It is not good to make food out of aborted babies
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pepsis-bizarro-world-boycotted-over-embryonic-cells-linked-to-lo-cal-soda/
cbs admits they make soda from aborted baby
Burden of proof.
it is not good to make food out of aborted babies
Genetic engineeringGenetic engineering, also called genetic modification or genetic manipulation, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genes using biotechnology. It is a set of technologies used to change the genetic makeup of cells, including the transfer of genes within and across species boundaries to produce improved or no
Natural News) Italian researchers have blown the lid on a major vaccine scandal that all but proves the fact that vaccines are genetically engineered bioweapons.
Genetically modified, aborted human fetal cells are engineered to cause cancer, then inserted into children’s vaccines
In other words, when MRC-5 was first derived back in the 1960s, scientists at that time pulled faulty cells from an abnormal aborted child, and genetically engineered these cells into a solution that was then added to some of the earliest vaccines ever injected into children.
The Gift of Charity increases Speech by 10 points for one hour in real world time, viewable under the active effects section of the Dragonborn's Magic. It can be gained by giving a coin to a beggar, or if the Hearthfire add-on is installed, by giving a gift to an adopted child. Appearances The...
. Specifically, prion disease creates holes in the brain, giving it a spongiform appearance, and ultimately causes death.
The laboratory-created artificial enhancers do not have to be tested at length by the FDA because the Senomyx chemical “flavor compounds are used in proportions less than one part per million” and can be classified as artificial flavors.2
whether abortion itself is wrong or making food out of it is wrong are two completely different ideas. If I kill an innocent man that is wrong. But if I pass it off as chicken to an unknowing participant they have no idea and don’t think it’s wrong. So pros case does not apply.
If the baby is already aborted there is nothing we can do to revive the baby. Therefore we should give greatest contribution to society by making it food instead. Otherwise it would go to waste. Clearly, making food out of the aborted baby is one of the best things you can do.
n specific areas of the world fried spider is delicious.
The Gift of Charity increases Speech by 10 points for one hour in real world time, viewable under the active effects section of the Dragonborn's Magic. It can be gained by giving a coin to a beggar, or if the Hearthfire add-on is installed, by giving a gift to an adopted child.
- Aborted baby made into food is nutritious, gives food industry wealth and finances- the people paying for the food do not notice and have not complained about taste, cost, or anything otherwise
laboratories to examine the umbilical cord blood of 10 babies of African-American, Hispanic and Asian heritage and found more than 200 chemicals in each newborn
- Baby is already aborted, and nothing can be done about it
the people paying for the food do not notice and have not complained about taste, cost, or anything otherwise
is arguments about cannibalism causing injury, only apply to the prion area of the brain, which has deadly chemicals when eaten.
Humans have been eating each other for a long, long time. ... People who eat people with a type of prion disease, a category of illness that also includes ... "The Donner Party," involved American pioneers traveling west who got lost and ... Vitality · Mental Health ·
People who eat people with a type of prion disease, a category of illness that also includes Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans and Mad Cow Disease in animals, tend to have brains that look like sponges and neurological damage that takes away control over the body. In describing the most famous case of the cannibal’s disease, the Fore tribe in Papua New Guinea where women and children were dying off in the 1950s and 1960s, NPR says the flesh-eaters would start having trouble walking, and from there it was a rapid descent into losing control over their limbs and emotions — “which is why people called it the ‘laughing death.’” By a year later, the afflicted “couldn’t get up off the floor, feed themselves or control their bodily functions.”People who eat people with a type of prion disease, a category of illness that also includes Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans and Mad Cow Disease in animals, tend to have brains that look like sponges and neurological damage that takes away control over the body. In describing the most famous case of the cannibal’s disease, the Fore tribe in Papua New Guinea where women and children were dying off in the 1950s and 1960s, NPR says the flesh-eaters would start having trouble walking, and from there it was a rapid descent into losing control over their limbs and emotions — “which is why people called it the ‘laughing death.’” By a year later, the afflicted “couldn’t get up off the floor, feed themselves or control their bodily functions.”
With BoP on pro, con's simple case that it is better to not waste wins.
...
Pro opens with the profound claim that vaccines were intentionally designed to cause cancer. ... Also pepsi is apparently made from aborted babies, since human flesh is so addictive.
Con cuts past it with the simple point that pro's case does not address the sole act of the food, and further that there is a net benefit to using the resource.
Pro straw mans con's case with an off topic rape comparison, and offers a delicious idea of spider-nachos!
Holy hell, con actually catches the spider bit and uses a source to show how good they taste!
And pro engages in a strawman gish gallop...
Lack of evidences to support each claim.
Muddled arguments on display; nothing strong from either.
Multiple arguments dropped while could've provided credibility in form of rebuttals.
And of course,
Not a sound debate to enjoy.
So, I will safely vote it to be a tie.
Con bites the figurative bullet and argues that it is good to make food out of aborted babies. He argues that, since they are already dead, it is pointless to let them go to waste. He claims that they can be made into nutritious food.
Pro argues that eating aborted babies is cannibalism and is morally wrong. Since the BoP is on him to show that it is morally wrong, this isn't convincing. He does argue that there have been negative affects from cannibalism, indicating that it is morally wrong. He says we should be respectful and bury the baby, not eat it. He compares Con's argument that they are already dead, so it's okay to eat them, to raping someone while they are asleep. He also claims that it isn't good because it isn't safe.
This debate does have the problem that neither side really clarify what "good" means in this context. Neither specify moral good, so Pro's argument about eating babies being unsafe does seem applicable. Furthermore, Con dropped it, so it does stand. A more significant problem here is that neither side provides any moral framework for determining whether it's right or wrong. Con seems to be proposing that the contribution to society from eating supposedly nutritious babies is some sort of good. That's not great, but it's more than what Pro provides. Pro's moral arguments are vague. He says that we should be respectful and that it's morally wrong to eat humans. However, he just takes the moral wrongness of eating babies as a given. While that would be fine in real life, and most people would agree, this is a debate, and such contentions require supporting evidence. The only thing that Pro provides as supporting evidence is that we have souls, so it's wrong. I don't see how that logic follows. What difference does having a soul make in this case? Pro doesn't explain.
To try to straighten out this mess, I'll try to summarize. Con argues that it is good to make food out of aborted babies because it contributes nutritious food to society. Pro never has a good counter to this. On the other hand, Pro argues that it's unsafe, and Con drops this. The resolution here is a general statement that it is wrong to make food out of aborted babies. Con's argument that it is a contribution to society does apply generally. Pro's argument that it is unsafe is not as generalizable. While it may be unsafe in the situations Con mentions, he doesn't show that it's always unsafe, although he does provide arguments that it is unsafe in several different contexts. I'll give Con the edge here because his argument can apply to all cases, whereas Pro's argument only applies to many cases.
Overall, this debate was a mess, and honestly rather gross. It would have been nice to see some definitions and some framework from both sides to show how to weigh the arguments. Neither side engaged much with the meat of the other's arguments. Pro's argument was rather unclear and resembled a gish gallop at times, whereas Con dropped Pro's whole argument. As mentioned above, Con's argument is a little better, so I'll give him the points.
I did not say the mark of the beast was the vaccine's
Again, that article is one guy saying that people "could" be barred from going to work or school. Nowhere does it provide any evidence that "will" happen. There is an enormous difference between "could" and "will."
"Mark of the beast won't be mandatory. You just won't be able to buy or sell"
There is a grand total of 0 Scriptural support for the idea that this vaccine or any other vaccine will be the mark of the beast. That is nothing but baseless speculation.
The article you linked is about the Australian PM walking back his earlier comments that it would be mandatory. It doesn't relate to the US.
"You are giving 70 plus shots to infants so they can not refuse it."
No, but the parents can refuse the shots if they want. Whether or not children are vaccinated is ultimately the parents' decision, at least in the US.
"They bluntly tell you they censor anti vaxxers on Facebook and YouTube under the pretext that they are dangerous ."
Facebook and YouTube are doing that of their own accord. That isn't the federal government.
"and the goverment throw's people in jail if they do not treat a disease they do not have."
When has that happened?
"They are dumbing down children at birth with vaccine's."
Nope. But even if vaccines do make people dumber, being dumb is preferable to dying of completely preventable diseases.
"Censoring us."
Tech companies are, but they aren't the government.
"So they can keep people believing in there garbage."
What garbage?
"Plus keeping you controlled with stigmas."
How so?
"Plus throwing you in jail if you refuse to dumb yourself down and be a good steeple."
When has that happened?
"The coronavirus vaccine could be forced on Americans, says Stanford Law School professor Hank Greel"
Not mandatory.You just won't be allowed to get a job or go to school if you do not get vaccinated.
https://www.tmz.com/2020/08/13/coronavirus-vaccine-forced-stanford-law-professor-hank-greely/
Mark of the beast won't be mandatory. You just won't be able to buy or sell
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-19/morrison-coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-mandatory/12572992
Not mandatory.We will just fine you a bunch until you do what we want
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10014414/parents-fines-refusing-vaccinate-kids/
Not mandatory.You give it to baby's so they can not say no. Thats mandatory.You are forcing it upon people who can not say no
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/19/vaccine-should-be-as-mandatory-as-possible-australian-pm-says.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/19/vaccine-should-be-as-mandatory-as-possible-australian-pm-says.html
There is a lot wrong with this picture.You are giving 70 plus shots to infants so they can not refuse it.They bluntly tell you they censor anti vaxxers on Facebook and YouTube under the pretext that they are dangerous .and the goverment throw's people in jail if they do not treat a disease they do not have.
They are dumbing down children at birth with vaccine's.Censoring us.So they can keep people believing in there garbage.Plus keeping you controlled with stigmas.Plus throwing you in jail if you refuse to dumb yourself down and be a good steeple.
Firstly, that article is one guy saying that the government theoretically could force people to take it. It says nothing about whether they actually will. Currently, the government has no plans to do so. Secondly, according to other legal scholars, the federal government does not have that power. To quote from the article I linked:
"What’s more, while it may offer incentives, the federal government cannot mandate a vaccine. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, has said that mandatory coronavirus vaccinations would be “unenforceable and not appropriate,” a stance that legal scholars agree with. Lawrence O. Gostin, director of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University, told The Dispatch Fact Check that claims that the federal government is going to force the coronavirus vaccine on the public are “without foundation.”
“Firstly, the federal government has no power to mandate any vaccine for any reason,” said Gostin. “States do have the power to mandate vaccines but there is only one state that has mandated a vaccine for adults. That state is Massachusetts that recently adopted a mandate for influenza vaccines.”
Gostin said that he isn’t aware of any state considering a COVID vaccine mandate and that the CDC “does not have plans to recommend that states create a mandate.” He says that while states could mandate a vaccine, it’s unlikely they will do so because of the strong likelihood of backlash."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/alan-dershowitz-forced-coronavirus-vaccinations-are-constitutional
Actually, the government has no plans to force people to take the vaccine. https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/is-the-government-going-to-force
"Trump is going to force that vaccine.Do you think i like that or support that?"
If it doesn't work, don't, however I think it works.
Trump is going to have the military go out and distribute the vaccine.Do you think there is anyway i would take that.
I have not liked any of the stuff trump has done in 2020
Trump is going to force that vaccine.Do you think i like that or support that?
I have not looked into it yet but I am hearing tonight that the wonderdrug Trump's is currently promoting is similarly made from cloned stem cells of a baby aborted in 1973.
Since that advocacy makes Trump at least as complicit as Pepsi (Pepsi is motivated by business, Trump by self-interest) does that information diminish your appraisal of Trump or improve your tolerance of stem-cell derivatives?
I'm going to pull an Imabench on this one
Aha, that was a fun read. It probably put you on some sort of watch list - but comedy gold, nonetheless. :)
It was a troll (AKA comedy) debate, to which I used some clips from South Park to prove value:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/866-fetuses-as-a-replacement-for-the-usd
This sounds like a modest proposal.
This is truism.
W h a t ?
I think my hall of fame debate on abortion included their value as a shrimp substitute...
But they taste so gooooooooooooooooooood
Thessalonians 2:11
because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
And people say Adrenochrome is insane
I haven't dug extensively into this, but no, I don't really care about protecting cloned kidney cells under the law.
And you do not see a problem with that????
They aren't really making food out of aborted babies, there using cloned kidney cells from a fetus aborted in the 70s.
https://fullfact.org/online/HEK-293-cells/
I am not that good with biology beyond my grade level, but this article put the issue in laymens terms for me.
You did not say it was untrue. in last debate. You just said there no conspiracy behind it.
I am a simple man.I am just waiting for a liberal infected with the quote down below to argue against.
Thessalonians 2:11
because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
I am a theistic christian. I do not know which of the thousands of Christianity is true.
we've been over this before, go look at our previous debate
Why would CBS report on it then.Why is there a ton of article's online that say there no aborted babies then talk about how they only make additive's out babies
Why would CBS report on it then.Why is there a ton of article's online that say there no aborted babies then talk about how they only make additive's out of it
I mean, I would agree? I just don't think that's actually happening.
Gross
For example snope say's there is no aborted babies in food.But if you read further they admit they make aborted babies out of food.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/senomyx-flavor-additive/
Please read entire article.Do not fall for the headline.
there is a lot of article's online that say there is no aborted babies in food.But then goes on to say they only make there additives out of aborted babies.Do not be deceived by these article's.With huge headlines saying there no aborted babies.Read further they admit it down below.