Proving that Abortion is Immoral Using Logical Deduction

  • 183 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#51 Posted by ferrari2001 (16808 posts) -

You lost me on the premise. I don't even think its murder so how can it be immoral. And I get what you say about the chromosomes but under that logic pulling the plug on someone who is brain dead is murder and I don't think that is either. Humanity is self awareness and conscious not genes and chromosomes.

That's why the argument should be rather about personhood then it should be about humanity. You must first establish what it means to be a person before you can declare abortion to be moral or immoral.

#52 Posted by JangoWuzHere (16086 posts) -

As my argument is flawless and subsequently impervious to all counter-arguments, I hereby rebut all further counter-arguments in advance and declare myself winner of this thread.

SIncerely, BluRayHiDef - The Undefeated Master Debater

lol, what a dweeb.

#53 Posted by JohnF111 (14051 posts) -

Must also be immoral to take someone off life support as well by this logic.

#54 Edited by foxhound_fox (87623 posts) -

As my argument is flawless and subsequently impervious to all counter-arguments, I hereby rebut all further counter-arguments in advance and declare myself winner of this thread.

Sincerely, BluRayHiDef - The Undefeated Master Debater

#55 Edited by ferrari2001 (16808 posts) -

@JohnF111 said:

Must also be immoral to take someone off life support as well by this logic.

Depends on the type of life support. Taking away their food, water and oxygen supply would be equivalent in this case. Taking away a machine that is actively pumping blood through their body not so much.

#56 Posted by JohnF111 (14051 posts) -

@JohnF111 said:

Must also be immoral to take someone off life support as well by this logic.

Depends on the type of life support. Taking away their food, water and oxygen supply would be equivalent in this case. Taking away a machine that is actively pumping blood through their body not so much.

Both have the same result, death. A fetus can't support their own oxygen supply until birth whether premature or not(it's still birth) so still equal in both cases. An abortion is just cutting the supply of everything at once, oxygen, food, water the lot.

#57 Edited by Master_Live (14162 posts) -

Ever seen a teenage girl with a kid? It is a pathetic spectacle. Instead of being out enjoying their youth they are tied down with a kid. I wonder what they would choose given a do over?

Should had thought about that before they did the deed.

#58 Edited by BluRayHiDef (10838 posts) -

@Dannystaples14 said:

Ever seen a teenage girl with a kid? It is a pathetic spectacle. Instead of being out enjoying their youth they are tied down with a kid. I wonder what they would choose given a do over?

Should had thought about that before they did the deed.

I take it that you're pro-life?

#59 Edited by Master_Live (14162 posts) -

As my argument is flawless and subsequently impervious to all counter-arguments, I hereby rebut all further counter-arguments in advance and declare myself winner of this thread.

Sincerely, BluRayHiDef - The Undefeated Master Debater

Ding-ding-ding-ding. We have a decision from the scorecards:

  • Judge Michael Lewis scored it: 118-109
  • Judge Christine Madison scored it: 119-108
  • and Judge Miguel Herrera scored it: 118-109

For the winner...and STILL Master Debater.The Undefeated...

Undisputed...

Reigning Master Debater of the World:

The Bluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaambler!!!!

#60 Edited by BluRayHiDef (10838 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

As my argument is flawless and subsequently impervious to all counter-arguments, I hereby rebut all further counter-arguments in advance and declare myself winner of this thread.

Sincerely, BluRayHiDef - The Undefeated Master Debater

Ding-ding-ding-ding. We have a decision from the scorecards:

  • Judge Michael Lewis scored it: 118-109
  • Judge Christine Madison scored it: 119-108
  • and Judge Miguel Herrera scored it: 118-109

For the winner...and STILL Master Debater.The Undefeated...

Undisputed...

Reigning Master Debater of the World:

The Bluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaambler!!!!

Oh, yea!

#61 Edited by osirisx3 (1756 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@osirisx3 said:

pro life = pro fascism

please stop opressing the women of this world.

You see women have some thing, and that some thing is called "freedom" Not sure if you ever heard of it. But when you cant even decide what to do with your own body you might as well live in nazi germany.

#62 Edited by Wilfred_Owen (20833 posts) -

I win.

#63 Posted by Master_Live (14162 posts) -

@Master_Live said:

@Dannystaples14 said:

Ever seen a teenage girl with a kid? It is a pathetic spectacle. Instead of being out enjoying their youth they are tied down with a kid. I wonder what they would choose given a do over?

Should had thought about that before they did the deed.

I take it that you're pro-life?

I think abortion should be legal, safe and (extremely) rare. These people that think of abortion as some kind of next day pill are irresponsible, disgusting, appalling and scum as far as I'm concern. I'm the president of the "if you are gonna do it (abortion), do it as early as possible, lady" club. I would also encourage adoption as an alternative.

#64 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10838 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

@Master_Live said:

@Dannystaples14 said:

Ever seen a teenage girl with a kid? It is a pathetic spectacle. Instead of being out enjoying their youth they are tied down with a kid. I wonder what they would choose given a do over?

Should had thought about that before they did the deed.

I take it that you're pro-life?

I think abortion should be legal, safe and (extremely) rare. These people that think of abortion as some kind of next day pill are irresponsible, disgusting, appalling and scum as far as I'm concern. I'm the president of the "if you are gonna do it (abortion), do it as early as possible, lady" club. I would also encourage adoption as an alternative.

Are you still a moderator? I don't see the moderator emblem/ sign on your avatar.

#65 Posted by Master_Live (14162 posts) -

@Master_Live said:

@BluRayHiDef said:

@Master_Live said:

@Dannystaples14 said:

Ever seen a teenage girl with a kid? It is a pathetic spectacle. Instead of being out enjoying their youth they are tied down with a kid. I wonder what they would choose given a do over?

Should had thought about that before they did the deed.

I take it that you're pro-life?

I think abortion should be legal, safe and (extremely) rare. These people that think of abortion as some kind of next day pill are irresponsible, disgusting, appalling and scum as far as I'm concern. I'm the president of the "if you are gonna do it (abortion), do it as early as possible, lady" club. I would also encourage adoption as an alternative.

Are you still a moderator? I don't see the moderator emblem/ sign on your avatar.

Nah, left that post more than a month ago.

#66 Posted by ferrari2001 (16808 posts) -

@JohnF111 said:

@ferrari2001 said:

@JohnF111 said:

Must also be immoral to take someone off life support as well by this logic.

Depends on the type of life support. Taking away their food, water and oxygen supply would be equivalent in this case. Taking away a machine that is actively pumping blood through their body not so much.

Both have the same result, death. A fetus can't support their own oxygen supply until birth whether premature or not(it's still birth) so still equal in both cases. An abortion is just cutting the supply of everything at once, oxygen, food, water the lot.

I was just making the distinction between actively keeping a heart pumping, a fetus' heart pumps on it's own and providing necessary care. There's necessity life support, and non-necessity life support. Things like blood pumps, medicine and other things that keep you alive artificially. While feeding tubes and oxygen supply give you necessary things to continue to live. Not all life support is equal.

#67 Edited by BluRayHiDef (10838 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

@Master_Live said:

@BluRayHiDef said:

@Master_Live said:

@Dannystaples14 said:

Ever seen a teenage girl with a kid? It is a pathetic spectacle. Instead of being out enjoying their youth they are tied down with a kid. I wonder what they would choose given a do over?

Should had thought about that before they did the deed.

I take it that you're pro-life?

I think abortion should be legal, safe and (extremely) rare. These people that think of abortion as some kind of next day pill are irresponsible, disgusting, appalling and scum as far as I'm concern. I'm the president of the "if you are gonna do it (abortion), do it as early as possible, lady" club. I would also encourage adoption as an alternative.

Are you still a moderator? I don't see the moderator emblem/ sign on your avatar.

Nah, left that post more than a month ago.

Why?

#68 Posted by Master_Live (14162 posts) -

@Master_Live said:

@BluRayHiDef said:

@Master_Live said:

@BluRayHiDef said:

@Master_Live said:

@Dannystaples14 said:

Ever seen a teenage girl with a kid? It is a pathetic spectacle. Instead of being out enjoying their youth they are tied down with a kid. I wonder what they would choose given a do over?

Should had thought about that before they did the deed.

I take it that you're pro-life?

I think abortion should be legal, safe and (extremely) rare. These people that think of abortion as some kind of next day pill are irresponsible, disgusting, appalling and scum as far as I'm concern. I'm the president of the "if you are gonna do it (abortion), do it as early as possible, lady" club. I would also encourage adoption as an alternative.

Are you still a moderator? I don't see the moderator emblem/ sign on your avatar.

Nah, left that post more than a month ago.

Why?

Because I already made enough to retire to my own private Island (ain't that right Korvus?). GS moderating group is great, it was a good experience but I felt that to express myself fully in the way I wanted it was better if I left the moderating team.

#69 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10838 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

Why?

Because I already made enough to retire to my own private Island (ain't that right Korvus?). GS moderating group is great, it was a good experience but I felt that to express myself fully in the way I wanted it was better if I left the moderating team.

That's understandable.

#70 Posted by indzman (17217 posts) -

If someone agrees to abortion , its justified. If its forced its wrong.

#71 Edited by indzman (17217 posts) -

As my argument is flawless and subsequently impervious to all counter-arguments, I hereby rebut all further counter-arguments in advance and declare myself winner of this thread.

Sincerely, BluRayHiDef - The Undefeated Master Debater

Agree , you sir is a weiner

#72 Edited by mattykovax (22693 posts) -

@Master_Live:

Being a moderator is not all its cracked up to be.

#73 Posted by slateman_basic (3940 posts) -

Before we begin, we must agree on a premise, without which the following argument would have no basis.

Premise: To murder or kill an infant is immoral.

Argument: Despite the fact that an infant lacks consciousness in the first few months of its life, it is immoral to murder or kill an infant. As a zygote or fetus possesses all forty six chromosomes which are present in a fully developed Human, they are both Human lifeforms - despite a lack of consciousness, just as a newborn is a Human life-form regardless of whether it has reached the age at which it forms a consciousness or not. Hence, to abort a zygote or fetus is tantamount to murdering or killing a newborn which has yet to form a consciousness. So, as murdering or killing a newborn is immoral, so is aborting a zygote or fetus.

Conclusion: Abortion is immoral.

First problem: You assume that your morals and my morals are the same

Second problem: You are assuming that it is more humane to bring the fetus to term and make it live a poor life in pain and suffering rather than end that suffering before it starts.

Third problem: You assume that an infant lacks consciousness. This is incorrect. Studies have shown that infants as young as two weeks are able to react with awareness.

#74 Posted by 4myAmuzumament (1748 posts) -

Your morals don't blanket humanity. It isn't immoral to get an abortion. Fact.

#75 Edited by BluRayHiDef (10838 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

Before we begin, we must agree on a premise, without which the following argument would have no basis.

Premise: To murder or kill an infant is immoral.

Argument: Despite the fact that an infant lacks consciousness in the first few months of its life, it is immoral to murder or kill an infant. As a zygote or fetus possesses all forty six chromosomes which are present in a fully developed Human, they are both Human lifeforms - despite a lack of consciousness, just as a newborn is a Human life-form regardless of whether it has reached the age at which it forms a consciousness or not. Hence, to abort a zygote or fetus is tantamount to murdering or killing a newborn which has yet to form a consciousness. So, as murdering or killing a newborn is immoral, so is aborting a zygote or fetus.

Conclusion: Abortion is immoral.

First problem: You assume that your morals and my morals are the same

Second problem: You are assuming that it is more humane to bring the fetus to term and make it live a poor life in pain and suffering rather than end that suffering before it starts.

Third problem: You assume that an infant lacks consciousness. This is incorrect. Studies have shown that infants as young as two weeks are able to react with awareness.

This is an automated message.

As my argument is flawless and subsequently impervious to all counter-arguments, your counter-argument has been automatically rebutted.

Thank you for your acknowledgment.

Good day, Good SIr.

#76 Posted by ferrari2001 (16808 posts) -

Your morals don't blanket humanity. It isn't immoral to get an abortion. Fact.

You can't just claim something is moral as fact without providing an argument as to why that action is moral or immoral. Why can't there be a universal morality?

#77 Posted by slateman_basic (3940 posts) -

@slateman_basic said:

@BluRayHiDef said:

Before we begin, we must agree on a premise, without which the following argument would have no basis.

Premise: To murder or kill an infant is immoral.

Argument: Despite the fact that an infant lacks consciousness in the first few months of its life, it is immoral to murder or kill an infant. As a zygote or fetus possesses all forty six chromosomes which are present in a fully developed Human, they are both Human lifeforms - despite a lack of consciousness, just as a newborn is a Human life-form regardless of whether it has reached the age at which it forms a consciousness or not. Hence, to abort a zygote or fetus is tantamount to murdering or killing a newborn which has yet to form a consciousness. So, as murdering or killing a newborn is immoral, so is aborting a zygote or fetus.

Conclusion: Abortion is immoral.

First problem: You assume that your morals and my morals are the same

Second problem: You are assuming that it is more humane to bring the fetus to term and make it live a poor life in pain and suffering rather than end that suffering before it starts.

Third problem: You assume that an infant lacks consciousness. This is incorrect. Studies have shown that infants as young as two weeks are able to react with awareness.

This is an automated message.

As my argument is flawless and subsequently impervious to all counter-arguments, your counter-argument has been automatically rebutted.

Thank you for your acknowledgment.

Good day, Good SIr.

Your reply with an automated message acknowledges that you have no logical basis for your conclusions and are unable to defend them. Therefore, you have acknowledged that your argument is invalid and that I am actually correct.

Thank you, sir, for your acknowledgement and tipping of the cap to the better man. Class move on your part.

#78 Edited by 4myAmuzumament (1748 posts) -

@4myAmuzumament said:

Your morals don't blanket humanity. It isn't immoral to get an abortion. Fact.

You can't just claim something is moral as fact without providing an argument as to why that action is moral or immoral. Why can't there be a universal morality?

Firstly, I do not think abortion is a moral or immoral issue; it's just an act, like cheating on your spouse or telling kids that hell is a real place. There are only moral and immoral reasons for performing these acts and telling someone their actions are "wrong" because most other people believe it is wrong is wrong.

#79 Edited by Sword-Demon (6960 posts) -

@svenus97 said:

A zygote is not a human, for the same reason a seed is not a tree or an egg isn't a chicken.

A seed is a tree. the fact that it hasn't yet developed doesn't mean that it isn't a living member of that species.

As for the egg, the chicken is inside of it, silly.

#80 Posted by lostrib (34270 posts) -

Before we begin, we must agree on a premise, without which the following argument would have no basis.

Premise: To murder or kill an infant is immoral.

Argument: Despite the fact that an infant lacks consciousness in the first few months of its life, it is immoral to murder or kill an infant. As a zygote or fetus possesses all forty six chromosomes which are present in a fully developed Human, they are both Human lifeforms - despite a lack of consciousness, just as a newborn is a Human life-form regardless of whether it has reached the age at which it forms a consciousness or not. Hence, to abort a zygote or fetus is tantamount to murdering or killing a newborn which has yet to form a consciousness. So, as murdering or killing a newborn is immoral, so is aborting a zygote or fetus.

Conclusion: Abortion is immoral.

Really? that's the basis of your argument?

#81 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3775 posts) -

Before we begin, we must agree on a premise, without which the following argument would have no basis.

Premise: To murder or kill an infant is immoral.

Argument: Despite the fact that an infant lacks consciousness in the first few months of its life, it is immoral to murder or kill an infant. As a zygote or fetus possesses all forty six chromosomes which are present in a fully developed Human, they are both Human lifeforms - despite a lack of consciousness, just as a newborn is a Human life-form regardless of whether it has reached the age at which it forms a consciousness or not. Hence, to abort a zygote or fetus is tantamount to murdering or killing a newborn which has yet to form a consciousness. So, as murdering or killing a newborn is immoral, so is aborting a zygote or fetus.

Conclusion: Abortion is immoral.

A dead body has 46 chromosomes, a scab i pick off my body does too. I don't think that's a good reason to oppose abortion also.

#counter point

lack of contiousness

#82 Posted by BranKetra (48106 posts) -

To condense such a controversial and complicated discussion into such a tiny little statement does the entire thing a disservice.

Is it also immoral to allow a child to enter life with a genetic disorder that will cause every living day to be filled with unending pain and to die a prolonged death while still barely into their teenage years? What about allowing a child to enter a world of poverty and abuse that is caused by the mother being addicted to drugs, and the child never receiving the love and affection it deserves, only to grow up and repeat the same mistakes and continue the unending cycle?

Abortion isn't the best option, and definitely shouldn't be used as a form of retroactive birth control... but to call it immoral, full stop, without considering the ramifications of what a life for an unwanted child could be like, or one that will only be filled with suffering, is equally as immoral. And until we can discover a way to remove an unwanted foetus from the mother and either implant it into a willing mother, or raise it in an artificial environment (i.e. in a lab), in addition to providing the child with the necessary emotional and financial support to become a productive member of society, abortion should never be removed as an option for expecting mothers, no matter how "immoral" some people might believe it to be.

Let us take care to prevent our predecessors' and ancestors' mistakes from being repeated. Forcing sterilizations and committing infanticide on our people is where this path leads if allowed to degenerate out of control.

If anything good is to come from this, it would be the development of reprogenetics.

#83 Edited by lamprey263 (23091 posts) -

well, that'd make sense if I could agree on the premise, which I don't, I don't consider the fetus an infant, at least not in the first trimester, and women don't tend to have late abortions for elective reasons, unless some serious child health issues are taken into consideration, or the health of the mother

#84 Posted by StrifeDelivery (1378 posts) -

@JohnF111 said:

@ferrari2001 said:

@JohnF111 said:

Must also be immoral to take someone off life support as well by this logic.

Depends on the type of life support. Taking away their food, water and oxygen supply would be equivalent in this case. Taking away a machine that is actively pumping blood through their body not so much.

Both have the same result, death. A fetus can't support their own oxygen supply until birth whether premature or not(it's still birth) so still equal in both cases. An abortion is just cutting the supply of everything at once, oxygen, food, water the lot.

I was just making the distinction between actively keeping a heart pumping, a fetus' heart pumps on it's own and providing necessary care. There's necessity life support, and non-necessity life support. Things like blood pumps, medicine and other things that keep you alive artificially. While feeding tubes and oxygen supply give you necessary things to continue to live. Not all life support is equal.

You're right that not all life support is equal; however, your distinctions between them seem off. Oxygen is given to people in general regardless of their ability to do so on their own. An oxygen supply is a necessary function to continue living, but it can be artificially keeping you alive as well. There is definitely a difference between say a non-rebreather mask vs. a ventilator for a particular patient. You're also right that a fetus can pump its own blood, but the mother here is in essence the ventilator for the infant.

#85 Edited by Dannystaples14 (945 posts) -

@Master_Live: Exactly but what I'm saying is an abortion is a pretty sound remedy for that mistake. Why drag out the mistake to the point where it actively ruins your own life?

Someone say two wrongs don't make a right above, how about potentially ruining two people's lives instead of one? Is that better than a second debatable wrong?

#86 Edited by GazaAli (22503 posts) -

If the basis for deciding on the morality or legitimacy of abortion is the presence/absence of consciousness then yes I can't see how TC's reasoning is supposed to be flawed and outrageous. If the absence of consciousness is what makes abortion legal or morally acceptable then killing an infant that hasn't developed self-awareness yet for any number of reasons be it deformity, divorce, financial inability to take care of a child or any other contingency should also be legally and morally sound.

I think people that would reject this premise do so simply because an infant has already been given birth to or that he looks perfectly human so people can associate and relate to him more now, none of which is enough and substantial of a rational reason to discredit and invalidate the original premise.

#87 Edited by Ariabed (1102 posts) -

Abortion is morally wrong except in these circumstances;

Contraception has failed to stop a pregnancy.

The child would be born with a serious illness that would lead the child to live a short painful, and very poor quality of life even with treatment.

Woman has been raped and fallen pregnant by her attacker.

Birth of the child could cause the death of child and or the mother.

The child is the anti christ. •_•

Those should be the only reason abortion should be considered, anything other than that let the mother carry the child and give it up for adoption if need be.

#88 Edited by playmynutz (5981 posts) -

Should abortion be illegal? Yes so the liberals can fall of the donkey, woah jesus was a liberal

#89 Posted by jasean79 (2356 posts) -

BTW I've found that most gamers tend to be agnostics/atheists and pro-abortion (within limits)

Hi, we've never met, but I'm a gamer and I'm Catholic and pro-life. Does that change the statistics at all, if even just a little?

#90 Edited by Motokid6 (5231 posts) -

Its just as immoral to send an infant to a foster home to live a .. questionable life.

#91 Posted by Boddicker (2489 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@Boddicker said:

BTW I've found that most gamers tend to be agnostics/atheists and pro-abortion (within limits)

Hi, we've never met, but I'm a gamer and I'm Catholic and pro-life. Does that change the statistics at all, if even just a little?

I said TEND to be.

#92 Edited by ferrari2001 (16808 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@Boddicker said:

BTW I've found that most gamers tend to be agnostics/atheists and pro-abortion (within limits)

Hi, we've never met, but I'm a gamer and I'm Catholic and pro-life. Does that change the statistics at all, if even just a little?

He did say most, which indicats not all. Although I'm also a gamer, catholic and pro-life.

#93 Posted by Ariabed (1102 posts) -

@Motokid6: better to have a chance at life rather than be terminated bcos two people were irresponsible. I'm sure many adopted children have gone on to lead successful lives, why stereotype adopted children as having questionable lives, is that your argument for abortion?

#94 Posted by thegerg (14828 posts) -

IOT prove that abortion is immoral you first have to prove the standards for morality. Morality is, by its nature, subjective.

IOT say that abortion is immoral because murder is immoral you first must PROVE that murder is immoral. That is something that you can not do. You can believe that murder is immoral, and you can prove that it is unlawful, but you can't prove that it is immoral.

#95 Edited by thegerg (14828 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@Motokid6: better to have a chance at life rather than be terminated bcos two people were irresponsible. I'm sure many adopted children have gone on to lead successful lives, why stereotype adopted children as having questionable lives, is that your argument for abortion?

"I'm sure many adopted children have gone on to lead successful lives"

Me too, but I'd bet that the number of unwanted children who are greatly successful is much smaller than those who are a burden to society.

"why stereotype adopted children as having questionable lives, is that your argument for abortion?"

No. Did you not read the thread?

#96 Edited by BluRayHiDef (10838 posts) -

@thegerg said:

IOT prove that abortion is immoral you first have to prove the standards for morality. Morality is, by its nature, subjective.

IOT say that abortion is immoral because murder is immoral you first must PROVE that murder is immoral. That is something that you can not do. You can believe that murder is immoral, and you can prove that it is unlawful, but you can't prove that it is immoral.

Either you didn't read the OP clearly or you have poor comprehension skills. I explicitly said that in order for my argument to be true that we all have to agree on the premise I presented. If you don't agree on the premise, then it falls apart, as I admitted in the OP. Why is it that people can't think in terms of raw logic?

#97 Edited by thegerg (14828 posts) -

@thegerg said:

IOT prove that abortion is immoral you first have to prove the standards for morality. Morality is, by its nature, subjective.

IOT say that abortion is immoral because murder is immoral you first must PROVE that murder is immoral. That is something that you can not do. You can believe that murder is immoral, and you can prove that it is unlawful, but you can't prove that it is immoral.

Either you didn't read the OP clearly or you have poor comprehension skills. I explicitly said that in order for my argument to be true that we all have to agree on the premise I presented. If you don't agree on the premise, then it falls apart, as I admitted in the OP. Why is it that people can't think in terms of raw logic?

Even if we accept your premise, it does not prove that murder is immoral. Someone can accept your belief, but that is still not proof.

#98 Edited by HoolaHoopMan (7740 posts) -

Considering the initial premise doesn't hold true, no.

#99 Edited by BluRayHiDef (10838 posts) -

Considering the initial premise doesn't hold true, no.

So, you're saying that it's not immoral to murder or kill an infant?

#100 Edited by thegerg (14828 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

@HoolaHoopMan said:

Considering the initial premise doesn't hold true, no.

So, you're saying that it's not immoral to murder or kill an infant?

I think what he's saying is that no proof of that immorality exists.