see also :
Penpals for kids
Forum about Debates
- Optional filter -
see also :
Blogs for kids
& teachers
Display option :
Subject :
Text search :
#REF :

Would you like to start a new debate?
Click here and insert your own message!

modify delete 18768 - from Laurel175 , 9 yrs (canada) - 2022-09-20
Others - "I wAnT fRiEnDs"


modify delete 18757 - from Nil22 , 15 yrs (France) - 2022-09-01
Society - "Feminism"

What means Feminism for you ?
You're free to explain your point of view. Just stay open-minded and respect other people's answers.

modify delete 18745 - from Alex Arthur134 , 17 yrs (Sri lanka) - 2022-06-30
Philosophy - "Philosophical theories of Universe..."

What're u think about our life? and Where we are from?? If we are in simulation, what can say about "Nirwan" theory of Lord Buddha??

modify delete 18726 - from Greg118 , 14 yrs (United States) - 2022-03-18
Actualities - "War = bad"

I hate war! It makes me broke!!! (Even though I have no money)

modify delete 18720 - from Willy Wonka 200 (Fabbrica cioccolato ) - 2022-02-28
Society - "The war is wrong"

The war is wrong

modify delete 18719 - from suca90 , 30 yrs (india) - 2022-02-28
Society - "END OF THE WAR"

I hope the conflit in ukraina will solve it and I aprecciate that those people are fighting for theyr country .

modify delete 18715 - from Adan22 (United States) - 2022-02-06
Society - "Running for President Soon?"

I want to run for US president later on in years. What should I talk about? Let me know?

modify delete 18713 - from Killa167 (France ) - 2022-01-27
Others - "Life experiences"

Does anyone want to share their passed or ongoing bad experiences with school ? (anxiety, feeling lonely, having no friends, being bullied...) Or just anything you would like to share.
I've just realized I might have been going through tougher things that I thought I was and now I'm feeling kind of perplexed.

modify delete 18711 - from MARÍA148 (SPAIN) - 2021-12-15
Others - "What do you think about climate change?"

Post your comments about Climate Change its causes and effects, main consequences and solutions to stop it.

18711 -
modify delete 18712 - Reply from ANTONIO148 , 16 yrs (SPAIN) - 2021-12-24

I think there is much we can do to stop climate change. There are many easy things to do in you daily routine to help the environment. Save water, electricity, recycle, etc. are simple steps to start.
You can also join any NGO and help as a volunteer, go to demonstrations to show you care, and most important of all, get the information about this important issue so you know what is all about.

modify delete 18706 - from Malaya156 , 12 yrs (USA) - 2021-11-18
Society - "Hello"

Hello, I am twelve yrs old and I hope that I will someday run for a US persiend.
Here are my ideas:
1# Medcal care should be free. ( To be honest, most of the US healthcare system should be re-written.)
#2 Adbrotson should be legal (unless it is rape).
#3 To urge more people to be aware of climate change. BUT we should be sending trillions of dollars on it either.
#4 If you kill someone out of self-defense you should be charged with something. I am not saying murder/manslaughter though. But you did end a life...
#5 Books should be banned just because a group of people feels offended by them.

- this is just my opinion, pls don't come at me- I probably will update later ( I am still 12 still learning new things) see you then! Sorry if there are any grammar or spelling mistakes. BYE!!

18706 -
modify delete 18734 - Reply from Josiah A.208 , 16 yrs (United States) - 2022-04-22

Hello, Malaya. Good job on standing up for what you believe in. Don't let the haters degrade you. America may be divided, but I believe that our generation of people (Gen Z) can make a big change in today's society.

Keep confidence,
Josiah A.

18706 -
modify delete 18727 - Reply from Sophie11 , 16 yrs (UK) - 2022-03-27

1. Obviously coming from the UK, "free" healthcare is a luxury - i say "free" because we use tax-payer money to pay for the healthcare. BUT, the issue with the UK's healthcare system is that it is wildly underfunded by the Conservative government - so yes and no, the healthcare system in the US shouldn't be free - but it should be cheaper, and easier to access healthcare

2. ALL abortion should be legal - if you criminalise abortion you are only banning SAFE abortions, people who can get pregnant (and don't want kids) will still have an abortion

3. books shouldn't be banned just because a group of people are offended by them, banning a book - say Animal Farm by George Orwell, which has a lot of socialist/anti-capitalist views within them, teaches people valuable lessons, like challenging the status quo of a society.

I also think that you should be commended for taking an interest in politics at such a young age

18706 -
modify delete 18710 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (United States) - 2021-12-12

I don't agree with a lot of things you said, but keep developing your views!

18706 -
modify delete 18708 - Reply from Hazel75 , 11 yrs (USA) - 2021-11-18

I'm confused. Which parts should be legal and which ones shouldn't be? Cause if you say "Abortions should be legal (unless it's ****)" that seems like you shouldn't be able to have one if it is ****.

18706 -
modify delete 18707 - Reply from Malaya156 , 12 yrs (USA) - 2021-11-18

Sorry, I just noticed that I spelled abortions wrong. Sorry.

modify delete 18673 - from Mary66 (Russia) - 2021-09-17
Philosophy - "That's the meaning of the life?"

I think it's changing. Because we able to change everything, and that's what we do successfully over the years. We keep learning something new and change ourselves. Life isnt static, it's activity.

18673 -
modify delete 18731 - Reply from Abdul215 (Ghana) - 2022-04-12

Yes,it's really true.
And one thing is there,all activities are based how your your mind can perceive and handle them.

modify delete 18668 - from Laurent206 , 64 yrs (France) - 2021-08-18
Others - "Bartleby the scrivener"

I read Bartleby the scrivener, this is a short story by the american writer herman melville? In this book melville describes a wall street lawyer hires a new clerk who after an initial bout of hard work, refuses to make copies or do any other tasks of him with the words I would prefer no to. The narrator makes several attempts to reason with Bartleby or to learn something about him, but never his any success. I have the feeling that this book is very strange for me, because the style, the writing is not usual.

modify delete 18642 - from runke196 , 17 yrs (China) - 2021-07-28
Others - "Literature"

I'm glad to hear your voice about literature. My favorite writer is Lu Xun(1881-1936), whom is often called "a great writer, thinker and revolutionary" in China. His most famous work is The True Story of Ah Q. I don't know whether you have heard of him or his works. But in China, it is almost impossible to find a student who doesn't know his name. Qu Yuan, a poet in ancient China two thousand years ago, is another writer that I love very much. You couldn't feel the beauty of his words unless you learn ancient Chinese language, so I think you may never heard of him. In terms of European and American works, I have read a few, most of which are from France, UK and Russia, such as Les Misérables by Hugo, David Copperfield by Dickens and War & Peace(Война и мир)by Tolstoy and so on. What about you? Welcome to post your ideas here.

modify delete 18613 - from Laurent206 , 64 yrs (France) - 2021-07-11
Philosophy - "Pierre bayle"

I am reading the historical and critical dictionary by Pierre Bayle a french philosopher. He is best known for his dictionary and reflections on comets. Bayle published the news of the republic of letters a journal of literary criticism.Sometime I have some difficulties with the intertext links. The dictionary one of the most problematic texts of the early modern period. The dictionary is dense and paradoxial, nature of the dictionary gives me an interpretative problems. There is a significant complication in Bayle's account of moral knowledge, however in the midst of a discussion on right reason, he introduces the notion of conscience.
Best regards

modify delete 18608 - from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-07-10
Society - "My run for president (or congress)"

I have been planning, and thinking of running for a high political office once I reach the required age to do so. If I do win, my plans entail-

-Fully separating church and state in the US, you shouldn't have to swear to a god you don't believe in, in an anthem, and or court (though exceptions have already been made to the latter). Mind you, this doesn't mean I am for the persecution of any religion, they should still be protected under the 1st Amendment.

-A basic healthcare system available to all Americans, while at the same time not eradicating competitive insurance agencies. This also will not be felt on the middle and lower class (I will explain later)

-Full rights for the LGBTQ+ community such as the ability to adopt.

-Personally I have no issue with the second amendment, however I think we must limit what Americans can and cannot own (not extensively but people shouldn't be keeping anti-tank rifles in their basement) and have extensive background checks. At the same time to counteract mass shootings we need to have a comprehensive and free therapist and psychologists to provide people with the mental help they need.

- Free upper education, we need to stay competitive with the rest of the world and increase the amount of people who are college educated.

-Increased taxes based on the wealthiest citizens, while also decreasing military budget.

-Increased wages for military personnel, including a major system to help battle ptsd and other mental health issues. (Just one of many changes to the military, might make a post to explain it later).

-Terms for senators and representatives (I am thinking 8 (maybe 10) years max)

-Clean energy (which includes; but is not limited too) Nuclear power, hydropower and solar panels.

-Using our words, not first to improve our international strength.

-Subsidizing the creation of small and medium businesses

-Improving infrastructure

-Decreasing political power of western ranchers (ask me about this, its a weird one)

-Fixing immigration crisis; blocking them off isn't moral or going to work for long, and we cannot let them all in. The third option is improving their home countries and hopefully causing the immigration flow to slow.

-Greater effort in space exploration; coupled with an international alliance of the major powers to explore space, hopefully improving Earthside relations.

-Decreasing pay-wage gap

-Reclaiming American manufacturing ability through subsidization.

-Decreasing congressional wages

Feel free to debate any ideas with me.

18608 -
modify delete 18769 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2022-09-27 >> NEW

Eh... I can feel this exchange getting a little heated from all sides involved, including myself, so let's all just take a break from this as we obviously are in a full on partisan mode and focus on debating other issues until we can all have time to digest information and come to a conclusion on certain topics instead of manipulating people's words to make them appear to be a bad person. For my own role in that I apologize.

18608 -
modify delete 18767 - Reply from Gianna50 , 25 yrs (U.S.A.) - 2022-09-11

Very wrong. We began our life when we were conceived, thus when the genetic info of the sperm fused with that of the egg. Then a zygote is formed and you now have a human child in your womb. We were never an ovum. We were only ever zygotes. Our life was formed by an ovum and sperm, but we were never those things in themselves.

I believe child refers to anyone who isn't an adult, for the most part. One could also say that it is anybody who is a son/daughter of someone, thus that person's child. I am not mistaken in calling it a child.

Let's say a woman gets in a car accident. She was pregnant. The doctors do everything they can, but both the mother and unborn have died. What do they tell the father? "I'm sorry, sir. We could not save your wife and child."

Once again, you are wrong that cancer is killing someone. At conception, the point at which I think it is wrong to abort the zygote, is the point at which a new human being is formed. It has its own DNA. It is a separate human being than its mother or father. A cancer cell is a cell of your own, with your DNA.

So no, I would say that I don't see your point.

Why does a woman die if she isn't mentally prepared? If it is mental health problems, there are ways to address those. If conditions permitted, she could even be put in a psychiatric hospital for a while so she can get in a better place mentally prior to birth.

Your accusation that we "let women die in suffering without trying to help them" is entirely wrong. Donations, crisis pregnancy centers, charities, etc. I believe those all really help out women and stop much of the suffering you mentioned. :)

Why does a mother get to abort her child and face no consequences, yet a neighbor could kill his child and be locked in jail?

Let's say Molly is expecting. She feels she might not give her child what it needs to live, as she is poor and feels she might suffer immensely by giving birth. Thus she decides to abort. No problems there, I'm assuming, right?

But let's say Kate is in the same situation, except she has an infant (approximately 1 month or so). Can she kill her child?

18608 -
modify delete 18766 - Reply from Nil22 , 15 yrs (France) - 2022-09-11

Stop saying "child" when you talk about a fœtus which hasn't even a name yet. Yes we were all a foetus at a point of our lives. But if you think in your way, we were also ovums at a point of our lives. So when women have their period and lost their ovums, they are killing a child.
And if you say everybody has the right to live, then why people who have cancer try to kill their cancer ? A cancer is alive too. If I think in your point of view, people who have cancer are murderers because they try to survive un killing their cancer.
You see ?
There is no much difference, some women can't mentally survive in having a child they don't want to. Because they were rapped, or they didn't feel ready, or they lost their job and have no money to give a house to their child. You let women die in suffering without trying to help them.

18608 -
modify delete 18765 - Reply from Gianna50 , 25 yrs (USA) - 2022-09-11

Why is it my business what my neighbor does with his kid? Shouldn't I let him do whatever he pleases?

Yes, I would still love my sister. I would be very disappointed in her, though.

I'd be stopping my sister from aborting her baby. Abortion has many linked side effects in addition to the obvious; killing the baby and a general sense of guilt because of it. As far as I can tell, murder is always wrong. Should I not stop someone from murdering someone else, as that would be taking control over their body?

You're totaling missing the point. This isn't about wanting to control women's bodies. It's about wanting to protect the life and rights of the unborn. No one has the right to murder. Everyone has the right to live. There are certain points where one cannot do as they wish, as it infringes on another person's rights.

The peanut analogy doesn't make very much sense. We are offering just about all the care we can. That is not merely a "peanut" compared to being super hungry.

Why does a mother get to abort her child and face no consequences, yet a neighbor could kill his child and be locked in jail?

Let's say Molly is expecting. She feels she might not give her child what it needs to live, as she is poor and feels she might suffer immensely by giving birth. Thus she decides to abort. No problems there, I'm assuming, right?

But let's say Kate is in the same situation, except she has an infant (approximately 1 month or so). Can she kill her child?

18608 -
modify delete 18764 - Reply from Nil22 , 15 yrs (France) - 2022-09-09

No I said it was your business and you have to help your neighboor's kid. By the way, would you support your sister even if she gets an abortion ? Would you still love her ?

And you said "I would try everything in my power to convince her to keep the child"
Well, if you want to have power on her body, you are just like the father who abused her. If she doesn't want this child (which I can totally understand) that is her choice. And yes, it's a difficult choice, and yes, it's not a fœtus friendly thing, but if she tells you she would more suffer in giving life to her father's baby (who has chances to have medical problems by the way), you have to believe her.
And if you don't believe her and support her in all her choices, you are a bad friend. It's like if someone told you "my shoes are really dirty but I can try to wash them" and you say "no keep them like that, if you don't, I won't talk to you"
Anyway, you have to know that pregnant women who didn't want their pregnancy suffer more than foetuses who feel nothing, and more than you when you hear someone saying "I got an abortion"
You see abortion as a murder, but the murder would be to not help women who need it. And you said you helped them with centers and free psychologists and idk.
But maybe it would be easier to just listen to them instead of saying "well, you're hungry, don't you? Yeah we know, we're gonna give you one peanut. Happy ?"

18608 -
modify delete 18763 - Reply from Gianna50 , 25 yrs (USA) - 2022-09-09

Firstly, the case of my fifteen year old sister is an example of a "False Dilemma" illogical fallacy. There are many other options than what you mentioned. I would support my sister throughout her pregnancy and help her as she raises her kid.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, I should let my neighbor keep abusing his kid as it is none of my business? I just want to be sure I'm understanding correctly.

Yes, I would try everything in my power to convince her to keep the child. At the same time, I would do everything in my power to help her financially and emotionally as she raised it. I would also highly suggest taking legal action against the father.

See, this is where I don't understand your logic. You are telling me that my neighbor abusing his kid is none of my business, and I should do absolutely nothing about it. Yet, if he made her pregnant, you are saying "Would you make her suffer," I'm assuming, by having her keep the pregnancy. If it is none of my business that my neighbor is abusing his kid, and I shouldn't do anything about it, whether it is taking her to an abortionist or otherwise, why should an abortionist be allowed to do anything about it? After all, it is none of our business, and we shouldn't interfere.

18608 -
modify delete 18762 - Reply from Nil22 , 15 yrs (France) - 2022-09-08

If your sister of 15 made a mistake, and get pregnant, would you try to understand her or force her to care a child she doesn't want, even if you know she wouldn't have the strengh to keep it.

And you're totally right when you said that if your neighboor keeps being violent to his childs. It does concern you.
And the fact that her daughter gets pregnant of him too. Would you force her to keep the child of her father, who's a psychopath ? Or would you stand to help her, and the future children she will have when she will be ready, to treat them as her children and not as her father's shit ?
Would you agree with the father, saying "well it's her mistakes, her skirt was far too short!" And saying that she deserves to suffer ?
Your opinion, i respect it

18608 -
modify delete 18761 - Reply from Gianna50 , 25 yrs (USA) - 2022-09-08

Jack (couldn't fit everything into one message for some reason) - Do you not realize that Planned Parenthood advertises based on having affordable healthcare, i.e. abortions? This is what makes so many impoverished women seek it. However, there are about seven to one crisis pregnancy centers and centers that will practically deliver the child for as free as possible. Furthermore, there are 36 families waiting to adopt every 1 child born into the adoption system. Also, if foster care is really such a concern, why don't you advocate for fixing that, rather than the "right" to murder a child?

Let me ask you this: what makes murder wrong? Not in terms of any specific scenario (abortion, gun violence, etc.), just in general.

Here is just one of many sources stating that life begins at conception: "When Does Human Life Begin? The Scientific Evidence and Terminology Revisited." by Maureen L Condic, and this is at St. Thomas University.
As the USCCB is evidently a scholarly source to you, regardless of our differences in faith: "Scientific Community's Response to the Question: When does Life Begin?" by USCCB.

Actually, I never doubted that climate change existed. I merely felt that people often made more of a deal out of it than it was. Also, I believe 97% of scientists agree that climate change exists. 96% agree that life begins at conception.

A kidney is a part of someone's body, a part that has the same DNA as the rest of it. However, an embryo/zygote/fetus/whatever you want to call it has separate DNA. I learned this in high school biology, and it has only been reconfirmed in my 3 years of being a nurse (and four before that of nursing school).

First of all, you are putting words into my mouth. I don't think any worse of LGBTQ+ members than anyone else. I have certainly never called them God-less freaks. Please have the decency to stop making things up about your interlocutors. They have no fewer rights than the rest of us. The only reason many are so outspoken against it is because it is one of the most widely accepted sins of this day. Next, there is nothing wrong with saying the truth to one's parents. They would be able to help her with the situation. If not, there are homes for women who are pregnant and alone. I believe, if you look into St. Augustine's writings, especially in his City of God book mentioning the rape of Lucretia, a Christian woman would be content knowing that God knew that the rape was not her fault.

18608 -
modify delete 18760 - Reply from Gianna50 , 25 yrs (USA) - 2022-09-07

Jack, I couldn't fit everything in one message for some reason. It wouldn't post. Please check the very top of the forum for my second response.

18608 -
modify delete 18759 - Reply from Gianna50 , 25 yrs (USA) - 2022-09-07

Jack - I told Nil this above regarding the fact that abortions are never medically necessary: Thankfully, medical advancements continue to save more lives. Situations in which the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother are extremely rare. Late-term abortions are never medically necessary. Emergency C-sections are often the medically appropriate response to save both mother and child. Viability at this stage of the child’s development is generally very good, especially with advances in neonatal care. Babies who weigh just under a pound are surviving! As for first-trimester scenarios, most are to save the mother from ectopic (“out of place”) pregnancies, which typically occur in the Fallopian tube. Surgeries for ectopic pregnancies are not medically classified as abortions. The death of the unborn child is an unintended result of said surgery, unlike abortion. Also, an interesting tidbit is that in a study in Finland, it was found that those who had abortions had a much higher death rate. Chile also has reported to have a lower maternal mortality rate now after having banned abortions/restricted them greatly.

I never stated that those with Turners Syndrome or monosomy, which is roughly 1/2250 of the population, were not worthy of life. They still have human chromosomes. A human and a human can only produce a human, and from the moment the sperm and ova join, about 2249/2250 times it will be a diploid cell with 46 chromosomes, making up their own DNA and making them entirely separate from the parents.

Exactly why I try to make it my point to applaud teen, single, and mothers who put up their children for adoption for choosing life. It was quite a courageous thing to do, and society really ought to have more respect for them. As I mentioned above, it is actually very much so evident that restricting abortions will decrease the maternal mortality rate.

So it has changed from "clumps of cells" to a "glob of RNA"? Every single human being has RNA. RNA is what codes for amino acids that will be turned into proteins. DNA stores all the genetic information for one's life. In fact, simply that one already has all their DNA at conception indicates the capacity to have a conscious is there. We don't discredit infants for their gender only because their reproductive organs aren't fully matured, do we? We don't claim that they are not male or female because of their present inability to reproduce, do we?

If we are looking from a Christian perspective of a soul, I believe that it can be agreed that one receives a soul at conception. In the Old Testament, the psalmist assumes the humanity of the unborn child at conception when he says, “Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me” (Ps. 51:5, NRSV). This indicates that the unborn child possesses a sinful, fallen nature at the time of conception (though it does not manifest in actual, personal sins until later; cf. Romans 9:11). Since sin is a spiritual phenomenon, the presence of a sinful nature indicates a spiritual nature and thus a soul, making the child a complete human being from conception.

18608 -
modify delete 18758 - Reply from Gianna50 , 25 yrs (USA) - 2022-09-07

Nil - 1: Your point about some women not saying that they have been raped is a valid one. Planned Parenthood actually does not report cases of rape, even statutory rape, to the authorities. Thus, by offering women abortions as a solution for their rape, their rapist is often not held accountable for his actions. In addition to this, the violence of abortion does not make up for the trauma of rape.

2: Thankfully, medical advancements continue to save more lives. Situations in which the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother are extremely rare. Late-term abortions are never medically necessary. Emergency C-sections are often the medically appropriate response to save both mother and child. Viability at this stage of the child’s development is generally very good, especially with advances in neonatal care. Babies who weigh just under a pound are surviving! As for first-trimester scenarios, most are to save the mother from ectopic (“out of place”) pregnancies, which typically occur in the Fallopian tube. Surgeries for ectopic pregnancies are not medically classified as abortions. The death of the unborn child is an unintended result of said surgery, unlike abortion. Also, an interesting tidbit is that in a study in Finland, it was found that those who had abortions had a much higher death rate. Chile also has reported to have a lower maternal mortality rate now after having banned abortions/restricted them greatly.

3: Actually, I never claimed that a fetus is more important than a pregnant woman. I did, however, claim that they have equal rights. I'd rather invest in counseling for my daughter that way she could deal with the anxiety and stress that comes with pregnancy rather than allowing her to murder her unborn child.

4: I see your point that, since abortion is not harming me, I should not really care. However, the same thing could be said for child abuse. Let's say my neighbor is abusing his child. It does not affect me in any way, so should I not report it to the police?

Thank you, and I respect you as well.

18608 -
modify delete 18755 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2022-09-01

Gianna, please reread what you said "Abortion is never necessary to save a mother's life. The vast majority of potentially fatal pregnancy complications happen after 6 months of pregnancy". You just claimed that is is never necessary, then admitted there are times when it is necessary.

Please show where you found this evidence of human life beginning at conception, I have found sources on princton and American College of Pediatricians, however both source events that happened in the 60's as their primary evidence. Without a proper refresh it's a bit stale for me. Even if that is true, there is a difference between human life and life. I once again reaffirm that it is not human at that stage in a mental and soul perspective. I don't understand your views regarding your trust in scientist, one moment you dismiss climate change and scientists, then you grasp science as a weapon if it agrees with you.

Ahh yes... " one with 46 human chromosomes", those born without 46 chromosomes are not worthy of life... look up Turner syndrome or monosomy and I have to ask if an innocent girl now deserves to die. I have to ask why you included this key element, it's awfully particular.

Around 650 people died during child birth in 2018. Do you realize that we are the worst industrialized country in terms of that? It doesn't just end, there is also social shaming involved. People are looked down upon for teen pregnancies, or giving up the child, or being pregnant without a significant other. The social ramifications are massive, and they don't just end after 9 months.

Regarding homelessness and poverty, the number of abortions from impoverished families is rapidly increasing, from 2000-2008 it increased by 18%. (This is according to United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who I hope you would find reliable given your religious stance). A large amount of foster kids end up in poverty, thus feeding the cycle. Being "pro-life" is not about saving children. Once the child is born no one cares an ounce do they? Just subject them to the streets and into poverty so they can repeat the same thing their parent did.

What defines a human life is having a soul, and I don't think a glob of RNA has a soul. Life is different from having a soul, and I won't get too strange here but I think it is when the conscious forms.

Rapist should be forced to provide money anyways if their is a child or not!! If the only deterrent for not raping someone is having to pay the person off then there is no deterrent at all. No one is saying that someone can do as they please when it comes to other people with their body. What people are saying is that a person has a right to do what they please to their own body. As you said, it is a symbiote. If a person wanted too they could legally rip out their kidney even though it is in a helpful relationship with them. Whats the difference?

I just want you to see what the world you are fighting for looks like:

Sally is walking home from school wearing the most non-scandalous clothing possible as per what her strict Christian parents told her. She ignores the LGBTQ students because they are nothing but god-less freaks of nature. Thats what her science textbook and teacher told her. All of a sudden she see's her friend bob, they have been friends for a while of course and Sally likes him. Bob rapes here after they go to his house and in distress she collapses into a pile.
Who does she tell? Her christian parents when she was not meant to go to his house? Or maybe her friends? She decided to tell no one and in five months it is becoming evident she is pregnant. She can't say bob raped her anymore no! Now she was a sinner who seduced bob. She is shunned by her friends and family, and gives birth in a painful and arduous process.

This future really sucks so please keep me out of it.
Does she tell her

18608 -
modify delete 18754 - Reply from Nil22 , 15 yrs (France) - 2022-08-31

I won't answer to all you said because I don't have vocabulary enough to explain some things. But I thank you for this interesting answer.

1 - you said that rapes concerned only 1% of women. First, we can't always know if the woman was rapped or not, they sometimes don't say it. And secondly, it means that for you they do not exist. Yes you cannot base all on 1%, but the 99% other pourcents have bodies and rights you can't ignore.

2 - you said a woman can't die in giving life. I don't know where you read it but it's wrong.
Some women actually are dieing because they can't get a curetage because doctors don't have the right to do it. Some girls are dieing because of this.

3 - I understood that for you, a fœtus is more important than a woman. But why would you save fœtus if you're too blind to save women who need your help ? If you think about it, a woman is like a big fœtus to be saved. But now, she doesn't need someone to make the right choice instead of her. Now she can decide and if she feels and decides that she's not ready to be a mother, then nobody can tell otherwise.
Would you prefer to have a grandson few years after or to know that your daughter killed herself because she was 16 and wasn't ready ?
I know all you said about adoption and all but 1 : one homeless on three comes from a host family, it means that host family aren't always the good way. And secondly, even if the governement tries to help, women are still hurting. To force women to be pregnant and after that try to not let them suffer is like if you killed every firemen of a city and after that, you create a hospital to help victims of fire. It doesn't make any sense.

4 - okay, i see your point of view. But when women can abort, it is not hurting you, because women who are anti abortion can still have a normal pregnancy. But when you get off abortions, women who don't need abortions are the only one to be safe.
When you have the right to it means you can live with some people who get it, and some people Who don't get it. Everybody can choose her way to live. And the difference we have make us rich, and open - minded. You said you understood, if you really understood, you would have no troubles to live in a country where women are free to do what they want of their bodies.

I know we don't share the same point of view at all. But we also don't share the same education and experience. But I still respect you.
As we all should respect each other and their differences. I think when everybody is free to think what they want to, we get closer to justice. So now, I just hope justice will come into everybody and everybody can choose his / her way to live.

18608 -
modify delete 18753 - Reply from Gianna50 , 25 yrs (USA) - 2022-08-29

*by person I mean when are they worthy of human rights, including the right to life?

18608 -
modify delete 18752 - Reply from Gianna50 , 25 yrs (USA) - 2022-08-28

Hey, Nil. Don't worry about your English; it's pretty good!

There are several points I would like to address. First of all, rapes account for 1% of all abortions. One cannot really argue the pro-choice case simply based on 1% of people. Even so, there are solutions to pregnant rape victims. There are many foundations, here in America at least, that will offer practically free medical care for a pregnant woman, and there are also places for said pregnant women to stay if they do not have a home. After giving birth, the baby can go to adoption, or be kept, if the mother so chooses. There are 36 families waiting to adopt per every 1 baby adopted. Pregnancy lasts for about nine months. That does not set behind a woman's life by much, and Mary in our example could probably get to 6 months before she begins to face serious inconveniences (i.e. bigger stomach, fatigue, etc.). It is perfectly possible to continue getting an education and therapy even if you are pregnant. :)

You mentioned the possibility that Mary might die. Abortion is never necessary to save a mother's life. The vast majority of potentially fatal pregnancy complications happen after 6 months of pregnancy, by which time the baby has a good chance of living in a prenatal unit. In fact, doing an abortion at this point causes more danger to the mother because of the amount of time it would take to prepare for the surgery. If we are talking about complications that arise earlier in pregnancy, of which there are very few, most doctors are able to bring the mother and child to a point where they can both live. If not, however, surgeries can be done to try to fix the complication, as, if the mother dies, neither the baby nor the mother can live. In addition to this, these surgeries only have the possibility of the death of the baby. Some are higher than others, but either way, the death of the baby was not intentional, and all that could be done was done to save both the mother and the baby. But again, this is very, very few cases.

Scientific studies have confirmed that humanity and life begins at conception. At the moment the DNA from the sperm meets that of the ova, a diploid cell - one with 46 human chromosomes - is formed, and it rapidly multiplies. It is already a living, human being.

Definitely the case of a child being neglected is difficult. However, as stated earlier, there are 36 families waiting to adopt for every 1 baby put up for adoption. The foster care system, although it isn't ideal, is certainly a solution. Every person does deserve love. And they ARE loved by someone, whether they know it or not. I try my best to remind myself that I should love all, my enemies, my friends, and those I haven't met. That is part of the reason I have become involved in advocating for the unborn; I love the unborn.

Let me ask you this: If a mother consented to intercourse and had no health problems, would you be in favor of permitting her to get an abortion? Also, what makes someone a person?

Don't worry, this is a debates forum, after all. I would, however, beg to differ that these are merely opinions. This is, quite literally, a life or death issue for millions of unborn children.

18608 -
modify delete 18751 - Reply from Nil22 , 15 yrs (France) - 2022-08-23

First, I want to thank everyone to share all these different points of view without any aggressivity.
And I don't know how this page works but I wanted to answer to Gianna's message about abortion and raped women.
If I well understood what you meant you think that let raped women get an abortion is a mistake because it is more violence for them. Also you said "My question is, what right of a mother allows her to kill her child?"
So for you get an abortion is a a child murder (tell me if I go too far).
But let's talk about an example of women.
Mary is a 16 years old girl. She is shy, she loves sports and lives with her mother and her father in law.
I won't go into details but, that day arrives, where this father in law rapes Mary. She is 16 years old. She has no job. She is scared, lost, she feels dirty because the smell of his breathe is still on her skin.

The body she had is not hers anymore. He took her everything. Her mother doesn't support her.
And few weeks later, boum. She gets pregnant.
Mary is lost. She doesn't want to be a mother. If she becomes a mother without feeling ready, what would it mean in this child life ? Do you prefer to know that a woman got an abortion and can start a therapy, go to school... or to know that a 16 years old girl becomes a mother because of a rape, even if she has no home, no job, no hope. How long this girl could stay alive ? And what if she dies in giving birth ? She would die just because her father rapped her and abortion is illegal. It's not even about the man who raped her, because if you forbid abortion and she gets pregnant even if she doesn't want to, YOU are the raper of her rights, of her body, of her choices. Nobody can decide for all women. If a woman wants to be pregnant that's great, and I'm glad for her. But it's impossible you know how it feels when you know you're diving because you can't love this child.
You were talking about the fœtus rights.
A fœtus is not a human. And I think we should be give more empathy to women who are already born.

Ok and let's say you're right and a fœtus is human and we are all humans so we have rights and so they are.
A human has the right to be loved.
If you suppress the right to get an abortion it won't mean this fœtus will be loved. It means that women who wanted to abort would have to care a baby for 9 months, 9 long months to just abandon him/her in the street and make one homeless of more. I don't think it is the solution.
And let's say you're right and abort is a crime because you "kill" the fœtus.
Would you prefer to know your daughter has "killed" her foetus or to know that your daughter wasn't ready to have this child so now she's drinking because she has 3 jobs and can't pay the electricity because she's alone and haven't could finish her studies and now your grandson is stealing in the street, has no education because your daughter doesn't mind him. He has diven in drugs, becomes a junkie....
And now, because there were no love when he was born, when his mother educated him,because of the compassion you refused to your daughter, your grandson is in a silent looong death.

I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, because no opinion is wrong. I'm just trying to make this conversation more spicy giving this arguments against yours
I won't say if these arguments are mine or not. Let's just say that I want to bring hard examples.

(Sorry if I made some grammar mistakes, I know my English isn't perfect)

18608 -
modify delete 18750 - Reply from Gianna127 , 25 yrs (USA) - 2022-07-25

Okay, I'm back. I'm sorry for having two messages.

Personally, I think it's dehumanizing to say it's necessary for any raped woman to have the option to abort. It's telling a child conceived by rape that they didn't/don't have the humanity to live. In addition to this, by aborting a child conceived by rape, we are only adding violence to the violence of rape. Why should we allow the killing of an innocent child for his or her father's crimes? Abortions also add serious trauma to a woman. Adding that to the trauma from rape would only hurt a woman more. Furthermore, having abortion as an option only keeps the rapist less accountable. Rapists are less likely to rape if they know that the chance of them being forced to provide money to the mother is higher. I also think that, if the child is causing the woman that much grief that she feels she must abort, delivering early is an option. As long as she induces labor in the third trimester and near a NICU, both the baby and the mother have very high chances of survival.

My question is, what right of a mother allows her to kill her child? Bodily autonomy appears to come up quite often, but bodily autonomy is limited. One can't go traipsing on another's property and excuse it by saying it's his or her own body. Even more so, one can't kill another person simply because they wanted to do with their body as they please. A fetus is not a parasite, as many people claim. If we're not recognizing it as a human being, then we must at least recognize it as a symbiont, where both the mother and child are thriving. It is not doing any specific harm to the mother (excluding times with complications, which aren't as many as people actually think, and even so, most of them are not life-threatening), and the fetus actually helps the mother repair organs by donating stem cells.

Technically, we don't know whether or not a fetus has brainwaves before 14 weeks. At about 14 weeks we are able to pick up on its responses to the environment with the machinery we have, but it could be occurring much earlier. In addition to this, if consciousness is what causes one to be truly alive (with the right to life), what about people in comas? People experiencing non-REM sleep (simply put, sleep without dreams or thoughts). That's why we're human BEINGS. Not human FEELINGS or THINKINGS. We're human beings. From the moment of conception, we are living. We ARE. From the moment of conception we're entirely human. Human + are (form of "be") = human being.

I'm also not sure if this is a me thing, but I feel insulted that people pressure women to get abortions in order to be successful. Women fought hard to gain rights and the ability to work. Having children did not stop them from doing so. I personally feel that it's a step backwards to be telling women they can either be a mother or successful. There is room for both, and that we "must" have the option to murder our children in order to be successful suggests that there is a distrust in our capability, to put it quite simply.

What do you think of these points?

18608 -
modify delete 18749 - Reply from Gianna127 , 25 yrs (US) - 2022-07-25

Yes, that was where I was going with my argument. I have encountered countless people who have claimed that humans are no different than other animals, so that is typically what I would tell them. But by then saying that humans are different than other animals, with a moral compass and other like things, we are kind of proving the existence of the soul, as well as that of God if one truly looks into it. As it's said, God created them man and woman. It is also said many times throughout the Bible that homosexuality is wrong. So if we are taking God to be God and going from a religious standpoint, homosexuality is still wrong (by homosexuality I mean homosexual acts). The Church considers homosexuality to be disordered thinking, similar to that of a mental illness. I couldn't help that my thoughts told me to starve myself. It was a disorder. It was what I chose to do with my thoughts that determined whether or not it was a sin. Similarly with depression. One can't help that their thoughts tell them that they are worthless and that they should kill themselves. We are called to hate the sin, not the sinner. Just as someone with severe depression should try to abstain from self-harm, someone with homosexual inclinations should try to abstain from acting on them. An unmarried person who is very hormonal should try to abstain from intercourse. We're all sinners, yet God does not hate any of us. As all of us are sinners, even the best people have sinned seriously. Slavery was inherently wrong, yet many of who we consider to be the greatest Americans had slaves. Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings, for example. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, something that helped with the expansion of the United States. God permits sin to happen, as He gave us all free will. While sin is still wrong, permits it to happen. He gave us the tools and means to help us reach Heaven. It is what we choose to do with them that determines if we get there. For example, a candidate running in my state, Josh Shapiro, is extraordinarily anti-Catholic. One specifically horrible example is during the beginning of the COVID pandemic. Many elderly nuns, who provide nearly free care (monetarily free to the patient) to many poor people. However, their care did not contain contraceptives, which are wrong in the Catholic faith. Josh Shapiro took them to court in order to get these monetarily poor, dying nuns (as they were old, COVID hit them relatively badly...) to pay for contraceptives as part of the healthcare they provided. Yet Josh Shapiro liberated the Church in one way. He made it open for anyone who had been abused by a Catholic priest to call in and be reimbursed for their trauma. That helped liberate the Catholic Church from the stigma surrounding the abuse incidents in Pennsylvania. That was a good feat, but he did sin in the past. That is similar to the Julius Caesar example. I don't know if what I'm saying is making sense... basically God permits sin, as He loves us so much that He's given us free-will. While He allows sin to happen (i.e. murder, homosexual acts, intercourse out of wedlock, etc.), it doesn't stop it from being wrong.
If you are referring to the sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church, I understand what you mean. It was horribly wrong, and the Church is trying much harder now to stop the predators. People criticize the Catholic Church for having not done much about it in the past, but the thing is, that was, quite unfortunately, the social norm in the past. No one wanted to make the children suffer through a court session. My aunt was involved in a case where a man (non-religious) sexually abused her. My grandparents were furious, and they had my aunt describe and identify the man from mugshots. Apparently this man had a habit of doing this, but the police did nothing. They didn't want her to have to go through the trauma of facing him in court. While I agree that the Church should have done more about it, it is hard to say they are the only ones who did not hold people accountable for sexual abuse.
I have to go for now, but I will respond more later

18608 -
modify delete 18748 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2022-07-17

I think I see where your thoughts were going, "that no other creature has homosexual relationships on purpose, then why do we?" Is that correct? If it is I would say that humans are certainty unlike any other animals. However I could also say with certainty that we are still an animal; with the basic and barbaric tendencies that you can find. What strikes me as different is our capacity to make a conscious and moral choice that other animals cannot (with the exception of large thinking mammals such as dolphins, cats, dogs,primates and elephants to name a few not being able to come even close despite their intelligence and consciousness). To me that means the difference between two men being in a relationship and two male ducks being in a relationship is that we have the choice too. If god doesn't want that then he can smite me dead and everyone who is homosexual. Yet god doesn't because I believe that homosexuals are natural and another aspect of gods creation. Alexander the Great, Frederick the Great, Julius Caesar and more were all often considered to have a homosexual relationship of some kind, yet they contributed vast works in the foundation of mankind. Julius Caesar established the Roman Empire which would allow Jesus's teachings to spread across Europe and North Africa; was this part of gods grand design? A homosexual contributing to the salvation of mankind? I don't know if I make any sense, but I do believe that they are another of gods creations, just like you and I, and are meant to be happy just like you and I.
Also, I don't mean to step on any toes but the Catholic church hierarchy is in no position to dictate what homosexuals can and can't do when they have their own little dirty secret about that within the church.

Yeah, I personally think the argument for abortion that relates to rape is flimsy at best. I mean it is necessary but ultimately more of a symbolic aspect rather than a practical one. I do think that it is necessary for people who were raped, but basing an entire argument on it just undermines the basic foundation of the pro-abortion argument.
There needs to be a balance, it isn't right for someone to abort a fetus like a month before it's born. Its practically already a full grown baby. Yet the mothers rights are also paramount, but I do believe at a certain point the mother does bear a responsibility for the child. Which brings us to when does an embryo think and such... everyone has different opinions. I think the simple fact is that before 7 weeks its essentially a glob of DNA and material. It definitely has no conscious because it has no organs. 14 weeks is when the fetus first gains the ability to even experience an outside sensation. Without it it is just an empty vessel. In my own view 14-15 weeks should be the cut-off for abortion on request from a moral standpoint. Yet, again, thats just my own personal view.
Its unfortunate that people say that, it isn't right and everyone should be able to express their political views without harassment. It is certainty harder to be pro-life as a women and argue against people who are pro-choice as you and I have both seen, they dive into personal attacks. I suppose the great irony in this all is that my "bloc" claims to fight for equal rights, yet degrades women who argue against them, saying they belong in a kitchen.

A basic mental health screening is a great idea, guns should simply not be in the hands of people who could turn it on others or themselves.
Thank you, and I could say the same too you. I know I have mentioned this before, but our ability to find common cause, and agree to disagree on our differences does give me hope that we can move forward from this political unrest that plagues our country.

18608 -
modify delete 18747 - Reply from Gianna127 , 25 yrs (USA) - 2022-07-15

Certainly likening a sexual orientation to the Nazis is extreme. I'm in favor of helping people with love, compassion, and empathy whenever possible. For the most part, the Catholic Church simply opposes LGBTQ+ using the Bible, specifically Leviticus, but many traditions in that book are no longer followed. However, there are other sources in the Bible that are opposed to it. But seeing that not everyone is religious I tend to base my oppositions to engaging in homosexual interactions with basic tradition and sense. Until the recent years, almost everyone considered gay relations to be wrong. Marriage is the beginning of a family unit. It's where a man and woman join together to be intimate partners to help achieve life callings, as well as allowing your love to be fruitful and, if it is so, helping the children to get raised correctly. In general, no animals except humans are truly homosexual as many claim. Rather, most animals mate homosexually based on the instinct to mate in heat, often when an animal of the other gender is not around. As humans we understand that having intercourse just because of hormones leads to loveless intercourse, which should be an act of self-giving. Of love. Not based on the hormonal urges. Another example of when homosexuality occurs in animals is when there is an uneven number of females to males, causing some of the additional males/females to mate together. Another basic argument I have with it is intercourse itself. It's both for procreation and joining the couple in an act of self-giving. Without there being the possibility of procreation, it obviously isn't self-giving. It isn't saying that the love is strong enough to last with a child. Another part of it is that it is complementary. Obviously men and women are made to be complementary. Same-sex couples are not. This probably sounds like a lot of random thoughts... sorry haha. It is an extremely hard issue, and I tend to struggle with philosophical things. I think one of the most basic arguments that doesn't fall back on any particular subjective beliefs is the complementary joining of a man and woman, as well as the basic fact that intercourse is pretty much for procreation. I have absolutely no hate towards those with homosexual urges. I just don't agree with gay marriage.

I do need a fair bit of advice on the pro-choice issue... I've experienced, especially lately after the Roe v. Wade reversal, many people claiming that abortion is necessary because of rape victims. However, < 1% of abortions are from rape victims. Also another argument I've run into quite a lot is that the bodily autonomy of the mother trumps the right to life of the child in the womb. Another is that the beginning of life is subjective, as an embryo isn't sentient or capable of thinking. Where do you stand on these? Most of the people I have engaged with have told me that I was "obviously jealous of successful women, and you're only an incapable busybody who is speaking online because you'll never amount to anything in the real world" as well as being accused of trying to get other women to "come back into the kitchen." I'm just wondering if you have any advice on this... I know we don't see eye to eye on pro-life vs. pro-choice, but I know that debates here are tame and respectful, so I was wondering if you had any insight or anything on those issues that we could debate without telling each other to go make a sandwich, as that's all we'll be good for.

I lost a friend back quite a few years ago to a domestic case of gun violence, so I'm definitely wary of guns. Although I am not fond of them, I understand that they are an important part of feeling safe for many people, as well as for hunting. I think more intensive background checks would be fairly wise... just to make it a little bit harder for anyone to impulsively buy a gun, or for a violent person to buy one at all. I personally have never owned a gun, and I don't recall my parents' buying of one (even so it was kept locked up and disassembled due to mental illness) or how hard it was to obtain. Would you agree with having a basic mental health screening, as well as perhaps a polygraph test?

I take back what I said about it being right because they were only taking orders... I did not think of it in that way. It was a very insensitive thought. You tend to think things through very well, and thanks for calling out my error in your last paragraph. :)

18608 -
modify delete 18746 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2022-07-12

Hey, sorry for my late response.

I have read articles published by the Southern Poverty Law Center that completely discredits his work. To begin with he is a member of an pro-traditionalist marriage Catholic group "The Ruth Institute". Its founder said:

“It’s really important to be well informed about what the church actually says about homosexual practice….The church is very clear that same-sex sexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can never be morally acceptable.”
–Jennifer Roback Morse on “Catholic Answers Live,” 2012
While I know you agree with this point, the founder is actively campaigning against same-sex couples.

Furthermore: "she likened priests loyal to the Nazi regime to Christians who failed to oppose the “pagan ideology” of marriage equality."
Heres another study that found the opposite result as well, "

Frankly, I would not believe a word of anything that comes out of the mouth of a organization that compares LGBTQ to Nazi's, and those who fight against LGBTQ as freedom fighters.

It would, but the thing is that it would need to be phased out slowly to be replaced, if you just drop it immediately there would be a fair bit of chaos from people who were involved or relied on planned parenthood.

Most people who bought a gun and attacked a school had some sort of disciplinary, mental or online history before they committed the act. Violent messages, violence or even bullying are all signs that there is something wrong with a person. Looking at these and deciding, "this person said he wishes he could kill xyz" is a pretty good factor in deciding whether a kid should get a gun.

So is it alright when someone died because the person was just following his orders? Then that absolved the thousands of SS guards who didn't actively commit the Holocaust, just knew about it. Look, if people were to follow orders we would be living in a nuclear holocaust right now, a Russian saved us from that by not listening to orders to send a bomb over to our capital. Besides there were kids in there, I don't care if it was there orders or not, its there duty to protect kids. If your valuing police lives, who join and serve knowing that theres a risk that they will need to put their life on the line, over a bunch of elementary school children then there is a major issue. I know you aren't alluding to that but I have met many people online who believe that the death of children, and I quote, "was a necessary sacrifice to preserve freedom."

18608 -
modify delete 18744 - Reply from Gianna127 , 25 yrs (USA) - 2022-06-16

I'm really sorry again for my delay... I really need to work on replying to people faster.

It seems we've traveled in a full circle... Gay adoption. I still stand by my view that children need a mother and father to thrive. Having both parents ensures the child the ability to converse and interact with both sexes. Statistically, children are much more successful and at less risk of mental illness with their natural parents. However, when this is unattainable, heterosexual couples are the next with success and mental stability. In a study done by American sociologist Paul Sullins it was found that emotional problems are over twice as prevalent for children with same-sex parents than for children with opposite-sex parents, problems including but not limited to misbehavior, worrying, depression, relationships with peers, and inability to concentrate. True, being brought up by a same-sex couple, divorced parents, or a single parent might be better than spending their childhood in an orphanage, there is no doubting that the best situation for the children is for a heterosexual couple to adopt them. It's for this reason, although I'm certainly planning to adopt once I'm married, that I've chosen not to adopt while I'm in my current state of solitude and confiding in my dog. I also still believe that a same-sex union is immoral, but that isn't related to the point of abortion. However, if you would want to, I'd be happy to debate this topic again.

I was under the impression that the new entity would take the place of Planned Parenthood; it would help the family support the newborn/unborn child, as well as help with adoption if needed. Did you have a different idea about what this new organization would do?

In your opinion, what should the universal background checks consist of? Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I always remembered that a criminal always has a first crime, before which they were innocent and seemingly harmless. Likewise, the shooter appeared harmless until he went into the school, so no one could really have prevented it. It's tragic, but I feel that there isn't much that can happen in regards to preventing shootings. They are often unpredictable.

I do think physical training for police officers would be helpful. Not necessarily being nitpicky with them about doing a certain amount of exercise each day, but encouraging them and reminding them to keep in good shape. I haven't looked too far into it, and I'm not extremely certain about how police officers function, but I've heard that the officers were unable to go into the school by an order, and that they had to wait for a more capable team to show up. Of course, going into the school might have helped, but at the same time they were being held back by orders. Again, I'm not entirely sure how true this is, but I've heard this from a few sites.

18608 -
modify delete 18743 - Reply from Jack 100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2022-05-28

I would like to take back my words about calling all police cowards, it is simply not true. The two officers who did lead the charge we incredibly brave and I hope for their health. Most other officers around the country are brave as well, I just wish more action was taking to prevent this.

18608 -
modify delete 18742 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2022-05-28

I agree, it is definitely a very difficult matter. Frankly there is far more I could learn about the subject before I make any major assertions over it. However, based on my knowledge I would say a system similar to Big Brothers/Big Sisters, where adults and youth could take out a child for the day from an orphanage or foster care system. It would help them develop bonds I think... though that might already be in place. I would encourage gay families to adopt of course, though many already do.
I am conflicted whether Planned Parenthood should be combined with this new entity as having so many government bureau's leads to so much redtape and confusion. If it is separate then funds would be taken from planned parenthood. I also think the government could encourage wealthy organizations to donate funds into this system as well. I know many anti-abortion groups would probably be eager to, but I of course may be wrong.

It is terrifying and utterly senseless; I don't understand how someone could kill another person without reason... especially children. It strikes home for me as I am in still in school. Personally, police in schools are a horrifically flawed idea. My school officer cannot run and frankly always looks about five seconds from passing out. I have no faith in his ability to protect us, such as the officer at Uvalde failed to protect the students. Greater physical conditioning among police officers is definitely needed, alongside gun training. Maybe also getting some that weren't cowards and sat outside the school for twenty minutes as a murderer rampaged through would be good as well. Universal Background checks would also help, including (in my opinion) making it so that between the age of 18-21 someone cannot buy a weapon without their parents/guardians being present.

I am an INFP-T.

18608 -
modify delete 18741 - Reply from Gianna127 , 25 yrs (USA) - 2022-05-26

Sorry for my delay in responding!

Do you have any ideas in regards to changing the adoption process? It's really a difficult matter... trying to balance safety for the kids yet enough people who are capable of adopting. I definitely could see youth counselors being a good idea... It would also be a good volunteer job/regular job for some teens/college students, and it would probably be a bit more enticing to pregnant teenagers or youths. What would you plan on doing with the funding? I'm not sure if I'm missing some steps logistically, but do you think taking the funds from Planned Parenthood and converting them into these centers/using the money to create such centers would suffice?

I'm horrified by the elementary school shooting in Texas. Such a tragedy. I really feel for the friends and family of all involved. It's led me to ponder gun safety. Similar to abortion, I feel that shootings will always exist (very sadly). I was wondering if you have any ideas on gun control that we could maybe discuss?

Very off topic, but do you know your MBTI/16 personalities type? I'm an ISFJ... Sorry for being off-topic, I was just interested.

18608 -
modify delete 18740 - Reply from Jack49 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2022-05-11

The adoption process is definitely too strict in some regards, though I do understand why, mainly to ensure the kid doesn't end up on the street. However, refusing your family is nonsensical. I think the most important thing is whether the family will care for the child, not if the family is wealthy or small enough. Abortion and other things will probably always exist, legally or illegally, but this would help decrease the amount of abortions by a massive amount. I think community centers like this can do so much and more!
I could imagine these centers also providing youth counselors as well as ways to connect with the teen audience. So many abortions are from younger groups who were pregnant from a stupid 5 minute decision. If these kids could be adopted, or proper education and preventative measures are given by the sites, then this could be changed.

Thank you! I am glad to debate with someone who is intelligent and bright as well. I am the same as well, I came into these debates with the same closed mind, but through it I have opened it. My views on many things have definitely changed.

18608 -
modify delete 18739 - Reply from Gianna127 , 25 yrs (USA) - 2022-05-09

I can understand how your school lacks the proper funding... I mean, it is a school meant for teaching, but it is really admirable that it tries. Perhaps this would be looking too far into the future, but what changes do you think would have to come about for this pregnancy/mother/family center to come about? As much as I'm sure this type of center would be helpful, abortion would still exist most likely... I assume the adoption process would have to be made slightly easier, as right now the biological parents tend to have a lot of paperwork and say in where the child goes, which isn't ideal for a woman that doesn't want the child. I recall that when my family wished to adopt (probably about 9-12 years ago) we were deemed unable to foster or adopt because of our house size and schedule. Our house was a fair size, but our plans to reorganize rooms to make everything fit smoothly and safely was rejected. In addition to this, myself and two of my siblings were mentally unwell, and the adoption agency did not want us having a child in the midst of that. I understand their viewpoint of the mental illness, but for the most part we were on the path to recovery. These restrictions always gave me the impression that the adoption process was too rigid, and that they were prohibiting and dissuading many families from adopting. However, if the adoption process were made less rigorous, there's the possibility that children would be taken into the wrong homes. What are your thoughts?

These discussions have been very pleasant. I enjoy debating with someone who is not only very intelligent and bright, but also eager to learn and patient. These conversations have helped me change some of my views, as prior to this I was extremely anti-government involvement in much at all. These insightful debates have helped me see some things I was blatantly wrong or unaware of. So thank you for that as well. I really think that one day you could make a very great president or senator. You are intelligent, have a keen sense of right and wrong, and you care about the future and the people of America.

... Slightly embarrassingly to admit, these discussions have made me less of a Hermione Granger and a bit more open-minded. :)

18608 -
modify delete 18738 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2022-05-06

Do not worry, I find your idea of a "Grace" period fascinating. It perfectly links the society we have to the human population growth. Do not worry about talking about speculation, I often find that discussing it helps piece together thoughts and share ideas.

That would be fantastic, a brilliant thought. My school tries this but lacks the funds to do larger and more important procedures like ultra-sounds and adoptions, I can imagine further funding would do wonders for it.
I was looking through our old conversations and I couldn't help but smile and see how much I had changed from only over a year ago. So many new ideas, and ideas I have ditched. This entire discussion has been very beneficial to me, intellectually and morally speaking. Things that I used to be okay with I know find abhorrent, and vice-versa. Thank you for that. Sorry for this off track paragraph, it was just something I noticed and wanted to say.

18608 -
modify delete 18737 - Reply from Gianna127 , 25 yrs (USA) - 2022-05-05

That's an interesting observation, but when I come to think of it, you're right. Many graphs show that second and third world countries will have a much higher population by 2050. A passing idea I've had a few times is that there is a grace period between low quality of life and high quality, or as those are portrayed in your example. Poor quality would be with much sickness and much unemployment, and high quality would be wealthier and more advanced in technology, as well as with many more people being employed. Many kids are unable to survive conditions in low quality of life, thus reducing the number of children born/surviving to adulthood. In the high quality, there is such emphasis on work and being employed that many people value business over family life. I find that in high quality life, there is a lot more propaganda about how one is only successful if they work, making things such as being a stay-at-home mom or taking maternity leave to seem worse. The grace period, which I feel that many second/third world countries with higher predicted growth rates, is where conditions are more ideal, yet the push for everyone to have a high-paying, full-time job is not there, and the idea of a family isn't marginalized to be poor or where the mother has to stay home. I don't know exactly what I was trying to accomplish by saying this... I got rather lost in speculation... I apologize.

While I'm not the biggest fan of government-run businesses, as they tend to be more easily corruptible and promote a poorer quality of things, as well as the fact that many have to pay taxes for a business they may not support, I feel that many abortions could be prevented by having a government funded cooperation. Planned Parenthood is funded by the government, yet it gives a very poor solution to problems. What if, instead of a place where abortion was the solution, they would provide services that would actually be beneficial to a mother and child? Ultrasound services, supplies, etc. And that would help eliminate the need to kill a child (and damage the mother's body in the process) because of poverty. In addition to this, such an agency could help coordinate adoptions of babies that aren't wanted.

18608 -
modify delete 18736 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2022-04-23

That's good to hear!

I am in much agreement about Malthus and carrying capacity, there is no definite limit (only the limit of human engineering) on how much food we can simply produce. The reduction of what Americans eat and our food waste would help with food problems even more. The main problem I see is that birth rate tends to fluctuate in regards to quality of life and culture. We see an increase in children as the ability to aid them after birth increases with it, however the amount of children born is actually higher when the quality of life is lower. Now culture comes into this as many people are beginning to prioritize work over family matters. The interest in rearing children is decreasing as debts, work stress and increased participation of women in the labor force increases. Now at the moment quality of life is still increasing (for the most part) but climate change, food shortages and unrest might affect that. What I find interesting is how the cultural aspects of birth rates react to these conditions. Will we see a increase or a further decrease? I know much of my opinions deal in hypotheticals, and as such probably don't seem like they have any firm backing or even that I have a firm understanding of them.

Here's some interesting data: My city has a poverty rate of 14.7% while the metropolitan area has 9.7%. 10.6% of women gave birth within the last year in my city, while only 5% did in the metro... while there are probably other factors at play here I do believe there is a correlation to poverty (which is rising around the country) and birth rates. For reference my city has 15,000 people with 125,000 living in the whole metro area.

I do believe that churches and community programs will help these people, but where are these programs for the homeless and impoverished? I know they exist but as I stated the poverty in my city has only increased. The need is too vast and often times it is impossible to support people who don't want help. Having community run programs simply don't always work when the community is as large as mine. How do a few thousand donors compensate for the needs of 12,125 impoverished people (~number of people in the metro who are in poverty)?

18608 -
modify delete 18730 - Reply from Gianna127 , 24 yrs (USA) - 2022-04-09

Thank you for the concern about my family. They are doing as well as they can be right now, and they haven't come into much contact with the war. :)

But a major question is if the ends justify the means. Only a very small fraction of abortions (around 1% as of 2019) account for rape, meaning that there was consent to do such relations with a partner for the other (approximately) 99%. Therefore someone is killing a human being for their choice to enter such a relationship. It is true that the population is booming, but there is no clear carrying capacity for humans. In fact, Thomas Malthus back in 1798 thought that the world would be soon overcrowded, but that wasn't the case. In addition to this, the predicted population growth is not in the reproduction of children. In an estimate from 2002 to 2050 for predicted population growth, there will be a relatively small increase in people ages 0-19, and some small changes in those from ages 20-45. The elderly is where the most population growth will be, most likely because of increased medical support for the elderly and more ways to prevent their death. Therefore one can conclude that the population growth is not coming from a massive amount of people having children, and rather the support of the elderly. I'm not saying that we should kill off the elderly, as that is just horrible for reasons I don't need to explain, but killing babies is a horrible solution, and there could be much better. For example, as about 99% of people who have abortions consented to the relations with their partner, perhaps choosing to not interact in such a way would help. I don't personally think that we need to reduce the number of children, especially because they aren't the reason for the majority of the estimated population growth by the U.S. Census Bureau. It would be punishing the next generation for our own "problem."

If one feels the need to have relations with a partner that can result in pregnancy, I feel that they should be held accountable for it. They shouldn't be punishing a baby for their own "mistake." In addition to this, humans are relatively infertile species. There is a small time frame in which most women can become pregnant. While personally I believe that all those partaking in such an action should be open to new life and open to having children, there are ways in which one who feels the need to have such relationships can avoid pregnancy. By abstinence during the fertile period or abstinence in general, many lives can be saved. In addition to this, if women do become pregnant by "mistake," there are several places in communities that are open to helping them. Most churches will help a homeless, poor, or pregnant person who needs assistance without missing a beat. Generous people will give money to a poor box inside church for this very reason, so that the church can help those who come. There are also some very generous people who have a house open for women who are unsupported by their families for their pregnancies.

18608 -
modify delete 18729 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2022-04-06

From the current news, which is difficult to filter through as both West and east are spreading propaganda, I don't think Russia will overtake Ukraine. If anything they will succeed in "liberating" the two separatist regions. I don't think the US should directly involve mainly due to us being politically unstable at the moment with an absent president and vice president but our shipments of supplies do seem to be making a difference.

I am sorry about your family, I hope they are doing well. Are they safe from the fighting?

I don't think abortion is a good thing, due to that it is unfortunate that it exists, but it is a necessity. To counter massive population booms which threaten the global supply chain, a problem mainly in developing countries (which the grain you mention is tightening the noose around those regions) it is necessary to use abortion and contraceptives to limit the population growth across the world until we reach a reasonable position. Even though you believe that through good Christian faith we can do so, the simple fact is that 69% of the world is not Christian... unless the intent is to convince them by the sword. Besides, major population booms in medieval and industrial Europe happened even with Christian majorities. I believe it foolhardy to stake the entire human race on one course of training. Similar to climate change, we can't just let it happen, it will crush our children and grandchildren's future. The entire region in which I live could be underwater (hypothetically anyways), massive tracts of agrarian regions that are reduced to swamps and lakes. The food supply will be even more strained then.

18608 -
modify delete 18728 - Reply from Gianna127 , 24 yrs (US) - 2022-04-02

Many apologies for my delay... I hope this finds you well.

I do personally believe that what we did to Iraq was partial justified... 9/11 had recently occurred, Saddam Hussein was around, and Osama Bin Laden was also in the Middle East. It is my personal opinion that putting troops there was a favorable idea, not a whole army, but some American soldiers to keep an eye out for any terrorist activity. The levels of invasion to which the U.S. went was too far, but definitely having some soldiers there was justified.

The war is also very selfish and is worrying me a fair bit... Ukraine grows much of the wheat that is imported into Africa, and a deficit in such wheat would be quite tragic. The anxious side of me is also very nervous about a third world war breaking out, and, as Einstein said, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” I must say that I'm unsure of what will happen, or what should happen, if Russia overtakes Ukraine. Much of my extended family is native Ukrainian, and the terror I have for them is incredible. However, I am aware that U.S. interference could lead to a much more worldly war. What are your views about this?

I hope this doesn't sound like a bother, but I recall a while ago that you had mentioned that abortion is an unfortunate necessity. Can you please elaborate on that? I'm very curious about that.

18608 -
modify delete 18725 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (United States) - 2022-03-08

No worries.

I feel bad for the soldiers fighting on all sides of the conflict, it really doesn't seem like either side wants to be fighting. I worry for the civilians and captured soldiers especially, war has repeatedly shown that they are often the most abused.

I think Russia's public reasons are invalid, sure the Azov battalion are neo-nazi's but invading an entire nation for that sole reason is idiotic. It would be like invading modern day Germany for the same reason. Russia also had many far right and nazi groups as well.

Of course it is fairly hypocritical for the west to criticize Russia for it's invasion, given what we did to Iraq in 2003. I sincerely hope that as a civilization we will move on from invading nations as a whole.

I hope so as well, any war between two nuclear powers would be devastating.

18608 -
modify delete 18724 - Reply from Gianna127 , 24 yrs (US) - 2022-03-05

wasn't expecting it to be this vicious*
Sorry for the typo.

18608 -
modify delete 18722 - Reply from Gianna127 , 24 yrs (US) - 2022-03-05

I was really shocked as well. I had always expected Russia to, at one point, invade Ukraine, but I was expecting it to be this vicious. Putin's explanation that they were attacking Ukraine because Ukraine was a threat is foolish. I hope that things will return to be better soon. I just hope that it won't turn into the third world war... After all, WWI was simply started by the assassination of the Austrian archduke.

18608 -
modify delete 18721 - Reply from Jack49 , 16 yrs (United States) - 2022-03-03

Sorry for my late reply, I was too shocked by the war to respond. What are your views on it?

18608 -
modify delete 18718 - Reply from Gianna127 , 24 yrs (US) - 2022-02-19

I don't really comprehend how people think that killing a baby - an extremely immoral act - is a solution. May I ask why you think they are an unfortunate necessity? The purpose of sex is to create new life, and when people partake in it I feel that they should most definitely understand that there is a possibility of becoming pregnant. The way it is now is almost like sending a little kid to a high class ballet school just so that they can have fun. The purpose would be to get really good, but the kid is just doing it for fun, while they could be doing recreational ballet or something. Most people seem to think that sex is just for fun and pleasure, when really it is for procreation. They should probably find other ways to show their love for each other (in fact, abstinence is a large way to do so as it shows you respect the person enough to wait until marriage).

In a way abortions almost relate to the problem of teens doing it. In a way, marriage keeps someone accountable so that, if a pregnancy does occur, the wife can point fingers and say that the husband needs to share responsibility. If one does it as a teen, there is really nothing holding the relationship together and forcing the father to be responsible.

I don't think that the government really has to get involved besides reversing Roe vs Wade. Most communities should be able to support the mothers. In my community, there is a place where parishes around the area contribute baby food, baby clothes, formula, wipes, etc. so that a mother in need can go and get the resources she needs. I'm not sure entirely whether women who have abortions are scared of what to do when the baby is born and worry about supporting it, or if they are just unwilling to go through pregnancy that they risked by having intercourse.

Contraceptives have their own mix of problems. One is literally breaking down their body in order not to have a child when they could be abstaining. If one has to have intercourse without wanting kids (which, in itself, is redundant), then the best thing to do would be to use a condom. It's almost as though contraceptives are used like flu shots. But if one gets a flu shot and ends up having the flu, do they do something drastic to reverse the flu? I don't even know what would be a way to reverse the flu besides staying at home with nice warm soup, and abortions used to be just as unthinkable as a way to reverse the flu. If someone is so passionate about not becoming pregnant (while the easy answer is abstinence) that they must have contraceptives pre-intercourse (Morning-After pills are practically abortion), then I assume they should feel free to break down their own body. I'm not going to stop them, even though I believe that it isn't right. Even though it is God's creation, those who don't believe in Him believe that it is their body, so it is their choice, and I am not going to force my religion on anyone. However, at the moment of conception it is two lives. No longer just their body. However, "Our bodies, my choice" wouldn't sound very good as a pro-abortion slogan...

If a parent feels strongly enough about those school subjects, then they should teach them to their child. But the majority of people seem to be fine with the way schools run regular subjects such as math, history, etc. However, the world is very split on their beliefs in intercourse, which is why I feel that parents should talk to their kids about it. It could be as simple as a teacher assigning the kids a homework assignment of talking to their parents. And, as parents, they should be willing and open to help their kid and help them grow.

If you don't mind me asking, how do schools tend to teach sexual education?

18608 -
modify delete 18717 - Reply from Jack49 , 16 yrs (United States) - 2022-02-18

I would be happy to continue.

But that is exactly what people who are pro-abortion are arguing for, greater education to reduce the need for abortions. I don't think anyone in their right mind thinks abortions are moral, if they do then they need to go to a mental hospital. But I do see it as a unfortunate necessity,though I believe greater education, contraceptives and abstinence could decrease the amount of abortions to null.

I am not arguing that it helps, but the fact is that banning them doesn't change anything. The more things that are banned the stronger any entity becomes, I just can't see how your belief in a limited government is compatible with this. The goal is to stop their use and not empower the government more that it needs to be.

Abortions are not touched upon because whenever they are my school gets swarmed by a dozen angry parents demanding the teacher who said anything to be fired, regardless of what they said. The public holds the school system hostage to the extent that books can and are being banned because parents don't like their contents. Usually this is because it goes against their convoluted political doctrine.

By your idea that parents teach kids controversial subjects then apply to literally every class in school? I have heard more then one person call math the "language of the devil", should math only be taught by parents now? Some people think the Earth is flat, should geography be taught by parents? Some others thing the US genocide against the indigenous people was fake, or that segregation wasn't that bad... should we no longer talk about those subjects at school? If people are so concerned about what kids are being taught then they should cut back on the McDonald's and Disney land visits and send their kids to a private school.

18608 -
modify delete 18716 - Reply from Gianna127 , 24 yrs (US) - 2022-02-10

Hello Jack!

I'm sorry for the delay... I must admit that I hadn't checked this in a while. I'd be fine debating again if you still care to.

By banning abortions the public is at least not under the impression that abortion is a moral thing to do. In addition to this, if abortion was banned and there was more guidance about safe and moral things to do instead if you really don't want to take care of the kid, there might be a decrease in abortion.

That abortion rates are higher where abortion is illegal is not a reason to make them legal. It's encouraging the wrong thing. If more information was given about why it was so wrong, then people might stop having as many. I'm not entirely sure how things are done in schools, as I was homeschooled, but I'm under the impression that the education on this is not the best. Parents really ought to give their children a better talk about this, or really anybody close to them. In a way, I almost wish that it weren't taught to kids until their parents inform them about it in accordance with personal beliefs and views. I understand, however, that it falls into the category of biology.

18608 -
modify delete 18709 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (United States) - 2021-12-12

Wow, school sucker-punched me, but I've stabilized my schedule and I hope it isn't too late to revive this discussion.

Evidence shows that countries that ban abortions don't actually decrease the rate of abortions. Even more so, in many cases both the mother and child are killed because the mother uses unsafe means to abort. So outlawing abortion does nothing to solve the problem, because then the deaths just multiply.

18608 -
modify delete 18672 - Reply from Gianna5 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-09-10

I completely respect your schedule, and by no means is this anything important that you should make a priority in life. Take all the time you need. :)

As you have said before, the laws of the United States are not based on any religion. So if we are talking non-religious, life still begins at conception. Scientists say so. The moment a child is conceived, it fits all those requirements I mentioned. If killing is against the law, abortion should be as well. On a legal point of view I am saying this. It isn't a belief, but a fact, that life begins at conception. And killing is taking the life of something. So abortion is killing. This is more than just a religious view.

By saying humans are the most dominant, I am trying to explain why killing unborn babies isn't the same as killing an animal. Humans are on the top of the food chain, so it is natural for us to kill other animals for food.

I honestly don't know very much about immigration, and that is a different subject. The majority of pregnancies are not immigrants who are not yet citizens. And also I don't understand what is wrong about letting immigrants, so long as they aren't dangerous with a background check and making sure they aren't terrorists/have evil intents, come into our country. The United States is a free land where hard work gets you far.

As you said, that is hypocritical and disgusting. I'm horrified by this. Certainly a child's grades don't make them any less worth! But who did the shooting? A mad man? Or the entire Republican party? While it does have a slight connection to the abortion issue, it is not quite the same. Somebody is being put on trial for killing children, which is against the law, and the people who sold the gun to him are probably trying to avoid being sued, as they didn't do the shooting themselves (it still isn't right to try to subpoena the children's report cards). I mean, yes, look more into who you sell guns to, but in all reality it isn't their fault. Arguing that they aren't worth as much is wrong, but I doubt when they sold the man/woman who did the killing they knew they would be using it to shoot at a school.

Now if we go back to beliefs and religious viewpoints, you'll remember in the past with slaves. People used to think that African Americans were not people, but it was several other people's belief that they were, which they are. Even though many believe slaves weren't humans or worth as much, they obviously were. If we were playing off people's beliefs, African Americans might not have been recognized as people and might still be slaves. But beliefs obviously can lead to some immoral things. Terrorists believe it's okay to kill people, some people believe abusing their animals is okay, and Five Guys believes $3.89 is a fair price for little fries (I'm joking and it isn't really immoral, but it certainly is ridiculous!). As I've said before, it is a fact that babies are alive at conception, and having an abortion would be killing, but people's beliefs still say it is okay.

So exercise and eating disorders.... It really depends on where you are in recovery. The place I was talking about was a place where the main point was to get you to a healthy weight and get you back to eating. The exercise I was referring to was obsessive exercising to try to burn off the calories you ate. At this place, you were allowed a short (Maybe a half a mile? 3/4 mile?) walk every day so that you wouldn't be sitting in a chair all day long, but it wasn't enough to make you go backwards. The inpatient program is really square one of recovering, so they wouldn't let you exercise yet. Most people went into inpatient after being hospitalized for obvious and severe signs of malnutrition, such as collapsing, and the hospital would make the analysis that you needed help. I had been in the hospital for 3 weeks before they decided that I wasn't getting the support I needed there and needed to go into a facility where it specialized in eating disorders. Some parents might notice that their child has an eating disorder and they put them on the waiting list for the inpatient program as soon as they can, before their child might possibly die. So it was definitely the first step in recovery. You had to be up to a healthy weight as well as showing that you are exercising for the right reasons to be able to exercise, and this mainly happened when you were out of the inpatient program and moved on to a partial hospitalization program or intensive outpatient program. Sorry for the long explanation... I suppose I should have made myself clearer when I had stated the exercising thing before.

18608 -
modify delete 18671 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-09-06

Sorry for my late reply, I have been busy with work and school. I would still like to debate but my messages would probably be few and far between.

Yes, but this entire argument is a religious viewpoint. You claim that babies have souls and are alive, and thus you want to make laws to protect them. They claim animals have souls and are alive, and thus want to make laws to protect them. Humans are still the most dominant species in either religion, its just meant to serve as what the pro-life movement seems like to pro-choicers. It appears almost exactly like the people claiming animals are alive and have souls.

Okay, obviously Texas has voted in the abortion law but lets think of this. If a fetus older than six weeks is alive, then does that mean child support starts then. Should we continue deporting immigrant women because they have alive American citizen in them. Even more so I think it's very sad that firearm companies and the Republicans they bought are trying to subpoena the report cards of 1st graders and kindergarteners killed in the Sandy Hook school shooting. They are trying to claim that some lives are less valuable than others because they have lower grades. Wait.. these are the same Republicans trying to ban abortion, because... all lives have equal worth. It's hypocritical and disgusting.

I am confused. Why is exercising bad? Sorry for my ignorance but to my knowledge exercising is good when someone has an eating disorder.

18608 -
modify delete 18670 - Reply from Gianna5 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-08-25

After doing more research, it is viewed by scientists that life begins at conception. A beating heart is not the only indication of life. Things are alive if they do all of these:
-Grow and develop
-Respond to their environment (stimuli and what not)
-Living things are based on a universal genetic code, DNA
-Living things are made up of cells (a cell is the smallest unit considered to be fully alive)
-Taken as a group, living things evolve
-Living things obtain and use material energy
-Living things maintain a stable internal environment (homeostasis)
-Living things reproduce (or have the ability to)

A baby, from the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg, is alive. From that moment it begins to do all these things. It is, indeed, a religious viewpoint as to whether or not we have souls, but there is no doubt that babies are alive from conception. Humans have always been on the top of the food chain, thus we kill animals to eat and live. And humans have dominion over other animals. You may say this is a religious viewpoint, but if you look at the world around us, it is established by humans. This all points to evidence that humans are the dominant species, and have been this way for thousands of years. I know what I am about to say is religious, but here I go:

Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:26-28)

Everything I said, even without the religious things, points to that it is okay to kill animals for food and for necessary reasons. Obviously it is cruel to abuse animals more than necessary, as that wouldn't be taking care of God's creation, but we are still able to kill them. This being said, killing babies has no point or value, and it is widely believed that human lives are more valuable than animals, and that animals have a reason to be slaughtered.

Again, in about every religious belief killing is wrong. And in our laws, killing is wrong. And all evidence points to the fact that babies are indeed alive before they are born, from the moment of conception. It is more than a belief that they are alive in the womb. Going back into the past, people believed that African Americans, or people of another ethnicity than Europeans', were not truly human, or that they were less than us. It was their belief that they were less than us, which is obviously not true. It was everyone's different beliefs on it that stopped it from becoming illegal for a long time. Everything points to the fact that they are the same as us, but people in the past did not believe it. Now it is similar; everything points to the fact that zygotes are a less developed human, but still is human, but people do not believe it.

I understand that it may be extreme to hold control in a country for 20 years, but when the risk of them overtaking it again is so high, I feel that it is okay to stay longer. Well, really I think we should have held Afghanistan to a deal, and if they broke it, it would be like we were back in control. It is slightly similar to when, long ago, I was inpatient for an eating disorder. Sometimes, if you were suspected of exercising, you would be on CO- constant observation. If you built up enough trust, you were off CO, but once you are found to be exercising again, you are back on CO. We also signed contracts before leaving, agreeing not to do certain behaviors, or it could result in our readmission to the inpatient program. I feel that something like that would have been better, making it clear to Afghanistan that we would still be keeping an eye on them from afar and if they did anything out of line, we would be right back in.

I think I would still like to debate if you do. I'm sure you understand coming back from work/school and doing absolutely nothing but not feeling up to doing anything else because you are exhausted.

18608 -
modify delete 18669 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-08-19

Except to the fake religious group I mentioned, they do have souls. That is the exact argument we are facing here, many people believe that these babies are not alive, and that they don't have souls. To said religion you are currently the same person you are calling a murderer for having an abortion.

How can you ban something, in a nation that has no official religion, without evidence that something has a soul other than religious beliefs? You would be forcing an official religion upon the US, this entire situation isn't so cut and dry. And "It is right to force this fact on others, because it is wrong and it needs to stop." is the exact ideal that every religious extremist has had in history.(I'm not calling you an extremist)

Lets take an example... Alcohol. Two extreme views are -everyone can drink alcohol- and -no one can drink alcohol-. People didn't scream for either side, they sat down and they did what everyone is always going to have to do from the beginning and they compromised. Now you can't drink alcohol in some states until your 21, everyone wins in this situation.

The scenes from Kabul are horrifying, I don't think we made the best decision. We should have gotten as many people (interpreters, officials) before we left. While I still think we should of left, we can't police a nation for twenty years. I still think we should have provided air support, and minimal ground support to our allies.
Afghanistan hasn't fallen yet, a rebellion has formed in the North and have already pushed the Taliban out of two districts.

That is more of a religious question, I don't agree with sex before marriage due to my religion, but I don't think worse of people who do participate in it.

Don't worry, I don't always feel like writing as well. If you want to stop debating we can.

18608 -
modify delete 18667 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-08-17

A beating heart is not the only indication of life. Trees are alive but don't have hearts, for example. True, they do have pulses, but they do not have heartbeats. And a lot of other living things do not have hearts or pulses. A zygote is still living before it has a heartbeat. Living things need nourishment and can grow.

I don't understand how people are convinced that it isn't murder to have an abortion. The baby is alive in there! And even so, sex is made for procreation, and if you weren't expecting to have a baby you are rather foolish. Don't kill a child for your own misdeed. And I don't see how there is any good that comes out of abortion. So in my eyes, it is very clear that abortion is murder, and murdering is wrong in about every religion. Why do people believe that a baby is not alive from conception? It is right to force this fact on others, because it is wrong and it needs to stop.

Animals do not have souls. We kill animals for our own survival so we can eat, and it has been done so since the beginning of time. True, we are murdering an animal. But they do not have souls and it is part of the food chain for us to kill them.

What do you think of what has been going on in Afghanistan lately? With withdrawing troops?

And what do you think of people having sex before they are married?

I apologize for my delay in writing... I am taking a few courses to get a master's degree and it has been taking a lot of my time. Also, I know there are some days when I don't feel like writing, so I hope you don't feel that it is an obligation to do this.

18608 -
modify delete 18656 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-08-13

Yes, if someone is on life support they are still alive, their heart is still functional it's just that they need something else to help it beat. A fetus prior to 6 weeks has no beating heart, and has never beaten before. If that heart ceases to beat they are dead.

I am not saying that we should make exceptions to a belief system that allows them to hurt others, what I am saying is that you are imposing your own belief on an object, thus compromising someone else's belief. It doesn't make your view that abortion is murder any more valid than someone else's view that it isn't. I could explain this a lot better verbally, but we are having a debate on whether abortion is murder. You are making the assertion that it is murder, and the opposing side is making the assertion that it is not murder.
With that in mind, to us killing animals is usually okay, (lets say to a hypothetical religion) animals is equivalent to murdering a human. Should we be forced to stop eating meat because this religion is trying to force us not too. To them it is murder to us it is not. The central question in this debate is "is killing an animal murder", you entire argument is based on your moral belief (that you are entitled too) that abortion is murder, without looking at the possibility that it isn't or that a middle ground is possible.
In this hypothetical scenario, you may think you are right 'eating animals isn't murder' but to the other religions you are a murderer. You are trying to fight a principle important to the other side, and vice versa. I know that was probably a very odd read, I think I phrased it oddly.

That is definitely the ultimate and best way not to have a child, but try convincing all 7.8 billion humans to follow that. Humans are aps, our only goal like all other species is to literally reproduce so that our species can continue.

18608 -
modify delete 18655 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-08-13

If someone is on life support, are they still alive? If they need a pacemaker to keep their heart running, are they still alive? And things that grow are alive, and to be able to get a heartbeat, one must grow first. And also a baby can't fully support itself out of the womb. It needs help in means such as food, milk, and so forth. So the baby would not be alive?

My point about LGBTQ+ was that if you remove your reproductive organs, you therefore technically aren't alive by your definition of life. But looking back on that I realize that some women and men need to remove those organs for reasons such as cancer and infections.

If the belief is harmless, then obviously there should be no law against it. Such as Jews celebrating Passover every year. Or the tradition where they yell so loudly the word "Haman" can no longer be heard. But if someone's belief is that killing someone is okay, there would be issues. Or the idea that people should dehumanize gay people for being gay is also awful. I might not approve of LGBTQ+, but I certainly don't think we should harm others.

Abortion and murder are the same thing. So when you say it would be forcing a belief onto someone who doesn't think abortion is bad, it would be forcing a belief onto someone who doesn't think murder is bad. You can't change what abortion is. Just because your belief says it isn't killing, it is still killing. Like often terrorists believe it is okay to kill themselves and other people in attacks.

The purpose of sex is to create new life. If someone is having sex, they should be fully aware that they might have a child. It doesn't take a genius to find a natural way to stop unwanted pregnancies-don't have sex. And if someone is raped, I still think it is wrong to have an abortion. The mother's community should be willing to help her, and I know programs that do help poor/in need mothers.

18608 -
modify delete 18654 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-08-12

Sorry for my late response to this message-

During my hiatus from this conversation I deeply reflected and researched my views on abortion. In some ways my views have changed, in others they have not.

Something needs to be able to have "functional activity" which in essence means it can support itself (such as a beating heart), until then it technically isn't alive. That is where my views have changed, I am now unsure whether abortion should be allowed after the 5-6 week mark when a heart begins to beat.

It doesn't change my views on LGBTQ+ because your logic there makes no sense, a gay person can still reproduce they just might choose not too. A transgender person can biologically always reproduce (by technicality) because they will always have something scripted into their brain to allow them too, they just often choose to remove the organs that are necessary. Just because someone is infertile or chooses not to reproduce doesn't change if they are living, because they technically still have the ability.

Looking back now I can see where my point came out very wrong, I am not saying people who should be allowed to do something based on their beliefs, such as murder. You can't make rules like that, but what I am saying is should people not be allowed to do something based on another persons belief. I am not supporting murder or anything, I am just trying to raise a philosophical question, one that I am still pondering.

I mean that question is the one that starts wars, almost every single religious war in history has been fought because two religions didn't see eye to eye and the other wanted to ensure that their religion wasn't compromised by the other (or fought to gain power under the guise of religion). The point I am raising is that we can't make wholly rash decisions and force something like this. Murder is one thing, but we would be forcing our beliefs onto others in a way that compromises those who don't think abortion is bad, it doesn't take a genius to see history repeating itself here...

I think we have two solutions to the problem, and to me neither are better than the other. 1. No abortions after 6 weeks, both sides get something. 2. We keep it as it is, women can get abortions, but those who don't want to don't have too. At least with both of these solutions but sides can work together to stop unwanted or unnecessary pregnancies.

18608 -
modify delete 18653 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-08-02

The military serves the whole nation. So do the police. But a healthcare system that you do not benefit from isn't what you need to be funding with your taxes. Just like how, when I was a kid, we had to pay taxes to fund the public school in our district, even though none of us had anything to do with them.

"Including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." How do those NOT match a zygote/fetus? They include the capacity for growth. And, like babies, they won't be reproducing or doing functional activity. So are babies not alive? And your argument for life completely nullifies your argument about LGBTQ+. "Reproduction". Anyways killing is wrong no matter your religion. I don't know a religion that says it is okay to kill, and I think everyone would highly doubt them. And with the Romans quote, there is a MAJOR difference between eating (or not very affecting acts) and killing (highly effective things such as rape). By your theory, why should we judge someone for their belief in rape? From the moment you are fertilized you begin to grow and function. So is a child at 39 weeks in the womb still not alive? When do you believe life begins? There is no magical birth canal that gives us rights. Also, how can fetuses die in miscarriages if they are not alive?

"Or is it allowed because another belief wants it?" Jack, that is the same thing as if someone's belief told them that shooting someone was okay. And where would that get them? Jail, most likely. Is shooting someone okay if they believe it is okay? Or what if someone injected someone else with a lethal poison (in most cases that is what they do in abortion) because they thought it would be with their beliefs? Abortion is murder.

18608 -
modify delete 18652 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-08-02

In the case of water taxes you are taxed directly for a service you received, but some of that money is sent to other government operations, and some money for water control is received from other operations. If someone disagrees with out military system, or police system, and their property tax and water tax are partially going to it anyways is it different from a healthcare tax?

For many people a 'literal' soul doesn't exist, so they don't see life born at conception. All it is is a fertilized egg, scientifically speaking life is "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." Until the fetus starts this it isn't alive, so how can you murder something that isn't alive?
According to Roman's 14:1-23: The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand." Who are we to stop or force another person from perceiving life from their belief system? Is it any worse than for a belief system to force us to adopt something they believe in, than for us to do it to them?

That is my point, I think abortion is bad, but I don't think we should mandate our religious beliefs upon others. I can guess a comment already "But shouldn't we stop murder? Or is it allowed because another belief wants it." I perceive that as yes, we should stop murder because it is a fundamental value to all, but stopping abortion is not and because of that I believe we shouldn't force others into our beliefs.

18608 -
modify delete 18651 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-08-01

If other taxes they pay will be added into the healthcare possibly, why would you call it a "property tax" or "water tax"? Would their taxes be raised to pay for this healthcare system? What if they don't approve of the healthcare system, and their taxes are partly going towards it anyways?

I do not think the death penalty is right. You're punishing someone for (most likely) murdering by murdering them. An eye for an eye, right? I don't understand how abortion isn't murdering if you aren't religious. Murdering is wrong about everywhere you go. Abortion is purposely ending someone's life. Life starts at conception, not at first heartbeat. At conception a zygote, a baby, is created. It is still killing someone if they haven't conceived thoughts. Murder is defined as the intentional killing of someone, and has nothing to do with thoughts. A human is a human, no matter how small. If the father was a rapist, I still think that a woman shouldn't kill. Her community can help her. If a baby days when it is only a few hours old, it is still a few hours of being with family and friends and that is not intentionally ending a baby's life. In the Bible when Abraham (not Moses) tries to sacrifice Isaac, an angel had appeared to him telling him to do so. Abraham was going to do it because it was a message from God. But if you remember, God didn't truly want Abraham to kill Isaac. It was a test. And Isaac wasn't killed. I doubt any abortion doctors get apparitions from angels telling them that God wants them to kill babies. I don't think God intends for a murder to happen. I don't quite understand your point of view about this. Does a child only receive human rights after it leaves the womb?

I assume it would be like manslaughter, but you don't often hear trials for someone who passed on a cold to someone else who died from it. And it shows how terrible the world is if they would do it for a death from covid and not one from, let's say, an average cold. And at this point the chances of death from covid are very low.

18608 -
modify delete 18650 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-08-01

The article didn't talk as much about the antifa members but it did clearly say the proud boys were armed with firearms.

I don't see why they would, I mean if someone is using something why should they have to pay for it. However, that doesn't mean other taxes they pay won't be added into the healthcare by some means.

Definitely, people are lazy, they will take an opportunity when they see one.

In that you would be right, it is food for thought. But what about this? Are you fine with the death penalty, a lot of innocent people are murdered, often death with pain. I don't think abortion is right by any means, but we have to factor in a lot of context in. If you are religious you are murdering someone, but what if you are not religious? Is it still murder if it's heart isn't beating yet, if it hasn't conceived thoughts? What if the child's father was a rapist? Or the fetus is discovered to have a serious medical condition that will cause it to die before it even is a few hours old? Let's not forget in the bible Moses tried to sacrifice Isaac, is that murder? Who's to say whether god intends something to happen.

I had covid as well, and I agree it felt like a cold, but my mom was nearly hospitalized as well. But that still doesn't answer the question, if someone gets infected by another person and dies of a disease, is it manslaughter?

I was sitting in a Subway the other day and this creepy old man was staring at me, I was about to say something when a guy on roid-rage kicked the door open and his two heroin using friends walked in after him. Screaming and yelling commenced. From that limited experience I would say I don't think drugs have been beneficial for America.

18608 -
modify delete 18649 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-07-30

Were the antifa members using the list of objects or were the proud boys? I am certainly not in approval of the proud boys doing anything of the sort. It makes all the right be pictured as racist. What were their reasons for breaking up the antifa event?

Does the whole public have to pay taxes for your healthcare system, or just those who choose to take part in it?

I know that people are probably not super scared of the new variant, but it gives them a good reason to stay at home and do nothing. They can hide behind the excuse of them being scared of covid.

Do you have any memories from when you were a infant? That is the same thing as your question about a fetus. One is simply out of the womb. If you kill someone in their sleep, would they be aware? I don't call my point of view a "belief of murder". Killing is wrong, no matter where you are from in America, no matter your religion. Which is worse... pain without harm, or harm without pain? If a women gives birth, it would be pain without harm. If it were an abortion, someone would die without pain, but it is still death. It is taking the life of someone. You have a soul from the moment you are conceived. Abortion "doctors" are literally serial killers. About covid vaccines, only foolish people would run around *knowing* they had covid and doing everything normal. When someone is asymptomatic, the chances of them giving it to someone else is very low, and the high risk groups are vaccinated. I had covid myself, and I was sick for about 4 days... stuffy nose, sore throat, fatigue, cough. But it felt no different from a normal cold. For the low-risk population, catching covid is like catching a cold, and there is no way that someone who was asymptomatic could give a high enough dose of covid to make someone hospitalized. And that is a far overstep of the government to make something like a vaccine mandatory. But to make the option of abortion allowed would be like allowing people to commit murder on adults or children outside of the womb willy nilly.

I suppose I should have made myself clearer; what do you think of the use of drugs by Americans? Do you think they are helpful, and if so, why?

Honestly I am torn about the electoral college. True, it allows smaller states to have more say, but it also doesn't allow majority vote. So I must say I'm in between.

18608 -
modify delete 18648 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-07-30

According to the Washington post, in August 22, the Proud boys clashed with antifa members using "paintball guns, metal rods, aluminium bats, fireworks, pepper spray, rifles and handguns. During the capital riot multiple proud boys were wearing body armour, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were armed as well.

The incentive is that they get healthcare, the value they give back is having a job and contributing to society. I am not looking for indentured servitude, just that if they want free healthcare they have to have a job which would then in theory repay the service. People do still have to pay money via taxes, as you said Free is never Free.

I think it is less a fear of covid (I worry about the new variant so I just wear a mask and stay clean at work instead of not attending) people just have too little reason to work right now, they are making more money doing nothing.

I don't consider a fetus to be 'living' sure it is still metabolizing which means under the biological definition it is alive but the question is is it aware yet? Do you have any memories or feelings from when you were a fetus? I said before I think abortion is wrong, but what you are advocating for is government control of the body based on beliefs of murder. If that is allowed why aren't mandatory vaccinations based on the belief that unvaccinated people could spread the virus and kill people also allowed?

I don't think Americans are ready for drugs yet, we cannot compare ourselves to other countries because we have a different culture than them. I think we are over consumeristic and will simply take more drugs because there are more drugs. I am not against marijuana though, even if I never intend to use it.

I have seen many arguments defending the college, ranging from "It is meant to allow smaller states power" too "Because the founders knew only the minority was smart enough to decide." I don't like the electoral college because of two reasons: A. It is authoritarian in the sense that the majority vote doesn't guarantee victory and B. It prevents a multi-party system.

18608 -
modify delete 18647 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-07-29

Just because I am a conservative does not mean I agree with everything that other conservatives do. For example, I highly supported Donald Trump for making peace in a part of the Gulf War. I really was amazed at his speech at the March for Life. And he did very good things with the Little Sisters of the Poor. But I do not like the way he managed the tariffs and other import taxes during his presidency. I do not know who the 3% er's are, and I have hardly heard of the proud boys, much less of them bringing arms into riots.

"The US Government provides insulin to patients, in return those patients are expected to provide an equal service back if they can." What is the incentive for the patients to return an equal service? They are getting something for no cost to them. I wish the world could be "I give you something for 'free', you give me something for 'free'" but it isn't the way things are. What's an equal service back? If taxes were to be raised to fund this government run insurance company, people who have no need for it would be paying money. Insulin can be very expensive, and many poorer people who need it would be grateful to have it for 'free', but how would they contribute back? Certainly if it's 'free' they wouldn't be paying money. And if they have to give a service it would be like being a government slave a little bit. I still think in this situation it shouldn't be the federal government's job. I still stand by my "family, community, county, state, federal government" order. And I think that by giving insulin and casts, for example, for free is definitely going to put privately run insurance companies out of business. The only way for the privately run companies to compete would be to make their products "free", but that would put them out of business. I feel that if you would want to make this federal healthcare system the best thing to do would be to have a monthly fee, perhaps, so that people still have to pay money but it might not be felt as much as buying the insulin themselves.

Perhaps if the media wasn't exaggerating the effects of COVID it might be better for your unemployment policy. Right now many businesses are short of labor because people (who I might add are likely vaccinated) are wary of the delta variant. The vaccine against COVID is about 78% percent effective against getting delta, and even if you do catch it, it is 98% effective against death and 96% effective against hospitalizations. It's easy to be scared to go back into the workplace when people say 'the numbers are still rising'. The numbers are never going to fall. Unemployment is very helpful to people who have worked hard at some point in their lives but are now physically incapable of doing any work, but a fully able-bodied person being on unemployment is very different.

Looking back down at what you said about abortion and women being able to decide for themselves, you said "killing is wrong". It is very wrong, and in American today you are put in jail for many years for killing someone. How is that different from someone killing a child in the womb? Both ways you are killing. So should women get to choose to kill someone?

What are your views on drugs? And what are your views on the electoral college?

18608 -
modify delete 18646 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-07-29

Of course I agree with you, I want a peaceful riot, I want peace in America as a whole. I feel what you just said "not bring arms into the strike" is contradictory to most conservative groups of thought, of course I don't know your views but the proud boys and 3% ers brought their arms into protests and it was applauded by the right. Is this any different?

Except they are making money from it, people who work in insulin production are still getting paid by private companies, the US government then provides said insulin by buying it from the companies and distributing it. The market is still free, and the US government is now a buyer on it.
My general belief is this: The US government provides insulin to patients, in return those patients are expected to provide an equal service back if they can. I think there should be a three month cap to unemployment, after that you have to prove that you are still unable to work (medical reasons) and you no longer get the benefits. I have been pondering whether only people who are on unemployment or working should receive free healthcare, it is another incentive to work, however I can foresee many issues linked to this.

Besides for obviously making sure the owner is following their end of the deal I don't see any reason why more government oversight would be involved.

18608 -
modify delete 18645 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-07-28

It doesn't have to be a major riot. It can be peaceful. People who really truly care about the issue would make a stand. You can boycott products or just NOT bring arms into the strike.

Why would people choose to work and make said casts and give said insulin if they are not making any money from it? I know someone's health is on the line, but the world isn't so simple. I'm assuming you've heard this quote before "There's no such thing as a free lunch". There's always some cost to it, whether or not it affects the individual receiving the benefit. The money that isn't being paid to the distributor could be putting their survival on the line. It is like last year when "non-essential" people lost their jobs due to COVID... Every job is essential... It allows the person to buy food and pay their taxes. And now due to that heck of a time, it is very difficult finding people to work because their unemployment is paying more than a job would.

That's a pretty good idea about starting small businesses. I have a small question though. Would the government have much oversight over the business, or would they just give the tax cut and sum of money for the said 5 years? I think it is important not to have much government oversight in sole proprietorships and partnerships.

Go to the next page

We strongly recommand to not include your personal address & phone number in your messages. we accept no responsibility for consequences of message exchanges.
Forum about Debates - (c) Etudiants du Monde / Students of the World
if any remark / question, please contact the webmaster: