder. Abortion is either poisoning the child with a pill or the doctor will go into the womb and crush the human fetus's head. In addition, some of the previous debaters have mentioned that the mother may not have wanted to have the baby or won't be able to afford the baby. You decide if you want to have the baby where ever you have sex, not in the hospital or birth clinic. Also, putting your own comfort above a baby's life is selfish, and you are putting money and materials over a living baby. If the baby came into an impoverished family then that family can put the baby in an orphanage, into the foster care system, and family members.  Sorry if i offended you in this argument
Debate: Should abortion be made legal?
Side: no

I totally agree.We once had laws that protected innocent life and those laws were not worried about offending the killers.Those who support abortions for any reason are lacking in many of humanity's core values.Democrats have long ago sold their souls for sake of elections.
Debate: Should abortion be made legal?
Side: no

Don't apologize for speaking the truth. Whoever gets offended by it needs to apologize to God.
Debate: Should abortion be made legal?
Side: yes

You are attempting to arrive at an ascription of "human life" from an ascription merely of "life". One might well regard the fetus as life just as one regards the single cell organism on Mars as life, but one cannot get from there to a conclusion that the fetus is human life because one would not say the single cell organism on Mars is human life. If the fetus is not regarded as a human life, which you have not established it to be, then it does not really matter what reason a woman has for wanting an abortion. With respect to the issue of resources, I think you are not considering that matter in its entirety; it is not a question of the mother's comfort but of the quality of life of the prospective child. It takes money and materials to give a child a quality upbringing that respects their human value, and if those resources are not available (and especially if one does not regard a fetus as being a human life yet) then there is a defensible ethical ground for not bringing that child into a life of suffering. Suggesting that the child would have a quality life in an orphanage or foster care demonstrates a rather woeful ignorance of the quality of life these options actually afford, nor is it reasonable to suppose that family would be in any greater position to care for the child.Also, not sure why you're apologizing. Nothing you said was particularly offensive, and even if it was so what?
Debate: Should abortion be made legal?
Side: no

We label life forms all the time. The organism on Mars would be some form of Martian life. An oak tree has an oak tree life. Dog life for dogs etc.If we cannot ascribe "human" to the life of a fetus, what form of life is it? What would you ascribe?
Debate: Should abortion be made legal?
Side: yes

I agree that we ascribe life to things regularly, but I don't see that as inconsistent with my point. My argument isn't that we don't or shouldn't do this, but that the act of ascription is fairly arbitrary and not logically defensible (particular from the limited grounds given by the person I was responding to).You can call the fetus whatever one likes as far as I'm concerned, since there's no objective manner by which to define it. I'd personally described it as simply fetal life, or perhaps proto-human life (if I ascribed it autonomous life at all).
Debate: Should abortion be made legal?
Side: no

"Fetal life" certainly doesn't work as a sufficient description since different fetal types have predictably different developmental paths. Proto human life is as fitting a description as child human life, teenage human life, or adult human life.As for ascription itself being arbitrary, I'm not sure it's being used correctly here. I can't really think of a general context in which ascription is indefensible.Claiming that any given argument is baseless or subjective (a matter of opinion) is a favorite stance of yours. It works well for forcing others to thoroughly explain their position ad nauseam, but it never provides a foundation for a substantial assertive position.
Debate: Should abortion be made legal?
Side: no

"Proto-" is a prefix which functions differently from the other modifiers (i.e. child, teenage, adult); it indicates something prior to humanOr it indicates something primitive or original, but not other than human. There’s room in the definition for either. You may need a more precise wordthink all ascription is arbitraryThere is no reason to think this is a valid position.The real issue at hand is how we treat that which is inside a biological female relative to how we treat something outside the sameI agree, that is the issue. What you call the semantic dispute is the identification of what that “something” actually is. Rather than an argument about the magic of labels, the identification of what a thing is cannot be disregarded as irrelevant to the issue at hand. How we treat a thing hinges on what it is.I also do not understand why you seem to find this questionable behavior on my part. I use this approach frequently because it is consistent with my philosophy as an epistemological and value nihilistI find your philosophy questionable, therefore I find the expression thereof questionable as well. As a value nihilist I find it somewhat hypocritical that you continue to breath. But I know this doesn’t matter to you either.I do not think we can know of any objective premises with certainty (excepting that something exists, or possibly some other similar tautology) The kind of certainty you demand is unreasonable to expect. I can’t truly say with certainty that my water will work when I turn on the faucet, that doesn’t mean I should forego a shower. Even though I can’t predict the working of the faucet with certainty, I know it will work. I would argue that it will work for all kinds of reasons. Pointing out that I can’t know for certain would be almost irrelevant.
Debate: Should abortion be made legal?
Side: no

You said I think all ascription is arbitrary which is an invalid position. Ascription (the action of regarding a quality as belonging to someone or something) may be lacking in some degree of objectivity, but it does not follow that all ascription is thus arbitrary. One cannot in truth ascribe the qualities of a tree to a cat. If ascription was arbitrary, one could. You are pretending that ascription is merely label making and that the labels we use are a matter of individual whim. Your assertion that all ascription is arbitrary seems to be based on a conflation between the concept of language and examples of languages. The utterances we use to identify a thing may be arbitrary, but the use of those utterances is not.This aspect of the disagreement is relevant to abortion because you don’t want to ascribe the qualities of a human to a fetus. Though no other organisms qualities will fit. You final effort to avoid this fact rested on calling a fetus an early human, a pre-human, or proto-human. Thus, you cannot escape the human element in a human fetus. You pretend as though the distinction doesn't matter. As though ignoring the human element illuminates the human element. Or rather that there actually isn't a human element despite the language we use. The debate hinges not on the language we use, but rather the human element is actually there. The distinction does matter. There are important psychological and social repercussions connected how we treat humans and what we believe qualifies. This is why soldiers dehumanize the enemy. This is why slavery persisted. Concerning the semantic aspect you replied How we treat a thing does depend upon what that thing is, but what we call that thing does not change what it is. You then went on to pretend that I had claimed the latter rather than the former and explained that the words we choose do not magically change a things identity. It’s nice that you agree with me. It’s not nice that you pretend I said the opposite of what I said, and then tackled that straw man.if you are consistent in this view then you should find the expression of any view that differs from yours questionable. I don't, but you then go on to tackle this straw man as well. I find nihilism questionable for a specific reason, which does not necessarily apply to all other philosophies. The nihilistic approach is a useful tool. When it is used only as a tool it is something akin to skepticism. When it is adopted as an philosophy it becomes something else. You are adept at showing holes in the arguments of opponents. But you use Nihilism to claim the correct position not by actually having one, but by virtue of your opponents failure to counter your attacks. Nihilism can’t actually hold a position, but pretends to hold a winning position. I find it intellectually dishonest. So I find it questionable.What do you mean by the word “value”? I would like to see if your philosophy is inconsistent with your continued existance.
Debate: Should abortion be made legal?
Side: no

Well you wouldn't kill your next door neighbor (Unless you're a psycho) so why would you kill an innocent human? Now if the mother's life is in danger or if you got raped then go ahead and rip it out. Simple...
Debate: Should abortion be made legal?
Side: yes

Yes I actually would...............................................................................................................................
Debate: Should abortion be made legal?
Side: no

No because abortion is murder, and as I recall murder is wrong.
Debate: Should abortion be made legal?
Side: no

NO! Abortion is only another excuse for young non married couples to go and have sex without using protection methods. ABORTION IS AN EXCUSE NOT A RIGHT!
Debate: Should abortion be made legal?
Side: no

Abortion is already a right under a different name confession. We already have a legal right to confess. Confessions never directly insures and addresses punishment for the crime that is being admitted too, by the person admitting or those it is incriminating with the person confessing.At some point a proper Medical term should be developed that is not directly describing a confession, as Abortion does. Offering a somewhat less self-incriminating request for medical treatment. A term that might match the many witness descriptions or Medical reasons behind their use publicly.The suggestion from reading the Hippocratic Oath is to generalize the Medical procedure to offer a Doctor patient privacy. Abortion has a specialized set of conditions which label it as illegal. Those limited conditions do not apply to all (Basic Name) Gender Specific Amputations that are performed by the Medical community.
Debate: Should abortion be made legal?
Side: no

The term Abortion has a specialized limit already in place as a confession, a position between sexual misconduct and rape. With protections and opportunity for many reasons to extend the legal reach of sexual offences beyond Statutes of limitation. The extension comes with a direct cost not just in dollars and cents but in criminal investigation time as a common defense to the general welfare of all people.That this topic, abortion has not been addressed fully by the Civil, Medical, Criminal, and Judicial governing bodies is questionable.