Return to CreateDebate.comphilosophy • Join this debate community


Ledhead818's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Ledhead818's arguments, looking across every debate.
3 points

The answer is boxer briefs.


1 point

Thanks for the good argument.

"No, the only explanation I can think of is that people are woefully misinformed about the individual circumstances that has lead these poor girls to these doctors, and it's important people learn so that hopefully more of these doctors are not killed."

You're definitely right that we have to educate people that the few late-term abortion doctors are not simply baby killers, but are actually really courageous people who are helping people. They knowingly risk their lives to help ensure women who need late-term abortions can get them.

For everyone who thinks that abortion doctors are simply evil baby killers, please read this article by an abortion doctor on why he performs abortions despite two attempts on his life.

1 point

You can see then how this is a decision best left up to doctors not politicians right?

1 point

I agree with agnosticism. I am agnostic, but I am atheist as well. I was trying to explain that the two are not mutually exclusive and in fact both are kind of necessary for the other. But I see I can't really get you to see what I am trying to say to never mind.

3 points

All abortions no matter when they occur are very sad affairs. It is really sad when circumstances have come together such that a life must be ended or stopped from coming to fruition. Abortions are very emotionally trying to mothers and their families. That said, abortions are completely and absolutely necessary even late term abortions. I am going to argue this from a few angles.

If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy bad enough, she will do so regardless of whether she has to go to a clinic or get one from an unlicensed back alley "doctor" or perform one herself. Before Roe v. Wade thousands of women died every year from complications from these abortions. By allowing abortions and late-term abortions to be legal, we allow women to go through safe and regulated channels to do something they are going to do anyway to be frank.

There are many circumstances in which late-term abortions are quite necessary, but I'll just name a few common situations. Often when young girls are raped, they will not tell anyone because they are afraid or a multitude of other reasons. Sometimes no one knows these girls are pregnant until they start getting big in their third trimester. These girls never got a chance to abort the rape-child in the "proper" time window because they are too afraid or immature to tell anyone or they don't even understand what pregnancy or sex is. Is it really fair to force an 11 year old girl to give birth to the child of her rapist because she didn't want to tell anyone she was raped?

Another situation is sometimes mothers are diagnosed with cancer late in their pregnancies beyond the date of normal abortions. These women often need chemotherapy or radiation therapy. This is an excerpt from the abstract of a paper by the Department of Radiology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine

"Malignant disease requiring radiation therapy during pregnancy presents an enormous challenge for the clinician. The optimal radiotherapeutic management of the patient and the optimal management of the pregnancy involve directly opposing demands. Ionizing radiation should be avoided during pregnancy whenever possible. Doses in excess of 0.1 Gy (10 rad) delivered during gestation have been associated with various detrimental effects, and therapeutic abortion has been recommended."

Often the cancer is so fast spreading that to wait the duration of the pregnancy to administer treatment that will most likely kill or maim the fetus is very dangerous and possibly fatal for the mother. In these situations the most humane thing to do is to terminate the pregnancy and treat the mother.

My last hypothetical is that sometimes it is not apparent until late in the pregnancy that the baby has life-threatening deformities that threaten the mother as well. Is it really fair to tell a mother she must risk her life to give birth to baby that will or likely will die?

As you can see there are multitude of possible situations in which a late-term abortion is the best option. There are such diverse situations that can occur and they are so sensitive and dependent on context, that this is not an issue that is done proper service by a blanket rule by politicians. These decisions are best left up to doctors and their patients. Women who want late-term abortions should ask their doctors and if their doctors agree that a late-term abortion is the best medical option, they should seek the approval of other doctors. Furthermore all of these decisions should be overseen by a governing board of doctors.

Late-term abortions are not used because mothers changed their mind or procrastinated and this is not the intended use. Like I said the decision should be up to the discretion of doctors to determine the necessity of the procedure.

1 point

Sigh. I see you have never actually talked to an atheist before in your life and all you know are stereotypes. I tried to help you, I even showed you how according to the dictionary you are wrong, but to no avail. I see propaganda has once again won the day. I surrender.

1 point

"Atheists believe that they don't need proof. That's why they're atheist. "

No they don't. They do need proof, which is why they don't believe in god.

This is the last attempt I am going to make and then I give up trying to explain this to you.

Do you believe in Santa Claus? My guess is that you will say no. But can you prove that Santa Claus does not exist? No you can't prove it. Sure some parents may be putting the presents under their tress, but you can't know for a fact Santa Claus doesn't exist because you can't prove a negative. But because of a lack of evidence, you don't believe in him. It is possible to not believe and not think it is possible to know for certain at the same time.

But don't take my word for it. (This is a video by Penn from Penn and Teller, and he explains it pretty well)

Like Penn said in his video theism vs. atheism is not about is there a god? Anyone who claims to know that god exists or doesn't exist is lying. It's an impossible thing to know. Atheism vs. theism is about is there a god in whom you believe. If you asked a Christian if there is a god they believe in, they would say "Yes Jesus Christ." If you asked a Muslim if there is a god they believe in they would say "Yes Allah." But if you asked an atheist or what you think is an agnostic if there is a god they believe in, they would say no.

If the answer to the question is there a god in whom you believe is no, you are an atheist. And I don't know is not an answer to the question. There either is a god you believe in or there isn't. Thinking a god possibly exists is a totally separate issue.

1 point

No actually most atheists I have met understand the terms.

Atheism is not rejecting the idea that there is a designer or superior energy force. Atheism and theism are the only two possibilities. There is no other option. For some reason you think there are all of these atheists running around who think it is impossible and provable that god doesn't exist. Here is a neat experiment you can try. Attempt to find an atheist who does not believe in a god, and thinks that it is possible to prove and know absolutely that god doesn't exist. Hint: You won't be able to find one.

2 points

I think I have discussed this with you before, but I will try again.

You are either an atheist or a theist. There is no middle ground. Agnosticism is a totally separate issue. To be frank religious people have corrupted the word agnostic and I will explain why. If they define agnostic as a between position it accomplishes a few goals for them

1) They divide people who don't believe in their god

2) If agnostics are in the middle, they think they can still sway them over to their side.

3) It allows them to cast atheists in an extreme light.

Einstein also seems to have been confused about the meaning of the word as well, as he claimed "I do not believe in a personal God." That statement means you are an atheist.

If you just look at the definition of atheist it is "a disbelief in the existence of deities." This says nothing about if you think it is possible. I don't think it is impossible that there is a god. But there is absolutely no evidence otherwise. Therefore I do not believe in god. Therefore I am atheist.

Here is a little quiz to help you determine what you are:

1) Do you believe in a deity or deities?

Yes: You are a theist

No: You are atheist

2) Do you believe it is possible to determine the existence of a deity or deities with certitude?

Yes: You are gnostic

No: You are agnostic

So you can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, or a gnostic theist. There is no plain agnostic. In reality gnostic atheists don't exist. I have never met someone who doesn't believe in god, but thinks it is possible to prove god does not exist. And I have met a lot of atheists. The reason is where most atheists rejection of god comes from: a lack of empirical evidence. Anyone rational enough to not believe in something that doesn't have sufficient evidence is not going to claim that a lack of evidence proves a lack of existence. That would be totally irrational. Like I said, atheism in it of itself makes no statements about the existence of god. It is merely the lack of a belief in a god or gods.

2 points

No Einstein was an atheist not an agnostic.

And yes I was just trying to quickly reference the quote and mixed it up.

7 points

Most people try to take a couple of quotes of his out of context to pretend he was a religious man.

I prefer this quote of his:

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this"

and this one:

""For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.""

Then there's this one referring to the belief that he was religious

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

With the science without religion is blind quote, he didn't mean religion in the sense people are trying to pretend like it means. here is a quote which shows his definition of religion:

"Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible, and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious."

The total extent of his spirituality was an admiration for the complexity of the universe. He did not like religions.

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]