Do you concede abortion should be banned at some point?[W:415] (1 Viewer)

[FutureIncoming]

FI, you are full of bologna.

NOPE. (Also, you are not supposed to attack persons at this site; you are only supposed to attack arguments.)

You are not following your link of evidence, which is

DESIGNED FOR TEAM DEBATES, YES. There are no teams here, unless you want to consider all pro-choicers as one team, and all abortion opponents as another team.
FURTHERMORE, you know full well that not all Debates require teams. Just look at the series of televised Presidential Debates for proof!
SO: Is there any Rule that is consistently applied in all Debate formats? I'm pretty sure the single Rule I have been pointing out, that positive claims must be supported with evidence, is such a Rule. I've mentioned to you before that if mere unsupported claims are allowed, then there is no way to counter any claim of any sort --a Debate would devolve into one side saying "Is so!" and the other side saying "Isn't so!". If the purpose of a Debate is to intelligently resolve an issue, then that cannot be allowed!

 

[JamesBY]

Your argument is full of bologna, and you are not the rule maker for how a debate should go.

Answer the two comments below.

One, can God create a weight he can't lift?

Two, prove that God does not exist.

As to the OP: on demand abortion is not going to happen anytime soon.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

What a wonderful world it would be if all attacks were as benign as "you are full of bologna".

 

[FutureIncoming]

Your argument is full of bologna,

AND YOU DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE AN ARGUMENT. All you have are unsupported claims! Tsk, tsk!

and you are not the rule maker for how a debate should go.

IF ALL YOU WANT IS BACK-AND-FORTH OF "IS SO!" AND "ISN'T SO!", then why are you here? You certainly are not the rule maker, either!

Answer the two comments below.

NO ONE NEED FOLLOW YOUR ORDERS. Especially when you refuse to do what most other folks do, support claims with evidence.

One, can God create a weight he can't lift?

LOADED QUESTION. It assumes God exists, and it assumes God is male. Any answer to that question will involve additional assumptions. For example, while human physicists are fairly sure gravitation can be described in terms of Quantum Mechanics, we haven't got correct equations for it yet. But God could be assumed to know all about it. Now factor in various claims of humans levitating and megalith levitation, while not knowing precisely how gravitation was overcome, and It Logically Follows that God can use perfect know-how to levitate anything.

Two, prove that God does not exist.

I MAINTAIN MY RIGHT, IN A DEBATE, TO REFUSE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE CLAIM. Only positive claims need be proved. I reiterate my invitation that you search the Bible for an Objective Test regarding God's existence. Perhaps you will prove a negative, that there is no such Test in there! (And perhaps not....)

 

[Scrabaholic]

As to the OP: on demand abortion is not going to happen anytime soon.

It's happening now.

 

[JamesBY]

It's happening now.

Word play? OK. It is regulated now, and on demand is not universal.

 

[JamesBY]

I am here to correct certain errors in your arguments, FI.

You are not in charge no matter how much you wish you were.

First error is that you assume God is male. You have not shown why you made that assumption and why it would be important. Your later comment clearly demonstrates that you don’t have “correction equations” for estimating weights that deity can or cannot (you are not clear here) lift. The rest of your comment does not contribute to the question’s answer.

Your assumption is false that you have no right to not prove a negative claim, as I have offered proof elsewhere in this thread that such a claim can be proven. All you have done is denied that is so. Anyone who suggests only “positive claims need be proved” has already lost the debate.

 

[minnie616]

Word play? OK. It is regulated now, and on demand is not universal.

There are a few states in the US that do not have gestational time limits on abortions yet there are no more abortions that take place after 24 weeks gestation than other states.

There are about 100 abortions a year that take place in the whole US.

They are the extreme cases where a stat c-section is more risky for the woman's life than an abortion.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Word play? OK. It is regulated now, and on demand is not universal.

In my country, it is on demand, as it should be.

 

[FutureIncoming]

I am here to correct certain errors in your arguments, FI.

YOU HAVEN'T SUCCEEDED AT THAT. Nor is your latest msg any more successful at that task.

You are not in charge no matter how much you wish you were.

I HAVE NOT CLAIMED TO BE IN CHARGE. Therefore **you** are making an error, accusing me of something false.

First error is that you assume God is male.

A STUPID LIE. **YOU** WROTE THIS:

One, can God create a weight he can't lift?

AND THAT CONTAINS THE ASSUMPTION THAT GOD IS MALE. The only thing I did was point out the assumption, both in my previous msg and now.

You have not shown why you made that assumption and why it would be important.

TALKING ABOUT YOURSELF GETS YOU NOWHERE. Tsk, tsk!

Your later comment clearly demonstrates that you don’t have “correction equations” for estimating weights

NOT RELEVANT. Don't you know anything about how Quantum Mechanics describes how gravitation works? Look up "graviton" and "exchange particle" and "probabilities" some time. WE have the overview. If God exists, and if God is as knowledgeable as widely claimed, then God has both the overview and all the details.

that deity can or cannot (you are not clear here) lift.

LEVITATION IS MORE ABOUT INFLUENCING GRAVITATION, THAN LIFTING. If the Sun starts to attract your body more than the Earth does, guess where your body is going to start moving toward....

The rest of your comment does not contribute to the question’s answer.

I ASSUMED YOU WERE EDUCATED ENOUGH TO FIGURE IT OUT. Tsk, tsk!

Your assumption is false that you have no right to not prove a negative claim,

ANOTHER STUPID LIE. You have no basis to order anyone to do anything here. Therefore I have the right to ignore any request or demand you make.

as I have offered proof elsewhere in this thread that such a claim can be proven.

I NEVER DISPUTED THE TRUTH OF THAT CLAIM. I merely repeat: "You have no basis to order anyone to do anything here. Therefore I have the right to ignore any request or demand you make." I can also use any excuse I want, to ignore your request/demand, such as the excuse that in Formal Debates, only positive claims are required to be proved, and regardless of how informal things are around here, this is still a Debate site.

All you have done is denied that is so.

STUPIDLY, LYINGLY FALSE. That kind of claim is exactly a significant reason why positive claims need to be proved, because now you have claimed something about at least one of my posts without quoting any post of mine that could support your claim. Perhaps I should claim that all your posts are utter nonsense, blatherings that even a 3-year-old can better --why not, if nothing I claim need be proved?

Anyone who suggests only “positive claims need be proved” has already lost the debate.

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! See above.

 

[JamesBY]

Your excuse, FI, that only positive claims can be considered is an admission of defeat by you, and that will be the answer to every time you try to use is as the only ground for discussion.

Now lets like at some items.

One, “s/he” can be used to refer to God. You use “he”, based on my comment. If I was wrong so were you.

Two, you have not shown why your opinions are relevant, FI.

Three, you have not been able to demonstrate that you don’t to prove a negative, when in fact factual, concrete evidence has been provided that (1) a negative can be disproven, and (2) that you can’t do it.

Four, you used the term “correction equations” for estimating weights, but y ou have not show why it is important. Your assumptions are proof of nothing. It is up to you to show that “graviton” and “exchange particle” and “probabilities” are important to the issue of “Can God create a weight S/he can’t lift.” IOW, you have not shown why you made that assumption(s) and the importance of same. Do you even know what is “Levitation” or such terms. You use them without confidence.

Any excuse you use to refuse to answer questions pertinent to the discussion and then accuse others of being “stupid” or “lying” demonstrates a real lack of integrity.

You have no right “to ignore request or demand” that is necessary for the discussion.

When you can debate honestly and openly, we can continue. Until then I will keep you penned in your corner of false pretense.

 

[JamesBY]

In my country, it is on demand, as it should be.

That may be a fact in your county, and your assumption is yours only.

 

[Scrabaholic]

That may be a fact in your county, and your assumption is yours only.

What assumption?

 

[JamesBY]

What assumption?

Thank you.

 

[Helix]

Moderator's Warning:

Cut out the insults, and stick to the topic, which is not other posters.

 

[FutureIncoming]

[part 1 of 2, in reply to Msg#411]

Your excuse, FI, that only positive claims can be considered is

A LONG-TIME STANDARD RULE OF DEBATE. In all those links at left, there is no philosophical basis for insisting that a negative claim must be proved, ever.

While it is true that negative claims can sometimes be proved, is it not necessarily true that every negative claim can be proved. In fact, whenever a negative claim just happens to be an actually-false claim, it is absolutely impossible to prove the negative claim to be true. (Duuuhhh!!!) The problem is that it is easy for no one to know in advance whether or not a given negative claim is actually true or false. Meanwhile, any positive claim that is actually true can always be proved true. Therefore in any Debate, when someone makes a positive claim, the presumption is that that person wants others to believe the positive claim is true. Well, see that preceding (red) sentence? If the positive claim is actually true, it can be proved true! And that is why the Rules of Debate always put the Burden of Proof on whoever makes a positive claim.

an admission of defeat by you,

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! In your dreams! --mostly because you haven't made more than the slightest effort to prove that any aspect of Reality is associated with your positive claims.

and that will be the answer to every time you try to use is as the only ground for discussion.

A STUPID LIE, REPEATED, REMAINS A STUPID LIE. You can spout your Stupid Lie about the Burden of Proof as often as you like, but it will change neither the Rules of Debate nor the fact that I am under no obligation to ever prove any negative claim.

You use “he”, based on my comment.

STUPIDLY FALSE. I merely quoted you, and described the assumption that YOU made. I did not make the assumption myself, nor can you present any quotation of text written by me in which I specified that I was making that assumption.

If I was wrong so were you.

YOU WERE WRONG AND I WASN'T. Which has been generally true about quite a few messages passed between us.

Two, you have not shown why your opinions are relevant, FI.

YOU NEED TO SPECIFY WHICH OPINIONS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Certain of my statements might actually be Fact, not opinion, after all!

Three, you have not been able to demonstrate that you don’t have to prove a negative,

YOU HAVE BEEN IGNORING OR DENOUNCING THE EVIDENCE I PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED. However, in this message I've provided a bunch of additional linked evidence. Have fun realizing how much delusion you have been blathering!

when in fact factual, concrete evidence has been provided that (1) a negative can be disproven,

THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE. You only talked about the fact that a negative can sometimes be proved. LOGICALLY, to disprove a negative is to prove a positive that is the opposite of the negative. However, exactly who between us has been making a positive claim about whether or not deity or deities exist? Certainly not I! So see again, above, about the Burden of Proof!

and (2) that you can’t do it.

SEE ABOVE, AGAIN, ABOUT THE BURDEN OF PROOF. If you make a positive claim, you need to prove it. No one else needs to prove the opposite claim, or disprove the opposite claim (prove your positive claim for you).

 

[FutureIncoming]

[part 2 of 2, in reply to Msg#411]

Four, you used the term “correction equations” for estimating weights,

STUPIDLY FALSE. I specified "correct equations" with respect to how Quantum Mechanics would describe gravitation. I said nothing about "estimating weights".

but you have not show why it is important.

WHEN YOU PUT YOUR WORTHLESS BLATHER INTO SOMEONE ELSE'S MOUTH, OF COURSE IT IS NOT IMPORTANT --except to be rejected, of course!

Your assumptions are proof of nothing.

ASSUMPTIONS ROUTINELY GET FED INTO LOGIC. Valid assumptions lead to valid results, invalid assumptions don't.

It is up to you to show that “graviton” and “exchange particle” and “probabilities” are important

I INVITED YOU TO LOOK THEM UP. If I provided specific links, you would still have to read the links! Do keep in mind the limited text-length of these posts. If you know nothing about how Quantum Mechanics describes how forces work, then you need to learn it, before you can understand how I Answered your Question.

to the issue of “Can God create a weight S/he can’t lift.”

SEE ABOVE. If you know nothing about how Quantum Mechanics describes how forces work, then you need to learn it before you can understand how I Answered your Question.

Do you even know what is “Levitation” or such terms. You use them without confidence.

LEVITATION IS ABOUT DIRECTLY DEFYING GRAVITATION. Other methods of lifting only indirectly defy gravity, and involve a force that opposes the gravitational force. Your Question is technically about the maximum force that God can generate --but my Answer is about doing something entirely different (interfering with how gravitation works) to get a particular result.

Any excuse you use to refuse to answer questions pertinent to the discussion

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INSISTING THAT A NEGATIVE CLAIM BE PROVED OR DISPROVED. You will find that I'm pretty good at answering reasonable questions.

and then accuse others of being “stupid” or “lying” demonstrates a real lack of integrity.

STUPIDLY FALSE. Because whenever I claim someone lied or said something stupid, I always explain why what they said was a lie, or was stupid. The real lack of integrity is demonstrated by the liar, not by me.

You have no right “to ignore any request or demand” that is necessary for the discussion.

I ABSOLUTELY DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO IGNORE ANY REQUEST OR DEMAND TO PROVE OR DISPROVE A NEGATIVE CLAIM. See above, again, about where the Burden of Proof is placed!

When you can debate honestly and openly, we can continue.

SPEAK FOR YOURSELF. Practice what you preach! And then we can continue!

Until then I will keep you penned in your corner of false pretense.

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! In your dreams!

 

[JamesBY]

FutureIncoming will not meed the challenges, except for a silly and unethical assumption that no "philosophical basis for insisting that a negative claim must be proved, ever."

That is one of the obligations he must: that he must prove that deity does not exist. In this debate he has no right to demand that only positive claims be met.

His avoidance of negative claims is an admittance of defeat.:lamo

 

[vash1012]

I'm fine with the current accepted cut offs for elective abortion. I don't think abortion should ever be illegal for medical reasons to save the life of the mother. Doing so removes the ability of a doctor and the woman/family to make the best decisions for them. As others have stated, late term abortion is very rare. The situations where it occus are generally danger to the mother or discovery of a severe defect in the fetus that makes survival beyond infancy unlikely. Any broad legal ruling against ALL late term abortions means women have to give birth to children that they know will die shortly after child birth, and the infant will go through inhuman suffering before they succomb. A relatively quick death is a mercy for both the mother and the child. Purely for personal reasons though, the viability limit is a reasonable basis for a cut off. Only because you have to draw the line somewhere and it makes to draw it there.

 

[FutureIncoming]

FutureIncoming will not meed the challenges,

CHALLENGES?? PLURAL? WHAT A STUPID LIE. But then, considering the other Stupid Lies in your post, what else could we expect?

except for a silly and unethical assumption that no "philosophical basis for insisting that a negative claim must be proved, ever."

I PROVIDED LOTS OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT MY POSITION. Therefore calling that evidence "a silly and unethical assumption" is just another Stupid Lie. Tsk, tsk!

That is one of the obligations he must:

AND ONCE AGAIN JAMESBY BLATHERS A POSITIVE CLAIM WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. Tsk, tsk! Looks to me like just another Stupid Lie, too!

that he must prove that deity does not exist.

AND ONCE AGAIN JAMESBY BLATHERS A POSITIVE CLAIM WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. Tsk, tsk! Looks to me like just another Stupid Lie, too!

In this debate he has no right to demand that only positive claims be met.

AND ONCE AGAIN JAMESBY BLATHERS A POSITIVE CLAIM WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. Tsk, tsk! Looks to me like just another Stupid Lie, too!

His avoidance of negative claims is an admittance of defeat.:lamo

AND ONCE AGAIN JAMESBY BLATHERS A POSITIVE CLAIM WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. Tsk, tsk! Looks to me like just another Stupid Lie, too!

 

[JamesBY]

CHALLENGES?? PLURAL? WHAT A STUPID LIE. But then, considering the other Stupid Lies in your post, what else could we expect?


I PROVIDED LOTS OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT MY POSITION. Therefore calling that evidence "a silly and unethical assumption" is just another Stupid Lie. Tsk, tsk!


AND ONCE AGAIN JAMESBY BLATHERS A POSITIVE CLAIM WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. Tsk, tsk! Looks to me like just another Stupid Lie, too!


AND ONCE AGAIN JAMESBY BLATHERS A POSITIVE CLAIM WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. Tsk, tsk! Looks to me like just another Stupid Lie, too!


AND ONCE AGAIN JAMESBY BLATHERS A POSITIVE CLAIM WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. Tsk, tsk! Looks to me like just another Stupid Lie, too!


AND ONCE AGAIN JAMESBY BLATHERS A POSITIVE CLAIM WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. Tsk, tsk! Looks to me like just another Stupid Lie, too!

You refuse to debate any material other than positive claims. Thus you fail.

 

[FutureIncoming]

You refuse to debate any material other than positive claims. Thus you fail.

BAD LOGIC. But what else is to be expected from someone who clams that declining to do something, like drink a beer, equals a total inability to do that thing, like drink a beer?
PLUS, ANOTHER STUPID LIE. I never said I would always refuse to Debate negative claims, I only specified that I never **must** Debate negative claims. The choice to Debate any particular negative claim is entirely mine! --and entirely due to the Fact that the Burden of Proof in any Debate falls upon the one making a positive claim. And for evidence, I'm quite willing to explain why the claim "there is no such thing as 'intrinsic value'" is a valid negative claim. (You can find the explanation here.)

 

[JamesBY]

Excellent logic.

Yes, you lied again. You said you would only debate positive claims, which is the same as refusing to debate negative claims. You are disappearing!

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Excellent logic.

Yes, you lied again. You said you would only debate positive claims, which is the same as refusing to debate negative claims. You are disappearing!

Prenatal humans are not persons.

 

[JamesBY]

Prenatal humans are not persons.

There are many who challenge that point with the argument of "personhood."