Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

debateorg_w_effect_for_conservative

like 0

Pro, I appreciate the sincerity of your closing comments. It was a respectable and honorable admission. I believe your intentions were to "concede" this debate to me, "Con", although there were some typo's in that last sentence, and I accept that. I enjoyed our exchange and the challenge it presented. I look I forward to a future debate!

KevinLomaxESQ

Pro, I appreciate the sincerity of your closing comments. It was a respectable and honorable admission. I believe your intentions were to "concede" this debate to me, "Con", although there were some typo's in that last sentence, and I accept that. I enjoyed our exchange and the challenge it presented. I look I forward to a future debate!

Health

Abortion-Is-Morally-Wrong/4/

3 Round rap batle about Abortion. Pro goes first (you) but can't rap in last round or forfeits the debate.

8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA

3 Round rap batle about Abortion. Pro goes first (you) but can't rap in last round or forfeits the debate.

Entertainment

Abortion-Rap-Battle/1/

Le I don't wanna fight with you, I just wanna write the truth, I just wanna convey and do, Rap like Bruce Lee did Kung Fu, Abortion may be good in you're view, But in mine it's a disease contagious like the flu. "Oh Maggie's pregnant and she don't want it", "Oh there's a problem, those shouldn't be confronted", "I told her baby's matter, that here memories will be haunted", "Don't bother she's abortin' it, your advice is unwanted." "She get raped, they filmed it on tape." "I know I'm the one who raped her, you shoulda seen her holes gape." This is the society we live in nowadays, A world where most support abortion and nobody prays, A world where a fetus has less right to live than one who rapes, A world where the weak get preyed on and morality's a maze, In the old times, what was right was right, Nowadays saying something's wrong is a fight, "It's wrong to kill a baby" "pfft, yeah right!", "We're 14 and getting drunk as F*** tonight." "OMG let's all get high as a kite" "Young wild and free, what a delight." The fact is killing a fetus is wrong, Life's a tough journey, you gotta be strong, If you get raped, put on your mask and cape, Fight crime, send em' to prison it wasn't a mistake, Don't sympathize with 'em, you're not a victim of fate, Rape is is disgusting but so is being a whore, Human trafficking is sickening to the core, I am not a pimp and I f***ing abhor, The fact that you said I was that and more, You know nothing about me so count to four, I'll kill your Satanic a** at three, f*** the law. You nihilistic wannabe philosophy freshman, Start dealing with abortion and stop begging the question, "It's wrong because it's tiny" "wrong because it's a blob", What's really wrong is that night your mom didn't give dad a blowjob, Instead she took him in her, took in his cum like dinner, Nomnomnom, her body said, well not so much her liver, You know what I find funny about you sickos with your porn? About your wanking pro-choicers who keep blowing Satan's horn? Every single one of you retards has already been born. So instead of saying I support female slavery, Instead of ad hominem attacks that all fail on me, Why don't you whitch what f*ck you say to me, The only thing I support os morals and bravery.

8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA

Le I don't wanna fight with you, I just wanna write the truth, I just wanna convey and do, Rap like Bruce Lee did Kung Fu, Abortion may be good in you're view, But in mine it's a disease contagious like the flu. "Oh Maggie's pregnant and she don't want it", "Oh there's a problem, those shouldn't be confronted", "I told her baby's matter, that here memories will be haunted", "Don't bother she's abortin' it, your advice is unwanted." "She get raped, they filmed it on tape." "I know I'm the one who raped her, you shoulda seen her holes gape." This is the society we live in nowadays, A world where most support abortion and nobody prays, A world where a fetus has less right to live than one who rapes, A world where the weak get preyed on and morality's a maze, In the old times, what was right was right, Nowadays saying something's wrong is a fight, "It's wrong to kill a baby" "pfft, yeah right!", "We're 14 and getting drunk as F*** tonight." "OMG let's all get high as a kite" "Young wild and free, what a delight." The fact is killing a fetus is wrong, Life's a tough journey, you gotta be strong, If you get raped, put on your mask and cape, Fight crime, send em' to prison it wasn't a mistake, Don't sympathize with 'em, you're not a victim of fate, Rape is is disgusting but so is being a whore, Human trafficking is sickening to the core, I am not a pimp and I f***ing abhor, The fact that you said I was that and more, You know nothing about me so count to four, I'll kill your Satanic a** at three, f*** the law. You nihilistic wannabe philosophy freshman, Start dealing with abortion and stop begging the question, "It's wrong because it's tiny" "wrong because it's a blob", What's really wrong is that night your mom didn't give dad a blowjob, Instead she took him in her, took in his cum like dinner, Nomnomnom, her body said, well not so much her liver, You know what I find funny about you sickos with your porn? About your wanking pro-choicers who keep blowing Satan's horn? Every single one of you retards has already been born. So instead of saying I support female slavery, Instead of ad hominem attacks that all fail on me, Why don't you whitch what f*ck you say to me, The only thing I support os morals and bravery.

Entertainment

Abortion-Rap-Battle/1/

In a rap debate, sources are irrelevant and shouldn't be vote on. Round 1 this guy insists I'm fighting, Round 2 his he desists this writing, What is it exactly he's inviting? A world where it's psychopaths we're delighting. I never said rape victims are sick, Whatever you say or think I did, You're spitting ice, what I spit is toxic, I evaporate your iceberg of bullsh**, 'Cause the lava I'm eruptin' is catastrophic. First of all I wanna make it clear, I want the punishment of all rapists to be severe, I loathe rape with a passion, it's me that rapists should fear, For it's not them who'd end in prison once I hunted them down like deer. I'm not saying that abusing someone for your pleasure, Breaking rules, taking every measure, To make them get impregnated while you make them say 'yes sir', Is okay but at the same time I seek to destroy peer pressure, The one that makes any rape victim get told "you should abort it", The one that things suggesting an abortion helps rape victims get supported, The nightmare of the rape will haunt them, it's not the fetus' fault it's... That baby maybe the only good thing that could come from it all. I'm rather curious why Pro keeps resorting to rape, 'Rape this', 'Rape that' like a broken tape, What about the majority of abortions that are due to 'mistakes', What about the innocent lives lost for promiscuity's sake? "Rape victims are victims" "Who are we to judge?" Victims of rape are emotional and can't think all that much, They cry their eyes out every night and get frightened of touch, The right direction is where you need to give them a gentle nudge, 'Cause most decisions made in haste, where one will not budge, Are the ones people live to regret, panic makes brains turn to sludge. A lifeform's a lifeform, a human's a human, You can try to twist the truth by misconstruin', Every obvious fact and turning them on their head, But we'll see how much your wit matters when that baby's dead. Rape's a severe minority of abortion's that take place, So stop playing 'rape alert', you should at least try to save face, You were born and so was I so what a f***ing disgrace, It is for you to say either of our lives would better off erased. The fact is one's a zygote's formed, there is no going back, From that point on you're slaughtering or delivering; that's a fact, You can try paint white as blue and even gold as black( <URL>... ), But this aint no meme on the internet unless you smoke crack. I fin it amusing, this false story you tell, This fictional tale about how I shall end up in hell, The outrageous claim that a combination of human DNA cells, To not combine to form a human; they couldn't form anything else! Stop spewing your lies, focusing on rape to disguise, The culture I've grown to despise, humanity's great demise, It's time to open your eyes, spread something other than thighs, Operate on hearts and minds rather than our sex drives.

8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA

In a rap debate, sources are irrelevant and shouldn't be vote on. Round 1 this guy insists I'm fighting, Round 2 his he desists this writing, What is it exactly he's inviting? A world where it's psychopaths we're delighting. I never said rape victims are sick, Whatever you say or think I did, You're spitting ice, what I spit is toxic, I evaporate your iceberg of bullsh**, 'Cause the lava I'm eruptin' is catastrophic. First of all I wanna make it clear, I want the punishment of all rapists to be severe, I loathe rape with a passion, it's me that rapists should fear, For it's not them who'd end in prison once I hunted them down like deer. I'm not saying that abusing someone for your pleasure, Breaking rules, taking every measure, To make them get impregnated while you make them say 'yes sir', Is okay but at the same time I seek to destroy peer pressure, The one that makes any rape victim get told "you should abort it", The one that things suggesting an abortion helps rape victims get supported, The nightmare of the rape will haunt them, it's not the fetus' fault it's... That baby maybe the only good thing that could come from it all. I'm rather curious why Pro keeps resorting to rape, 'Rape this', 'Rape that' like a broken tape, What about the majority of abortions that are due to 'mistakes', What about the innocent lives lost for promiscuity's sake? "Rape victims are victims" "Who are we to judge?" Victims of rape are emotional and can't think all that much, They cry their eyes out every night and get frightened of touch, The right direction is where you need to give them a gentle nudge, 'Cause most decisions made in haste, where one will not budge, Are the ones people live to regret, panic makes brains turn to sludge. A lifeform's a lifeform, a human's a human, You can try to twist the truth by misconstruin', Every obvious fact and turning them on their head, But we'll see how much your wit matters when that baby's dead. Rape's a severe minority of abortion's that take place, So stop playing 'rape alert', you should at least try to save face, You were born and so was I so what a f***ing disgrace, It is for you to say either of our lives would better off erased. The fact is one's a zygote's formed, there is no going back, From that point on you're slaughtering or delivering; that's a fact, You can try paint white as blue and even gold as black( http://knowyourmeme.com... ), But this aint no meme on the internet unless you smoke crack. I fin it amusing, this false story you tell, This fictional tale about how I shall end up in hell, The outrageous claim that a combination of human DNA cells, To not combine to form a human; they couldn't form anything else! Stop spewing your lies, focusing on rape to disguise, The culture I've grown to despise, humanity's great demise, It's time to open your eyes, spread something other than thighs, Operate on hearts and minds rather than our sex drives.

Entertainment

Abortion-Rap-Battle/1/

Babies cry, fetuses die, Society moves on, doesn't bat an eye, They worry more about the right to f*** then the right to life, How about you stop banging hoes and try to keep a wife, How about we see that everyone deserves to be alive, How about we not kid's really conscious before they're five, So the 'conscious' argument is like sticking your hand in a beehive, It's stupid, self-refuting and does not deserve to thrive.

8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA

Babies cry, fetuses die, Society moves on, doesn't bat an eye, They worry more about the right to f*** then the right to life, How about you stop banging hoes and try to keep a wife, How about we see that everyone deserves to be alive, How about we not kid's really conscious before they're five, So the 'conscious' argument is like sticking your hand in a beehive, It's stupid, self-refuting and does not deserve to thrive.

Entertainment

Abortion-Rap-Battle/1/

What do you want picking this fight with me? I'll tear you apart till you bend on one knee An' acknowledge my wisdom, delivered to thee Dropped from on high like the fruit from a tree. Pro life or pro choice, give women the voice! Or are you the sort that thinks better of boys? You see girls as bitches, is that what this is? 'Cos I ain't got time for that absolute shizz! The reason you don't like the girls that you know And treat 'em as ovens for your seed to grow Is because you're a pimp and you'll go with the pro Once you have crushed 'em and branded 'em "ho". Time to grow up, little boy, and to meet A woman who won't let you suck on her teet But if you can prove that you're manly (a feat!) She may want your children, hey that'd be neat! Women you see who are strong and upright Do they give your boyhood a bit of a fright? What does that say of your manhood; your might? So where do you think, then, that you get the right To tell a good woman just what she must do She might want your kid if she really loves you But just 'cos you drugged her and filled her with goo Does not make you worthy of having a boo. Yeah, just 'cos you drugged her and filled her with goo Does not make you worthy of having a boo.

AndyHood

What do you want picking this fight with me? I'll tear you apart till you bend on one knee An' acknowledge my wisdom, delivered to thee Dropped from on high like the fruit from a tree. Pro life or pro choice, give women the voice! Or are you the sort that thinks better of boys? You see girls as bitches, is that what this is? 'Cos I ain't got time for that absolute shizz! The reason you don't like the girls that you know And treat 'em as ovens for your seed to grow Is because you're a pimp and you'll go with the pro Once you have crushed 'em and branded 'em "ho". Time to grow up, little boy, and to meet A woman who won't let you suck on her teet But if you can prove that you're manly (a feat!) She may want your children, hey that'd be neat! Women you see who are strong and upright Do they give your boyhood a bit of a fright? What does that say of your manhood; your might? So where do you think, then, that you get the right To tell a good woman just what she must do She might want your kid if she really loves you But just 'cos you drugged her and filled her with goo Does not make you worthy of having a boo. Yeah, just 'cos you drugged her and filled her with goo Does not make you worthy of having a boo.

Entertainment

Abortion-Rap-Battle/1/

I don't want to fight you but I will if I have to Fight the good fight, now I'm coming right at you Spittin' ice that is cold but it sticks like a glue Now I'll teach you to see what is false and what's true You seem to think that rape victims are sick And deserve the abuse that they get from such pricks As you claim every dumb Tom, Harry and Dick Would be oh so quick to turn such a trick But two things you've missed in your hurry to judge, Two ways we can see that your words are just fudge: 1 Rape victims are victims, we shouldn't begrudge If they don't want to carry, it's not up to us. 2 Your idea that most people're totally f***ed Just shows your philosophy totally sucks You're projecting your own completely corrupt Internal ideas that could never instruct. But you've got the key that will save the day Or at least that is what you are seeming to say You think that the answer is simply to pray As if that could wash the problem away! *** Who you gonna pray to, pray do tell... How you gonna save you from His hell? Who you gonna pray to, pray do tell... How you gonna save you from His hell? *** I really hate to do it 'cos the book is just grimy But I got to show ya your religion's freakin' slimy I gotta quote the book to show just how it stymies Any moral thinking through its constant whining: Open Deuteronomy, chapter twenty two Listen to how your LORD God commmands you: Verses twenty two through twenty four do Tell you quite clearly what you must do: "Torture rape victims to death" says the Lord "Don't you dare put those c**ts to the sword! Torture them, stone them, I won't be ignored! Torture rape victims 'cos I AM THE LORD"! You think that the problem of rape can be mended By praying to this ancient, Bronze Age, demented Notion of God that has clearly been bended By folk't think wives should breed for you or... be... dead ? I don't think you've any idea what a monster Yahweh, the Lord God, Elohim, that imposter Is, nor how wicked the ideas that He fosters He's the ultimate gangster, despicable mobster! So bear with me now as I show you his best, And then you can say if you, like the rest, Will still bow your knee to his evil behest As "every mouth shall Him confess". *** Exodus 34, 14 to 26 [1] - God lays down the real 10 commandments Verse nineteen: The first offspring of every womb belongs to me . Redeem all your firstborn sons. Ezekiel 20:25-26 [2] So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; I defiled them through their gifts-- the sacrifice of every firstborn --that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord . Yes, that's right, people of Abrahamic faiths: The LORD demanded that all people sacrifice their first-born sons - and then virtually laughed about how he made this wicked commandment that people might know that HE is THE LORD. *** Well, okay, now, getting back to my flow: If you wanna be slave to this sick mofo Be my guest, yo, I can't stop you, no, mo But I want you to know I won't go that low And I want you to see that your arguments blow Your claim as to morals you biblically know Are nothing but trash and Bronze Age bravado Get with the times you sick, dumb mo fo! If you really think that the bible is best I bet you ain't read it! I know, I'll test... Do you know what your words that are blessed Say on abortion, you theistic pest? Read Numbers 5, sixteen - twenty eight [3] Read it and weep, you stupid troll bait Now can you see and read straight? God loves abortions, so why do you hate? Now we've cleared that ancient dribbling, Maybe we'll spot your moral fibbing, And maybe now we'll get a sprinkling Of common sense and moral thinking! You see suff'ring's the stick that we should now use When between moral options we find we must choose And whilst you may think that you love all the boos At one week or two they can't have the blues! If a zygote, morula or blastocyst cries Then maybe your stupid argument flies But if something with no brain ups and dies Why the moral outrage and the lies? A collection of thousands of cells cannot be A human being in reality! And you've no right to claim in your see That some magic spirit is there, how likely? So why should a woman be forced to full term For the rights of some cells that are bare passed a germ Because some foul maggot, some slithering worm Drugged her and raped her, you still hold firm? [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>...

AndyHood

I don't want to fight you but I will if I have to Fight the good fight, now I'm coming right at you Spittin' ice that is cold but it sticks like a glue Now I'll teach you to see what is false and what's true You seem to think that rape victims are sick And deserve the abuse that they get from such pricks As you claim every dumb Tom, Harry and Dick Would be oh so quick to turn such a trick But two things you've missed in your hurry to judge, Two ways we can see that your words are just fudge: 1 Rape victims are victims, we shouldn't begrudge If they don't want to carry, it's not up to us. 2 Your idea that most people're totally f***ed Just shows your philosophy totally sucks You're projecting your own completely corrupt Internal ideas that could never instruct. But you've got the key that will save the day Or at least that is what you are seeming to say You think that the answer is simply to pray As if that could wash the problem away! *** Who you gonna pray to, pray do tell... How you gonna save you from His hell? Who you gonna pray to, pray do tell... How you gonna save you from His hell? *** I really hate to do it 'cos the book is just grimy But I got to show ya your religion's freakin' slimy I gotta quote the book to show just how it stymies Any moral thinking through its constant whining: Open Deuteronomy, chapter twenty two Listen to how your LORD God commmands you: Verses twenty two through twenty four do Tell you quite clearly what you must do: "Torture rape victims to death" says the Lord "Don't you dare put those c**ts to the sword! Torture them, stone them, I won't be ignored! Torture rape victims 'cos I AM THE LORD"! You think that the problem of rape can be mended By praying to this ancient, Bronze Age, demented Notion of God that has clearly been bended By folk't think wives should breed for you or... be... dead ? I don't think you've any idea what a monster Yahweh, the Lord God, Elohim, that imposter Is, nor how wicked the ideas that He fosters He's the ultimate gangster, despicable mobster! So bear with me now as I show you his best, And then you can say if you, like the rest, Will still bow your knee to his evil behest As "every mouth shall Him confess". *** Exodus 34, 14 to 26 [1] - God lays down the real 10 commandments Verse nineteen: The first offspring of every womb belongs to me . Redeem all your firstborn sons. Ezekiel 20:25-26 [2] So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; I defiled them through their gifts— the sacrifice of every firstborn —that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord . Yes, that's right, people of Abrahamic faiths: The LORD demanded that all people sacrifice their first-born sons - and then virtually laughed about how he made this wicked commandment that people might know that HE is THE LORD. *** Well, okay, now, getting back to my flow: If you wanna be slave to this sick mofo Be my guest, yo, I can't stop you, no, mo But I want you to know I won't go that low And I want you to see that your arguments blow Your claim as to morals you biblically know Are nothing but trash and Bronze Age bravado Get with the times you sick, dumb mo fo! If you really think that the bible is best I bet you ain't read it! I know, I'll test... Do you know what your words that are blessed Say on abortion, you theistic pest? Read Numbers 5, sixteen - twenty eight [3] Read it and weep, you stupid troll bait Now can you see and read straight? God loves abortions, so why do you hate? Now we've cleared that ancient dribbling, Maybe we'll spot your moral fibbing, And maybe now we'll get a sprinkling Of common sense and moral thinking! You see suff'ring's the stick that we should now use When between moral options we find we must choose And whilst you may think that you love all the boos At one week or two they can't have the blues! If a zygote, morula or blastocyst cries Then maybe your stupid argument flies But if something with no brain ups and dies Why the moral outrage and the lies? A collection of thousands of cells cannot be A human being in reality! And you've no right to claim in your see That some magic spirit is there, how likely? So why should a woman be forced to full term For the rights of some cells that are bare passed a germ Because some foul maggot, some slithering worm Drugged her and raped her, you still hold firm? [1] https://www.biblegateway.com... [2] https://www.biblegateway.com... [3] https://www.biblegateway.com...

Entertainment

Abortion-Rap-Battle/1/

I would like to thank my opponent in advance for engaging in this discussion. My name is Roger Robbins, I am 15 years old, I am a liberal Democrat living in the U.S.A.. I have a 4.2 GPA, I am a Junior in high school, I am an adolescent volunteer coordinator for a convalescent hospital, and I have a minimum wage job that helps me save for college. I ask that my opponent uses the first round as a personal introduction for them self, and gives a very general/direct statement that summarizes their opinion on abortion. The following debate should be structured using three different questions, where each should be answered in their designated round: Round 2: Should abortion be legal in the U.S.A.? Round 3: Is abortion morally correct? Round 4: Is abortion necessary? These questions do not have to be the entire basis for your argument, but they should at least be acknowledged to help keep structure within our discussion. As for my opening statement I want to be clear that I am not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice . Abortion should remain legal in all states because women are entitled to make their own decisions, especially regarding their health. Revoking a woman of her ability to do what she wishes with her body is a violation of her constitutional rights, and in some cases disrespectful. Making a woman give birth to a child she does not want, is making her endure pain for an act that she may or may not have had control over. Forcefully making a woman's life change because you do not agree with her beliefs is not your business nor your responsibility. I do not believe that women should use abortion as birth control, however I more strongly believe that it would be inappropriate for me to force my beliefs upon another person, especially to the extent of changing their life. It is a woman's life, a woman's child, a woman's body, a woman's motherhood, and ultimately a woman's choice.

RogerRobbins72

I would like to thank my opponent in advance for engaging in this discussion. My name is Roger Robbins, I am 15 years old, I am a liberal Democrat living in the U.S.A.. I have a 4.2 GPA, I am a Junior in high school, I am an adolescent volunteer coordinator for a convalescent hospital, and I have a minimum wage job that helps me save for college. I ask that my opponent uses the first round as a personal introduction for them self, and gives a very general/direct statement that summarizes their opinion on abortion. The following debate should be structured using three different questions, where each should be answered in their designated round: Round 2: Should abortion be legal in the U.S.A.? Round 3: Is abortion morally correct? Round 4: Is abortion necessary? These questions do not have to be the entire basis for your argument, but they should at least be acknowledged to help keep structure within our discussion. As for my opening statement I want to be clear that I am not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice . Abortion should remain legal in all states because women are entitled to make their own decisions, especially regarding their health. Revoking a woman of her ability to do what she wishes with her body is a violation of her constitutional rights, and in some cases disrespectful. Making a woman give birth to a child she does not want, is making her endure pain for an act that she may or may not have had control over. Forcefully making a woman's life change because you do not agree with her beliefs is not your business nor your responsibility. I do not believe that women should use abortion as birth control, however I more strongly believe that it would be inappropriate for me to force my beliefs upon another person, especially to the extent of changing their life. It is a woman's life, a woman's child, a woman's body, a woman's motherhood, and ultimately a woman's choice.

Health

Abortion-Should-Remain-Legal/3/

Round 2: Should abortion be legal in the U.S.A.? U.S. Constitution Yes, I believe that abortion should be legal in all states and all American women are entitled to choices regarding their own welfare. It is insensitive to dictate what women can and cannot do in a country that promises freedom. Most advocates for our constitution would say that abortion is a violation of our natural rights because "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life , Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." ( U.S. Declaration of Independence ) Although life is promised to each citizen of the United States of America, does a woman's underdeveloped fetus count? No, they are not legally citizens until birth. With that take into account, we also notice that the constitution was written to defend freedom and protect all of its citizens . "... establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare ..." ( Preamble- U.S. Constitution ) I have no right to claim that any life is less valuable than another, but for the sake of our constitution - the basis on which our country was developed- we must protect women's rights over their own bodies. Protection of women's choice should be reserved regardless of the circumstances. Even some of our greatest leaders agree.... "You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion." - Hilary Clinton "No politician should make decisions about women's health" - Barack Obama Modern Law The moral confliction about abortion is that it is considered murder. I disagree. First, allow me give you dictionary.com's definition of murder: "Law. The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)" dictionary.com In the United States of America it is legal in all 50 states to get an abortion, therefore making it a surgery, not murder. Because abortion is not outlawed in any state, it would be foolish to call abortion "murder." Supreme Courts & Science When the supreme courts faced the legalization of abortion they declared that there is not enough scientific evidence to prove that the fetus is alive, therefore it would be irrational to revoke women's constitutional rights for ignorance. Scientific studies suggest that life (as we know it) is not developed until the third trimester. Regardless to these laws, rights, and scientific studies, women have rights lawfully and constitutionally, but there has not been enough science to strip them of their rights. The ultimate question is: Who are you to control someone else's life? (Especially when there are no certain as to when life starts)

RogerRobbins72

Round 2: Should abortion be legal in the U.S.A.? U.S. Constitution Yes, I believe that abortion should be legal in all states and all American women are entitled to choices regarding their own welfare. It is insensitive to dictate what women can and cannot do in a country that promises freedom. Most advocates for our constitution would say that abortion is a violation of our natural rights because “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life , Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” ( U.S. Declaration of Independence ) Although life is promised to each citizen of the United States of America, does a woman’s underdeveloped fetus count? No, they are not legally citizens until birth. With that take into account, we also notice that the constitution was written to defend freedom and protect all of its citizens . "… establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare …" ( Preamble- U.S. Constitution ) I have no right to claim that any life is less valuable than another, but for the sake of our constitution - the basis on which our country was developed- we must protect women's rights over their own bodies. Protection of women’s choice should be reserved regardless of the circumstances. Even some of our greatest leaders agree.... "You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion." - Hilary Clinton "No politician should make decisions about women’s health" - Barack Obama Modern Law The moral confliction about abortion is that it is considered murder. I disagree. First, allow me give you dictionary.com's definition of murder: "Law. The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)" dictionary.com In the United States of America it is legal in all 50 states to get an abortion, therefore making it a surgery, not murder. Because abortion is not outlawed in any state, it would be foolish to call abortion "murder." Supreme Courts & Science When the supreme courts faced the legalization of abortion they declared that there is not enough scientific evidence to prove that the fetus is alive, therefore it would be irrational to revoke women’s constitutional rights for ignorance. Scientific studies suggest that life (as we know it) is not developed until the third trimester. Regardless to these laws, rights, and scientific studies, women have rights lawfully and constitutionally, but there has not been enough science to strip them of their rights. The ultimate question is: Who are you to control someone else’s life? (Especially when there are no certain as to when life starts)

Health

Abortion-Should-Remain-Legal/3/

Before I begin Round 3 I would like to quickly respond to Con's defensive tactics in the previous round. In the evidence you gave about the 14 the amendment you said "All persons born or naturalized (naturalized means toconferupontherightsandprivilegesofacitizen) in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ;nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty , or property (later changed to the pursuit of happiness), without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I thank you for reiterating my point, but still your argument is unclear. Based off of the 14 the Amendment, our citizens (women) have the simple right to do as they please with their body (including giving birth). This brings me to another point, your scientific definition of life. Again, I disagree with your argument in a way that is best illustrated through an article on <URL>... . "If you point out that a fetus consists of human tissue and DNA, anti-choicers triumphantly claim you just conceded it's a human being. Now, a flake of dandruff from my head is human, but it is not a human being, and in this sense, neither is a zygote. Anti-choicers will respond that a fertilized egg is not like dandruff, because the fertilized egg consists of a unique set of chromosomes that makes it a separate human being. But with cloning, a cell from my dandruff is enough to create a new human being. Although it would have my identical genetic make-up, it would still be a unique individual, and because human beings are much more than our genes Also, both a fertilized egg and a cloned cell represent a potential, not an actual human being. It's a worn cliche, but it bears repeating--an acorn isn't an oak tree and the egg you had for breakfast isn't a chicken." Need I say more? My opponent's argument is very poorly put together, and he is using a weak debate strategy in which he disagrees with my points yet fails to provide any concrete ideas of his own. Finally I would like to answer the question that he asked me at the end of Round 2. (Although it was probably a rhetorical question) Nobody should control anyone else's life, but since a fetus is not life (it is more of an opportunity for life) I am more concerned with the mother's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Round 3: Is abortion morally correct? Like I said countless times before, abortion is not murder. Yet my own personal beliefs regarding abortion are much different than whether or not I feel that it should be legal. It should be legal because neither my, nor my opponent's opinion is worthy of controlling another woman's life. When it comes to someone's health, it is only their opinion that should matter. Now we face a new question, when is abortion okay ? Is it okay to abort a baby when there is incest involved? If you answer is yes, but you do not support abortions then your logic is flawed. Because a baby who is a product of incest (no matter how deformed or unstable they will be) is still a child worth being born (according to the logic of my opponent). Is it okay to abort a baby when the mother's life is threatened? If you answer is yes, (like my opponent did in Round 1) but you do not support abortions then your logic is flawed. Because according to my opponent, the zygote (before third trimester) is just as valuable as the living, breathing mother. But since a woman had "sex, then she, without a doubt, has the responsibility to give birth to the child, no matter the pain or discomfort caused her. " (Round 1, Con) I would assume that means that my opponent feels that she should die on that operation table with her stillborn child. Is it okay to abort a baby when there is rape involved? If you answer is yes, but you do not support abortions then your logic is flawed. My opponent stated in Round 1 that he believes. "If a woman is raped, then I believe she should have the child as well". There you have it voters... If you, or your daughter , o r your mother , or your sister, or your wife , or your girlfriend were raped and possibly tortured by mentally unstable predator... It is beyond her choice, and it is her responsibility to give birth to that child. I believe that my opponent has demonstrated a lack of sympathy, and he is a man that is willing to dictate the welfare of an independent woman because he feels she is not worthy of making her own health decisions.

RogerRobbins72

Before I begin Round 3 I would like to quickly respond to Con’s defensive tactics in the previous round. In the evidence you gave about the 14 the amendment you said “All persons born or naturalized (naturalized means toconferupontherightsandprivilegesofacitizen) in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ;nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty , or property (later changed to the pursuit of happiness), without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” I thank you for reiterating my point, but still your argument is unclear. Based off of the 14 the Amendment, our citizens (women) have the simple right to do as they please with their body (including giving birth). This brings me to another point, your scientific definition of life. Again, I disagree with your argument in a way that is best illustrated through an article on http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org... . “If you point out that a fetus consists of human tissue and DNA, anti-choicers triumphantly claim you just conceded it's a human being. Now, a flake of dandruff from my head is human, but it is not a human being, and in this sense, neither is a zygote. Anti-choicers will respond that a fertilized egg is not like dandruff, because the fertilized egg consists of a unique set of chromosomes that makes it a separate human being. But with cloning, a cell from my dandruff is enough to create a new human being. Although it would have my identical genetic make-up, it would still be a unique individual, and because human beings are much more than our genes Also, both a fertilized egg and a cloned cell represent a potential, not an actual human being. It’s a worn cliché, but it bears repeating—an acorn isn’t an oak tree and the egg you had for breakfast isn’t a chicken.” Need I say more? My opponent’s argument is very poorly put together, and he is using a weak debate strategy in which he disagrees with my points yet fails to provide any concrete ideas of his own. Finally I would like to answer the question that he asked me at the end of Round 2. (Although it was probably a rhetorical question) Nobody should control anyone else’s life, but since a fetus is not life (it is more of an opportunity for life) I am more concerned with the mother’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Round 3: Is abortion morally correct? Like I said countless times before, abortion is not murder. Yet my own personal beliefs regarding abortion are much different than whether or not I feel that it should be legal. It should be legal because neither my, nor my opponent’s opinion is worthy of controlling another woman’s life. When it comes to someone’s health, it is only their opinion that should matter. Now we face a new question, when is abortion okay ? Is it okay to abort a baby when there is incest involved? If you answer is yes, but you do not support abortions then your logic is flawed. Because a baby who is a product of incest (no matter how deformed or unstable they will be) is still a child worth being born (according to the logic of my opponent). Is it okay to abort a baby when the mother’s life is threatened? If you answer is yes, (like my opponent did in Round 1) but you do not support abortions then your logic is flawed. Because according to my opponent, the zygote (before third trimester) is just as valuable as the living, breathing mother. But since a woman had “sex, then she, without a doubt, has the responsibility to give birth to the child, no matter the pain or discomfort caused her. ” (Round 1, Con) I would assume that means that my opponent feels that she should die on that operation table with her stillborn child. Is it okay to abort a baby when there is rape involved? If you answer is yes, but you do not support abortions then your logic is flawed. My opponent stated in Round 1 that he believes. “If a woman is raped, then I believe she should have the child as well”. There you have it voters... If you, or your daughter , o r your mother , or your sister, or your wife , or your girlfriend were raped and possibly tortured by mentally unstable predator… It is beyond her choice, and it is her responsibility to give birth to that child. I believe that my opponent has demonstrated a lack of sympathy, and he is a man that is willing to dictate the welfare of an independent woman because he feels she is not worthy of making her own health decisions.

Health

Abortion-Should-Remain-Legal/3/

Thanks for this debate, KaytarHero. And thanks for being a lucid and thoughtful opponent. I'm grateful for your refreshing clarity. Pro argues thusly: Premise 1: From fertilization, the preborn are biological members of humanity. Premise 2: All members of humanity are intrinsically valuable based on the kind of thing they are, humans. Premise 3: It is prima facie wrong to kill an innocent human being. Premise 4: Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is generally immoral. The 1st and 4th premises are not "truth apt." That is, they are neither true nor false, being rather expressions of attitude. Pro can think of zygotes as human beings, and I can think of them as proto-humans or reproductive organs. Neither of us is more right or wrong than someone who prefers tacos over hamburgers. Sometimes, however, classifications can be good without being true. Pontoon planes are classed as boats by the harbormaster but as planes by the air traffic controller. These classifications are beneficial even if not true. Is there benefit to classing zygotes as human beings? The benefit is that some people in tyrannical churches enjoy flaunting their strength in society: "Look at these muscles! I can make you have babies whether you want to or not." But that benefit is trivial beside the resulting harm, the forcing of innocent citizens into unwanted parenthood. So, Pro's proposed classification is neither good nor true. Premises 1 and 4, then, are untrue and bad. We would do harm if we treated them as true, harm to actual people (as opposed to mere zygotes, which, though they are every bit as human as sperm cells and hair follicles, cannot suffer). Premise 2: All members of humanity are intrinsically valuable based on the kind of thing they are, humans. Two problems: First, "intrinsic value" is a linguistic impossibility. Value requires a valuer. To call something intrinsically valuable is to say it is valuable even if not valuable to anyone. It is saying something is good, even if it is not good for anything. Premise 2's second problem is that it fetishizes humanity rather than making reasonable distinctions, rather than looking for actual values. We don't value people because they are "members of humanity." Consider space aliens ( Enemy Mine , Cocoon , Avatar , ET , Star Trek ), super-intelligent animals ( 101 Dalmatians , A Boy and His Dog , Watchers , The Golden Compass , Tangled , Babe ), and artificial intelligences ( 2001 , Terminator 2 , Transformers , D.A.R.Y.L. , Star Trek , Small Soldiers). If we aren't fetishizing humanity, we'll recognize that these nonhumans would have the joys, fears, hopes, anticipations, social interactions, etcetera that would make us value them the same as we would humans. There is nothing wrong with killing a zygote or a brain-dead body. No harm done, even though they are human. But there is something wrong with hurting a puppy, even though it is not human. Therefore, premise 2's bright line test, "Is it a member of humanity," is perverse: It protects things that don't need or benefit from protection, and it hurts things (actual people, who need the freedom to make their own reproductive choices) who do need protection. Premise 3: It is prima facie wrong to kill an innocent human being. Killing people causes fear and grief; it makes people unhappy. That's why it's wrong. That's what's wrong with it. That's why we have a moral rule against it. So long as "human beings" refers to people, then you can say it is prima facie wrong to kill them. But, if you class non-persons (cabbages, say, or zygotes) as "human beings," then there is no longer a presumption that it is wrong to kill human beings. So, given Pro's definition of "human being," premise 3 is neither true nor useful. Rather, it is false and destructive. Taking this premise as true would be immoral: Victims of this new rule would be forced into unwanted parenthood. Terrible suffering. No benefit. Premise 3, then, if we accept Pro's definition of "human being," is false and bad. Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is generally immoral. There is nothing apparently wrong with abortion. People who want babies should have them, and people who don't want them shouldn't. Forcing either group to do the thing they don't want would be immensely harmful. On its face, then, Pro's conclusion seems false, harmful, immoral. Looking at Pro's argument, we see that his conclusion is also unsupported. Pro has four premises, each of which must be true in order for his conclusion to follow . But not one of them is true. Two of them aren't truth apt (they express opinion or attitude, rather than facts). The other two are just false. And all of them are bad: to the extent that they are believed, they harm actual people (not cabbages or zygotes). In a free country, you wouldn't have to have babies if you didn't want to. Nobody would get to say, "Hey, I have religion, so I can make you have babies whether you want to or not!" Conclusion: Pro has the burden of proof. He undertook to establish that abortion is generally immoral. He offered a single argument for that purpose, and that argument fails because its premises do not withstand inspection. Not only has the argument failed, but the conclusion of the argument seems false on its face. We shouldn't want to force people to have babies any more than we should force them to eat Brussels sprouts. In a free country, citizens get to choose. There is nothing wrong with having babies, and there is nothing wrong with not having babies. Nobody should be forced or pressured either way. Even teaching that there is something bad or immoral about abortion is improper. It causes suffering without doing good. We have been given no reason to believe that abortion is generally immoral. Vote Con. Notes: " Embryologists, who are the experts in the field, consistently agree that life begins at fertilization." This is a gross misrepresentation. You won't find an embryologist anywhere who thinks that dead sperm and eggs produce live zygotes. "Zygotes": A zygote is a fertilized egg, not necessarily yet attached to the womb. I talk about zygotes even though I intend my argument to apply to ebrios and fetuses too, just as Pro talks about the "preborn" even though some zygotes will never be born, and even though "preborn" could equally well apply to sperm cells. Pro has the burden of proof. He specifically undertook to prove the immorality of abortion from the time of conception on. This includes zygotes. All of my arguments apply to embryos and fetuses as well, but it is simplest to pick one word and stick with it. Anti-abortion people tend to use "fetus," and pro-abortion people ought, for similar tactical reasons, to prefer "zygote." "We know the preborn are alive ..." Certainly, even as we know that preborn sperm cells are alive, and even as we know that cancer cells are alive.

wiploc

Thanks for this debate, KaytarHero. And thanks for being a lucid and thoughtful opponent. I'm grateful for your refreshing clarity. Pro argues thusly: Premise 1: From fertilization, the preborn are biological members of humanity. Premise 2: All members of humanity are intrinsically valuable based on the kind of thing they are, humans. Premise 3: It is prima facie wrong to kill an innocent human being. Premise 4: Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is generally immoral. The 1st and 4th premises are not "truth apt." That is, they are neither true nor false, being rather expressions of attitude. Pro can think of zygotes as human beings, and I can think of them as proto-humans or reproductive organs. Neither of us is more right or wrong than someone who prefers tacos over hamburgers. Sometimes, however, classifications can be good without being true. Pontoon planes are classed as boats by the harbormaster but as planes by the air traffic controller. These classifications are beneficial even if not true. Is there benefit to classing zygotes as human beings? The benefit is that some people in tyrannical churches enjoy flaunting their strength in society: "Look at these muscles! I can make you have babies whether you want to or not." But that benefit is trivial beside the resulting harm, the forcing of innocent citizens into unwanted parenthood. So, Pro's proposed classification is neither good nor true. Premises 1 and 4, then, are untrue and bad. We would do harm if we treated them as true, harm to actual people (as opposed to mere zygotes, which, though they are every bit as human as sperm cells and hair follicles, cannot suffer). Premise 2: All members of humanity are intrinsically valuable based on the kind of thing they are, humans. Two problems: First, "intrinsic value" is a linguistic impossibility. Value requires a valuer. To call something intrinsically valuable is to say it is valuable even if not valuable to anyone. It is saying something is good, even if it is not good for anything. Premise 2's second problem is that it fetishizes humanity rather than making reasonable distinctions, rather than looking for actual values. We don't value people because they are "members of humanity." Consider space aliens ( Enemy Mine , Cocoon , Avatar , ET , Star Trek ), super-intelligent animals ( 101 Dalmatians , A Boy and His Dog , Watchers , The Golden Compass , Tangled , Babe ), and artificial intelligences ( 2001 , Terminator 2 , Transformers , D.A.R.Y.L. , Star Trek , Small Soldiers). If we aren't fetishizing humanity, we'll recognize that these nonhumans would have the joys, fears, hopes, anticipations, social interactions, etcetera that would make us value them the same as we would humans. There is nothing wrong with killing a zygote or a brain-dead body. No harm done, even though they are human. But there is something wrong with hurting a puppy, even though it is not human. Therefore, premise 2's bright line test, "Is it a member of humanity," is perverse: It protects things that don't need or benefit from protection, and it hurts things (actual people, who need the freedom to make their own reproductive choices) who do need protection. Premise 3: It is prima facie wrong to kill an innocent human being. Killing people causes fear and grief; it makes people unhappy. That's why it's wrong. That's what's wrong with it. That's why we have a moral rule against it. So long as "human beings" refers to people, then you can say it is prima facie wrong to kill them. But, if you class non-persons (cabbages, say, or zygotes) as "human beings," then there is no longer a presumption that it is wrong to kill human beings. So, given Pro's definition of "human being," premise 3 is neither true nor useful. Rather, it is false and destructive. Taking this premise as true would be immoral: Victims of this new rule would be forced into unwanted parenthood. Terrible suffering. No benefit. Premise 3, then, if we accept Pro's definition of "human being," is false and bad. Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is generally immoral. There is nothing apparently wrong with abortion. People who want babies should have them, and people who don't want them shouldn't. Forcing either group to do the thing they don't want would be immensely harmful. On its face, then, Pro's conclusion seems false, harmful, immoral. Looking at Pro's argument, we see that his conclusion is also unsupported. Pro has four premises, each of which must be true in order for his conclusion to follow . But not one of them is true. Two of them aren't truth apt (they express opinion or attitude, rather than facts). The other two are just false. And all of them are bad: to the extent that they are believed, they harm actual people (not cabbages or zygotes). In a free country, you wouldn't have to have babies if you didn't want to. Nobody would get to say, "Hey, I have religion, so I can make you have babies whether you want to or not!" Conclusion: Pro has the burden of proof. He undertook to establish that abortion is generally immoral. He offered a single argument for that purpose, and that argument fails because its premises do not withstand inspection. Not only has the argument failed, but the conclusion of the argument seems false on its face. We shouldn't want to force people to have babies any more than we should force them to eat Brussels sprouts. In a free country, citizens get to choose. There is nothing wrong with having babies, and there is nothing wrong with not having babies. Nobody should be forced or pressured either way. Even teaching that there is something bad or immoral about abortion is improper. It causes suffering without doing good. We have been given no reason to believe that abortion is generally immoral. Vote Con. Notes: " Embryologists, who are the experts in the field, consistently agree that life begins at fertilization." This is a gross misrepresentation. You won't find an embryologist anywhere who thinks that dead sperm and eggs produce live zygotes. "Zygotes": A zygote is a fertilized egg, not necessarily yet attached to the womb. I talk about zygotes even though I intend my argument to apply to ebrios and fetuses too, just as Pro talks about the "preborn" even though some zygotes will never be born, and even though "preborn" could equally well apply to sperm cells. Pro has the burden of proof. He specifically undertook to prove the immorality of abortion from the time of conception on. This includes zygotes. All of my arguments apply to embryos and fetuses as well, but it is simplest to pick one word and stick with it. Anti-abortion people tend to use "fetus," and pro-abortion people ought, for similar tactical reasons, to prefer "zygote." "We know the preborn are alive ..." Certainly, even as we know that preborn sperm cells are alive, and even as we know that cancer cells are alive.

Philosophy

Abortion-is-Generally-Immoral./5/

Thanks for a great debate, Pro; you worked me hard. :) (I was out of time and way over character-count, which is why I cut your quotes so much. Sorry.) Premise 1: From fertilization, the preborn are biological members of humanity. the benefit of the doubt should still go to life. If a hunter hears a rustling in the bushes, he won't immediately fire because it could be a human and not a deer. How many hunters would hesitate for fear of hitting a zygote? saying the preborn are living human beings is an objective reality. Zygotes are human , and they be . If that made them human beings, then sperm cells would count too. And eyelashes. But Spock would not count. I have even shown that the experts in the field, the embryologists, support the life and humanity of the preborn. You misrepresented your experts as saying that life begins at conception . Why? I think you're uncomfortable with your own test. Zygotes are alive and human, but so are sperm cells. Worf and Data ( Star Treck characters), if they existed, would not be human but they would be every bit as valuable and deserving as human persons. Your brain-dead guy is alive and human too, but you're willing to off him. It is obvious that your proposed test (is it alive and human?) doesn't work even for you. ... a zygote is created through a consensual act by two people. Consent doesn't come into it. You wouldn't let someone kill a toddler who was a product of rape. Here, also, Con is guilty of equivocating. He uses "human" to mean two different things You're say zygotes are human beings because they are human and they be. I'm just pointing out that, according to that logic , sperm and cancer cells are human beings too. You are claim that a zygote is a "full human being" when it may yet twin. And you don't count "brain-dead guy" even though he obviously is a human being. I'm not the one equivocating. Premise 2: All members of humanity are intrinsically valuable based on the kind of thing they are, humans. I'm not entirely sure what Con means by intrinsic value being a linguistic impossibility. ... happiness is intrinsically valuable because it is valuable in and of itself. It's valuable because we like it. humans are intrinsically valuable because they have value regardless of whether anyone else values them. If nobody values something, then, by definition, it has no value. We do value people, but not because of their species. ... it would be equally wrong to kill a homeless person Yes, because murder makes people unhappy. Homeless people count because they are people. Homeless brain-dead humans don't count any more than homeless zygote humans. If it were shown that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy, I would still believe them to have the same intrinsic value as humanity. Then why do labor the humanity of zygotes? The issue is whether they are people. Spock is a person. Homeless people are people. Zygotes are not people. I would afford Mr. Spock (a Vulcan) the same value and right to life as I would a human being because he belongs to a species like humans, a sentient species. Listen to yourself! Spock would be fair game if he were one-of-a-kind? No, this has nothing to do with whether he has a species. When it comes to super-intelligent animals or artificial intelligences, I really believe those to be more fantasy than reality (I'm dubious as to whether a robot or android could ever really attain sentience), but even if they did, it would be taken on a case-by-case basis. If they were shown to be like humans, then I believe they would deserve the same protection as humans. Like humans in what ways? This is the crux of our disagreement. If an alien or animal or computer program could be shown to be like a professor, plumber, Bedouin, child, or homeless guy, then, sure, protect him. But if it's just like a zygote or brain-dead guy, then what would be the point? ... constantly referring to the zygote seems irrelevant to me because we don't kill zygotes. You wrote the resolution. You staked out the position you wanted to defend. If you no longer think aborting zygotes is immoral, you may concede. killing a preborn child is much different from killing a braindead patient. The braindead patient is not the person he once was. [Emphasis added.] He's not a person . Exactly. The braindead patient is essentially dead, By my test, he is dead, because he's no longer a person. By your test, he's a human being, as intrinsically valuable as any other human being. This is different from a zygote which is on the natural path of human ... sentience ... will develop. By that logic, you must oppose coitus interruptus, and protect gametes on the natural path to merging. The braindead patient has no future whereas the zygote does. What happened to "intrinsic value"? Zygotes do benefit from protection because then they can grow into productive members of society and live. Then sperm and eggs deserve the same protection. It would be wrong to just give up on Coma Guy because he has a good chance of coming out of his coma and living. Right, he's a person. The zygote was never a person. It has no hopes to be disappointed, no fear of death, no preference for living. There's no reason to pretend he's like a comatose person. We don't have the right to kill people just because they're inconvenient for us to have around. [emphasis added] Zygotes aren't people. Abortion is not about reproductive choice. Certainly it is. Reproductive choice would be choosing not to have sex with your partner because you can't afford a child right now. Why should we do that? Sex is good; it makes us happy, and you've stipulated that happiness is good. We should have sex a lot. Your effective claim is that a zygote is more of a human being than brain-dead guy. That can't work out for you. Premise 3: It is prima facie wrong to kill an innocent human being. Premise 4: Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. Since we've established that it would be equally immoral to kill certain non-humans, we know that humanity isn't the issue. And, since we aren't asking whether Worf and brain-dead guy are guilty, we know that innocence isn't the issue either. Classing the preborn as humans would not negate the presumption that killing humans is wrong. You don't strengthen a rule by applying it to unrelated stuff. Do you really want people thinking murder is no worse than abortion? ... it should be up to the individual (e.g. the zygote) if it wants to continue living, What was it you said about artificial intelligence and super-intelligent animals? Ah, "more fantasy than reality ... but even if they did [attain sentience] it would be taken on a case-by-case basis." Great! We're in agreement: Zygotes-with-desires are fantasy, not reality; but if you show me sentient zygotes, then we can take it on a case-by-case basis. but humans believe they should be able to make life-or-death decisions for someone lesser than themselves. We must do so for our pets, as is altogether fitting and proper. Obviously a zygote cannot tell us it wants to live, but it should be assumed. Assume a lie? Killing a zygote is wrong not just because it's human, We've established that humanity is not the test. For anything except zygotes (alien, artificial intelligence, super-intelligent animal, or brain-dead human) the test is always whether it is a person. (As you phrase the test, it is whether they have sentience . I think that's less accurate and useful, but I'm not prepared to split hairs unless you think the difference is important.) Having a separate test for zygotes is special pleading, a fallacy. Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is generally immoral. There's simply no reason to think this. Pro has the burden of proof, but he cannot make his case. Vote Con.

wiploc

Thanks for a great debate, Pro; you worked me hard. :) (I was out of time and way over character-count, which is why I cut your quotes so much. Sorry.) Premise 1: From fertilization, the preborn are biological members of humanity. the benefit of the doubt should still go to life. If a hunter hears a rustling in the bushes, he won't immediately fire because it could be a human and not a deer. How many hunters would hesitate for fear of hitting a zygote? saying the preborn are living human beings is an objective reality. Zygotes are human , and they be . If that made them human beings, then sperm cells would count too. And eyelashes. But Spock would not count. I have even shown that the experts in the field, the embryologists, support the life and humanity of the preborn. You misrepresented your experts as saying that life begins at conception . Why? I think you're uncomfortable with your own test. Zygotes are alive and human, but so are sperm cells. Worf and Data ( Star Treck characters), if they existed, would not be human but they would be every bit as valuable and deserving as human persons. Your brain-dead guy is alive and human too, but you're willing to off him. It is obvious that your proposed test (is it alive and human?) doesn't work even for you. … a zygote is created through a consensual act by two people. Consent doesn't come into it. You wouldn't let someone kill a toddler who was a product of rape. Here, also, Con is guilty of equivocating. He uses "human" to mean two different things You're say zygotes are human beings because they are human and they be. I'm just pointing out that, according to that logic , sperm and cancer cells are human beings too. You are claim that a zygote is a "full human being" when it may yet twin. And you don't count "brain-dead guy" even though he obviously is a human being. I'm not the one equivocating. Premise 2: All members of humanity are intrinsically valuable based on the kind of thing they are, humans. I'm not entirely sure what Con means by intrinsic value being a linguistic impossibility. … happiness is intrinsically valuable because it is valuable in and of itself. It's valuable because we like it. humans are intrinsically valuable because they have value regardless of whether anyone else values them. If nobody values something, then, by definition, it has no value. We do value people, but not because of their species. … it would be equally wrong to kill a homeless person Yes, because murder makes people unhappy. Homeless people count because they are people. Homeless brain-dead humans don't count any more than homeless zygote humans. If it were shown that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy, I would still believe them to have the same intrinsic value as humanity. Then why do labor the humanity of zygotes? The issue is whether they are people. Spock is a person. Homeless people are people. Zygotes are not people. I would afford Mr. Spock (a Vulcan) the same value and right to life as I would a human being because he belongs to a species like humans, a sentient species. Listen to yourself! Spock would be fair game if he were one-of-a-kind? No, this has nothing to do with whether he has a species. When it comes to super-intelligent animals or artificial intelligences, I really believe those to be more fantasy than reality (I'm dubious as to whether a robot or android could ever really attain sentience), but even if they did, it would be taken on a case-by-case basis. If they were shown to be like humans, then I believe they would deserve the same protection as humans. Like humans in what ways? This is the crux of our disagreement. If an alien or animal or computer program could be shown to be like a professor, plumber, Bedouin, child, or homeless guy, then, sure, protect him. But if it's just like a zygote or brain-dead guy, then what would be the point? … constantly referring to the zygote seems irrelevant to me because we don't kill zygotes. You wrote the resolution. You staked out the position you wanted to defend. If you no longer think aborting zygotes is immoral, you may concede. killing a preborn child is much different from killing a braindead patient. The braindead patient is not the person he once was. [Emphasis added.] He's not a person . Exactly. The braindead patient is essentially dead, By my test, he is dead, because he's no longer a person. By your test, he's a human being, as intrinsically valuable as any other human being. This is different from a zygote which is on the natural path of human … sentience … will develop. By that logic, you must oppose coitus interruptus, and protect gametes on the natural path to merging. The braindead patient has no future whereas the zygote does. What happened to "intrinsic value"? Zygotes do benefit from protection because then they can grow into productive members of society and live. Then sperm and eggs deserve the same protection. It would be wrong to just give up on Coma Guy because he has a good chance of coming out of his coma and living. Right, he's a person. The zygote was never a person. It has no hopes to be disappointed, no fear of death, no preference for living. There's no reason to pretend he's like a comatose person. We don't have the right to kill people just because they're inconvenient for us to have around. [emphasis added] Zygotes aren't people. Abortion is not about reproductive choice. Certainly it is. Reproductive choice would be choosing not to have sex with your partner because you can't afford a child right now. Why should we do that? Sex is good; it makes us happy, and you've stipulated that happiness is good. We should have sex a lot. Your effective claim is that a zygote is more of a human being than brain-dead guy. That can't work out for you. Premise 3: It is prima facie wrong to kill an innocent human being. Premise 4: Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. Since we've established that it would be equally immoral to kill certain non-humans, we know that humanity isn't the issue. And, since we aren't asking whether Worf and brain-dead guy are guilty, we know that innocence isn't the issue either. Classing the preborn as humans would not negate the presumption that killing humans is wrong. You don't strengthen a rule by applying it to unrelated stuff. Do you really want people thinking murder is no worse than abortion? … it should be up to the individual (e.g. the zygote) if it wants to continue living, What was it you said about artificial intelligence and super-intelligent animals? Ah, "more fantasy than reality … but even if they did [attain sentience] it would be taken on a case-by-case basis." Great! We're in agreement: Zygotes-with-desires are fantasy, not reality; but if you show me sentient zygotes, then we can take it on a case-by-case basis. but humans believe they should be able to make life-or-death decisions for someone lesser than themselves. We must do so for our pets, as is altogether fitting and proper. Obviously a zygote cannot tell us it wants to live, but it should be assumed. Assume a lie? Killing a zygote is wrong not just because it's human, We've established that humanity is not the test. For anything except zygotes (alien, artificial intelligence, super-intelligent animal, or brain-dead human) the test is always whether it is a person. (As you phrase the test, it is whether they have sentience . I think that's less accurate and useful, but I'm not prepared to split hairs unless you think the difference is important.) Having a separate test for zygotes is special pleading, a fallacy. Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is generally immoral. There's simply no reason to think this. Pro has the burden of proof, but he cannot make his case. Vote Con.

Philosophy

Abortion-is-Generally-Immoral./5/

Thanks, Pro, this has been a pleasure. I apologize if what follows seems choppy. I'm trying to get it down from 13,000 characters. Indented text is quotations, things Pro said. The point of my argument was not that a hunter would hestitate to fire upon a zygote, just that the hunter would make sure he wasn't going to kill a human. Pro makes my point for me: Hunters want to not shoot humans. But they wouldn't mind shooting zygotes, because a zygote is not a human. Why make the unborn child pay with her life for her father's crimes? Why make a gamete pay for its father's crimes? Yes, a zygote is a full human being, regardless of the fact it may twin. It's on the natural path to being two people, but he thinks it's only one? Pro equivocates. Happiness isn't valuable because we like it, If nobody liked it, it wouldn't be valuable. We do not place value on humans simply because we like them, otherwise we would be morally justified in killing anyone we don't like. Except for brain-dead guy. So it's not the humanity, it's the personhood. Murder doesn't make everyone unhappy. Allowing murder would make for a substantial net decrease in happiness. Not in the case of brain-dead guy, because he's not a person. And not in the case of zygotes, because they aren't people either. But people are protected, all of them, regardless of whether we like them. It would be just as wrong to abort a preborn Vulcan as it would be to abort a preborn human. Exactly so; but, aborting a human zygote is not wrong. I never stated that I am reconsidering my stance on aborting zygotes. Then you should have no problem with me talking about them. My point was that no surgical abortions are done on zygotes Which, as I pointed out, is false. Dilation and curettage takes whatever early product of conception is on the uterus lining. Zygote or embryo, it doesn't matter. If you think you might be pregnant, and you have a plausible justification for a D&C, then you don't have to call it an abortion to opt out of parenthood. so it seems irrelevant to argue regarding them. Pro brought zygotes up by claiming that abortion is wrong from the time of conception . there is no fundamental difference between a zygote and a toddler. They just look different. But they look exactly like a human should in that stage in its development. And gametes look exactly like a human should look at that stage of development. I don't oppose coitus interruptus You should, if your test is whether you're on the natural course towards producing a human being. I have not applied this rule to anything unrelated. Since abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, then morally it is no better than murder. As Dietrich says in Barney Miller, "It's a point of view." There is no reason to justify killing a preborn human that couldn't also be extended to justify killing an infant. The slippery-slope argument. But your logic could be extended to protecting gametes on one end and brain-dead guy on the other. If we shouldn't use my test because someone might distort and abuse it, then we shouldn't use your tests for the same reason. - If Pro wants to indulge his whim of thinking of zygotes as "whole human beings," he is free to do so; but he shouldn't go so far as to legislating immense harm on actual human beings . He shouldn't even inflict guilt on actual human beings by telling them abortion is wrong. That is itself wrong. Pro says I equivocate between human and a human . In fairness, he's right. But he equivocates too, very often. He'll say a zygote is human , which it clearly is, but then act like he's shown the zygote to be a human , which seems to me absurd. He'll even switch between human and alive which is how he misrepresented his experts. He claimed that his experts said "life" begins at conception. They would never have said that; they know gametes are alive before fertilization. Part (just part) of the reason Pro thinks I equivocate is because I have to follow him thru his twists and turns; I have to equivocate when he does. There's another way in which Pro equivocates. When he talks about whole human beings, I point out that brain-dead guy is a whole human being, so he switches to talking about potential sentience. When he talks about potential sentience, I point out that gametes have potential sentience, so he switches back to talking about human beings. Neither line of argument wins for him, so he two-steps back and forth between them. Here are his tests: 1. Does it have a species? This test fails because it protects the wrong things. It wouldn't include people without species. If Spock were a one-off, we would still protect him, though this test says we shouldn't. Hall ( 2001 ) and Schwarzenegger's character (Terminator 2) had no species, but they were people, deserving protection as much as any person with a species. 2. Is it on the natural course towards sentience? This fails because it would include gametes, but Pro doesn't believe life begins at erection. Consider also a diode on a production line, on its way to becoming Hal. Would Pro want to protect that diode as on the natural course towards sentience? I think not. So this test protects the wrong things. 3. Is it human? This test is the core of Pro's case. He repeats it over and over, only disavowing it and switching to other tests when he has to, and then he always comes back. An example of disvowal: "Not being human is irrelevant." This test fails because follicles, gametes, and brain-dead guy all human. And it fails because Pro would protect Hal and Spock even though they are not human. This test protects the wrong things. 4. Is it a human , or a full human entity ? This test fails because it excludes Spock and Hal, but includes brain-dead guy. It protects the wrong things. 5. Is it alive? This test fails because Hal is not alive, and because gametes are. This test protects the wrong things. 6. Is it a new genetically distinct human organism? Newness fails because we shouldn't kill old people. Genetic distinctiveness fails because we shouldn't kill identical twins. Human organism fails because we shouldn't kill Spock but may kill brain-dead guy. This test protects the wrong things. 7. Did it result from a consensual act? This test fails because it would allow you to kill anybody who resulted from rape. Terrible test. 8. Can it talk better than a baby? For some reason, Pro introduced this in the last round, probably trying to impute it to me. But my test is different, and this test does Pro no good: It protects iPhones without protecting babies. 9. Is it innocent? Pro keeps bringing this test up, but refusing to use it himself. Are brain-dead guy and Spock and gametes innocent? Pro doesn't care. Why doesn't Pro care? Because this test protects the wrong things. So, all of Pro's tests fail. None of them survive inspection. They work so badly that Pro is forced to equivocate, to skip from one test to another as I point out problems with the last one. The only test that works is, "Is it a person?" This test is perfect. It protects exactly whom we want to protect, without protecting anything else. Pro would adopt it in a second if only it allowed him to oppose abortion. The only criticism Pro can bring against the is-it-a-person test is that people might twist and distort it to achieve bad ends. But Pro is actively twisting and distorting his own tests to achieve bad ends. He twists the is-it-alive test to exclude brain-dead guy. He distorts the is-it- a-human test to include zygotes. We have to act in good faith, and adopt the test that leads to good results when it is not distorted.

wiploc

Thanks, Pro, this has been a pleasure. I apologize if what follows seems choppy. I'm trying to get it down from 13,000 characters. Indented text is quotations, things Pro said. The point of my argument was not that a hunter would hestitate to fire upon a zygote, just that the hunter would make sure he wasn't going to kill a human. Pro makes my point for me: Hunters want to not shoot humans. But they wouldn't mind shooting zygotes, because a zygote is not a human. Why make the unborn child pay with her life for her father's crimes? Why make a gamete pay for its father's crimes? Yes, a zygote is a full human being, regardless of the fact it may twin. It's on the natural path to being two people, but he thinks it's only one? Pro equivocates. Happiness isn't valuable because we like it, If nobody liked it, it wouldn't be valuable. We do not place value on humans simply because we like them, otherwise we would be morally justified in killing anyone we don't like. Except for brain-dead guy. So it's not the humanity, it's the personhood. Murder doesn't make everyone unhappy. Allowing murder would make for a substantial net decrease in happiness. Not in the case of brain-dead guy, because he's not a person. And not in the case of zygotes, because they aren't people either. But people are protected, all of them, regardless of whether we like them. It would be just as wrong to abort a preborn Vulcan as it would be to abort a preborn human. Exactly so; but, aborting a human zygote is not wrong. I never stated that I am reconsidering my stance on aborting zygotes. Then you should have no problem with me talking about them. My point was that no surgical abortions are done on zygotes Which, as I pointed out, is false. Dilation and curettage takes whatever early product of conception is on the uterus lining. Zygote or embryo, it doesn't matter. If you think you might be pregnant, and you have a plausible justification for a D&C, then you don't have to call it an abortion to opt out of parenthood. so it seems irrelevant to argue regarding them. Pro brought zygotes up by claiming that abortion is wrong from the time of conception . there is no fundamental difference between a zygote and a toddler. They just look different. But they look exactly like a human should in that stage in its development. And gametes look exactly like a human should look at that stage of development. I don't oppose coitus interruptus You should, if your test is whether you're on the natural course towards producing a human being. I have not applied this rule to anything unrelated. Since abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, then morally it is no better than murder. As Dietrich says in Barney Miller, "It's a point of view." There is no reason to justify killing a preborn human that couldn't also be extended to justify killing an infant. The slippery-slope argument. But your logic could be extended to protecting gametes on one end and brain-dead guy on the other. If we shouldn't use my test because someone might distort and abuse it, then we shouldn't use your tests for the same reason. - If Pro wants to indulge his whim of thinking of zygotes as "whole human beings," he is free to do so; but he shouldn't go so far as to legislating immense harm on actual human beings . He shouldn't even inflict guilt on actual human beings by telling them abortion is wrong. That is itself wrong. Pro says I equivocate between human and a human . In fairness, he's right. But he equivocates too, very often. He'll say a zygote is human , which it clearly is, but then act like he's shown the zygote to be a human , which seems to me absurd. He'll even switch between human and alive which is how he misrepresented his experts. He claimed that his experts said "life" begins at conception. They would never have said that; they know gametes are alive before fertilization. Part (just part) of the reason Pro thinks I equivocate is because I have to follow him thru his twists and turns; I have to equivocate when he does. There's another way in which Pro equivocates. When he talks about whole human beings, I point out that brain-dead guy is a whole human being, so he switches to talking about potential sentience. When he talks about potential sentience, I point out that gametes have potential sentience, so he switches back to talking about human beings. Neither line of argument wins for him, so he two-steps back and forth between them. Here are his tests: 1. Does it have a species? This test fails because it protects the wrong things. It wouldn't include people without species. If Spock were a one-off, we would still protect him, though this test says we shouldn't. Hall ( 2001 ) and Schwarzenegger's character (Terminator 2) had no species, but they were people, deserving protection as much as any person with a species. 2. Is it on the natural course towards sentience? This fails because it would include gametes, but Pro doesn't believe life begins at erection. Consider also a diode on a production line, on its way to becoming Hal. Would Pro want to protect that diode as on the natural course towards sentience? I think not. So this test protects the wrong things. 3. Is it human? This test is the core of Pro's case. He repeats it over and over, only disavowing it and switching to other tests when he has to, and then he always comes back. An example of disvowal: "Not being human is irrelevant." This test fails because follicles, gametes, and brain-dead guy all human. And it fails because Pro would protect Hal and Spock even though they are not human. This test protects the wrong things. 4. Is it a human , or a full human entity ? This test fails because it excludes Spock and Hal, but includes brain-dead guy. It protects the wrong things. 5. Is it alive? This test fails because Hal is not alive, and because gametes are. This test protects the wrong things. 6. Is it a new genetically distinct human organism? Newness fails because we shouldn't kill old people. Genetic distinctiveness fails because we shouldn't kill identical twins. Human organism fails because we shouldn't kill Spock but may kill brain-dead guy. This test protects the wrong things. 7. Did it result from a consensual act? This test fails because it would allow you to kill anybody who resulted from rape. Terrible test. 8. Can it talk better than a baby? For some reason, Pro introduced this in the last round, probably trying to impute it to me. But my test is different, and this test does Pro no good: It protects iPhones without protecting babies. 9. Is it innocent? Pro keeps bringing this test up, but refusing to use it himself. Are brain-dead guy and Spock and gametes innocent? Pro doesn't care. Why doesn't Pro care? Because this test protects the wrong things. So, all of Pro's tests fail. None of them survive inspection. They work so badly that Pro is forced to equivocate, to skip from one test to another as I point out problems with the last one. The only test that works is, "Is it a person?" This test is perfect. It protects exactly whom we want to protect, without protecting anything else. Pro would adopt it in a second if only it allowed him to oppose abortion. The only criticism Pro can bring against the is-it-a-person test is that people might twist and distort it to achieve bad ends. But Pro is actively twisting and distorting his own tests to achieve bad ends. He twists the is-it-alive test to exclude brain-dead guy. He distorts the is-it- a-human test to include zygotes. We have to act in good faith, and adopt the test that leads to good results when it is not distorted.

Philosophy

Abortion-is-Generally-Immoral./5/

I affirm the resolution: termination of the fetus is morally justified. I will go through a few definitions and a few simple opening arguments. [Definition - Abortion] <URL>... In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. ===== Argument - Fetus is not a Person ===== By definition, murder is the intentional (first degree and second degree) killing of a human being usually with malice afterthought (meaning not an accident)[1]. I argue that a fetus is NOT a person because it is not self-aware and it's brain is not fully developed (i.e. it's personality or "personhood" has yet to form). ===== Conclusion ===== Stemming from that one argument, I argue that the right over abortions should be placed into the mother's hand. Since she is carrying the fetus, who in itself is not a person, she is allowed to choose whether or not to abort it. ---References--- 1. <URL>...

TheSkeptic

I affirm the resolution: termination of the fetus is morally justified. I will go through a few definitions and a few simple opening arguments. [Definition - Abortion] http://www.medterms.com... In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. ===== Argument - Fetus is not a Person ===== By definition, murder is the intentional (first degree and second degree) killing of a human being usually with malice afterthought (meaning not an accident)[1]. I argue that a fetus is NOT a person because it is not self-aware and it's brain is not fully developed (i.e. it's personality or "personhood" has yet to form). ===== Conclusion ===== Stemming from that one argument, I argue that the right over abortions should be placed into the mother's hand. Since she is carrying the fetus, who in itself is not a person, she is allowed to choose whether or not to abort it. ---References--- 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Society

Abortion-is-Morally-Justified/1/

I thank my opponent for his quick response, and I hope we have a good one. >>>Life Begins at conception, when the fetus is killed, its life is over.<<< Who ever said life was the category we are basing this debate on? We kill many things that are alive, like plants. Would someone who picks a flower out from the ground, sniffs it, then throws it away be charged with murder? >>>About 4,000 babies are killed everyday.<<< FETUSES. >>>How is this any different then abortion? Sure, abortion involves the killing of a fetus or an embryo, but in reality a fetus and embryo are forms of life and should be considered human beings.<<< Ridiculous statement. Not all forms of life are human beings. Is a dog a human being? Is a plant a human being? >>>Many people will argue that the fetus and embryo are not considered human beings, since they have only begun to form into a human being.<<< Perhaps, but I did not argue this. I argue that the fetus is not a person, i.e. hasn't a fully functioning brain (until it's self-aware). >>>Should I be permitted to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, just because I convince some people you are either not alive, or your 'quality of life' is not worth sustaining?<<< This can be broken down into two parts: 1. You are threatening my life by saying I'm not alive? Contradiction anyone? But also, I never used life as a criteria, so bad analogy there. 2. I never used the "quality of life" as an argument. So again, bad analogy. >>>If you believe murder (the taking of an innocent human life) is wrong, who has the authority to decide when a human life begins?<<< Personhood. I doubt you have read my argument. >>>Less than 1% of abortions are performed for reasons of rape or incest. What is the driving motivation behind promoting them? Is it profit for the providers?<<< Irrelevant since I never used this as part of my argument; I'm well aware of the statistics. ===== Conclusion ===== My opponent's primary argument relies on the premise that murder = taking life. This is simply not true. As I've stated before, killing plants is not murder and yet a plant is alive. My opponent has completely dodged my argument: abortion is morally justified because a fetus is not self-aware thus granting it personhood.

TheSkeptic

I thank my opponent for his quick response, and I hope we have a good one. >>>Life Begins at conception, when the fetus is killed, its life is over.<<< Who ever said life was the category we are basing this debate on? We kill many things that are alive, like plants. Would someone who picks a flower out from the ground, sniffs it, then throws it away be charged with murder? >>>About 4,000 babies are killed everyday.<<< FETUSES. >>>How is this any different then abortion? Sure, abortion involves the killing of a fetus or an embryo, but in reality a fetus and embryo are forms of life and should be considered human beings.<<< Ridiculous statement. Not all forms of life are human beings. Is a dog a human being? Is a plant a human being? >>>Many people will argue that the fetus and embryo are not considered human beings, since they have only begun to form into a human being.<<< Perhaps, but I did not argue this. I argue that the fetus is not a person, i.e. hasn't a fully functioning brain (until it's self-aware). >>>Should I be permitted to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, just because I convince some people you are either not alive, or your 'quality of life' is not worth sustaining?<<< This can be broken down into two parts: 1. You are threatening my life by saying I'm not alive? Contradiction anyone? But also, I never used life as a criteria, so bad analogy there. 2. I never used the "quality of life" as an argument. So again, bad analogy. >>>If you believe murder (the taking of an innocent human life) is wrong, who has the authority to decide when a human life begins?<<< Personhood. I doubt you have read my argument. >>>Less than 1% of abortions are performed for reasons of rape or incest. What is the driving motivation behind promoting them? Is it profit for the providers?<<< Irrelevant since I never used this as part of my argument; I'm well aware of the statistics. ===== Conclusion ===== My opponent's primary argument relies on the premise that murder = taking life. This is simply not true. As I've stated before, killing plants is not murder and yet a plant is alive. My opponent has completely dodged my argument: abortion is morally justified because a fetus is not self-aware thus granting it personhood.

Society

Abortion-is-Morally-Justified/1/

I thank my opponent for a speedy response, but I have to say that his argument are completely off-topic. He mixes up the words "life" and "person" so much that it seems he does not know the philosophical definition of a person. Until he can even approach cleaning up his mess (and then refuting my arguments), the vote goes to PRO. >>>life was the category of this debate round the second the fetus was destroyed in an abortion.<<< I never used life as a measurement for justification in this debate. I used PERSONHOOD. To be a person is to be self-aware, thus implying one has a fully functioning brain. This is much more distinct that simply being alive. >>>and are you going to compare human life to a plant? if you were to do that you could say it is alright to kill any man just as it is to kill a plant. plants are not human. we shall not compare them to humans.<<< EXACTLY. But that's what YOU DID. You said a fetus is life, abortion is killing life, so therefore abortion is wrong. Basically, you have stated that killing life is wrong. But life is a broad category. Life INCLUDES animals and plants. Unless you give a non-arbitrary reason for why humans, a form of life, should have "higher" or "more" rights than an animal or plant, your argument is fallacious. >>>again were talking about human embryo's. you can take it however you like, but remember this is a debate on human abortion.<<< *Sigh* you are refuting your own argument. I said "is a dog a human being" to show how fallacious it was of you to say that killing life is bad, thus abortion is bad. You're justification is too broad, and includes non-human animals and plants. Unless you justify against eating veggies, you're argument is arbitrary. >>>the point of this statement was to show that a fetus and embryo ARE alive. but thoughts don't always make somebody alive.<<< I NEVER USED LIVING AS A JUSTIFICATION. I USED PERSONHOOD. >>>should we go kill every stillborn out there because they simply have no thought reaction?<<< ...haha. A stillborn is a dead fetus via miscarriage or upon birth. You can't kill something that's dead. ===== The two part response ===== >>>1. exactly your proving my point. it is a contradiction. one that should not be made, and me putting a gun to your head would be no different from an abortion. thankyou for expanding the true intent of my words. and again, life and quality of life became the issue the second the fetuses life became endagered by an abortion.<<< If you agree that it's a contradiction, then it's YOUR statement that is contradiction. You can't threaten to kill something that is dead. Can you threaten a rock with it's life? Of course not, that's ridiculous. >>>2.you didn't use the quality of life arg. i did. good analogy.<<< No, it's a sh*tty analogy because I never used "quality of life" as an argument, and your original response was an attempted REBUTTAL of mine. Therefore, you have committed a strawman. >>>first of all you have one argument, that we have been debating this whole round. 'is the fetus a person?' second of all i have given plenty good reasons to show a fetus is living.<<< *facesmash*. Just because something is living DOES NOT MEAN it's necessarily a person. Your failure to see this difference is so naive and trivial that I can't believe it's been like this the entire the debate. >>>sorry sir but it became relevant the second you used the resolution "abortion is morally justified, meaning you must prove it is justified in all cases. me seeing that you dropped this argument tells me that you agree with it, and that should be held on note for the voters. and i used it as part of MY arguement, so there should be some kind of obligation to refute it as i have refute any point you have made. but any ways one arguments dropped for me :)<<< You say that rape and incest account for only 1% of abortions. You then go on to say what is the "driving motivation behind promoting them", or whatever. Obviously, this would be relevant IF I WAS JUSTIFYING ABORTION because of rape and incest cases. You can't construct a rebuttal of an argument I never use. ===== My opponent's conclusion ===== I will go through little snippets of my opponent's argument to demonstrate the incredible "logic" he displays: >>>we are not comparing plants to human life, because you wouldn't kill a man just because it is alright to kill a plant...plant life is not relevant to abortion. however do keep in mind that however irrelevant it seems to me, i still argued it.<<< What is it, does life matter or not? Because you seem to say both sides. >>>MY opponent has not given me any info as to when a fetus can be concieved as actually living.<<< LIVING DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN BEING A PERSON. >>>me telling you your life is not important because you are not a live would be a contradiction just as my opponent pointed so gratefully for me.<<< Yes, a contradiction on YOUR PART. Those who are sensible, just read that closely. Telling someone their life is not important because they AREN'T ALIVE? Their life wouldn't be important because THEY DON'T HAVE ONE. Similarly so, I NEVER USE the life reason. ===== Conclusion ===== I'm sorry to say, but my opponent's argument is completely illogical and filled with strawmans. He hasn't even come to the understanding that living isn't necessarily make you a person - which I have you used as a measurement of justification for abortion. My opponent seriously needs to pay attention next time. VOTE PRO.

TheSkeptic

I thank my opponent for a speedy response, but I have to say that his argument are completely off-topic. He mixes up the words "life" and "person" so much that it seems he does not know the philosophical definition of a person. Until he can even approach cleaning up his mess (and then refuting my arguments), the vote goes to PRO. >>>life was the category of this debate round the second the fetus was destroyed in an abortion.<<< I never used life as a measurement for justification in this debate. I used PERSONHOOD. To be a person is to be self-aware, thus implying one has a fully functioning brain. This is much more distinct that simply being alive. >>>and are you going to compare human life to a plant? if you were to do that you could say it is alright to kill any man just as it is to kill a plant. plants are not human. we shall not compare them to humans.<<< EXACTLY. But that's what YOU DID. You said a fetus is life, abortion is killing life, so therefore abortion is wrong. Basically, you have stated that killing life is wrong. But life is a broad category. Life INCLUDES animals and plants. Unless you give a non-arbitrary reason for why humans, a form of life, should have "higher" or "more" rights than an animal or plant, your argument is fallacious. >>>again were talking about human embryo's. you can take it however you like, but remember this is a debate on human abortion.<<< *Sigh* you are refuting your own argument. I said "is a dog a human being" to show how fallacious it was of you to say that killing life is bad, thus abortion is bad. You're justification is too broad, and includes non-human animals and plants. Unless you justify against eating veggies, you're argument is arbitrary. >>>the point of this statement was to show that a fetus and embryo ARE alive. but thoughts don't always make somebody alive.<<< I NEVER USED LIVING AS A JUSTIFICATION. I USED PERSONHOOD. >>>should we go kill every stillborn out there because they simply have no thought reaction?<<< ...haha. A stillborn is a dead fetus via miscarriage or upon birth. You can't kill something that's dead. ===== The two part response ===== >>>1. exactly your proving my point. it is a contradiction. one that should not be made, and me putting a gun to your head would be no different from an abortion. thankyou for expanding the true intent of my words. and again, life and quality of life became the issue the second the fetuses life became endagered by an abortion.<<< If you agree that it's a contradiction, then it's YOUR statement that is contradiction. You can't threaten to kill something that is dead. Can you threaten a rock with it's life? Of course not, that's ridiculous. >>>2.you didn't use the quality of life arg. i did. good analogy.<<< No, it's a sh*tty analogy because I never used "quality of life" as an argument, and your original response was an attempted REBUTTAL of mine. Therefore, you have committed a strawman. >>>first of all you have one argument, that we have been debating this whole round. 'is the fetus a person?' second of all i have given plenty good reasons to show a fetus is living.<<< *facesmash*. Just because something is living DOES NOT MEAN it's necessarily a person. Your failure to see this difference is so naive and trivial that I can't believe it's been like this the entire the debate. >>>sorry sir but it became relevant the second you used the resolution "abortion is morally justified, meaning you must prove it is justified in all cases. me seeing that you dropped this argument tells me that you agree with it, and that should be held on note for the voters. and i used it as part of MY arguement, so there should be some kind of obligation to refute it as i have refute any point you have made. but any ways one arguments dropped for me :)<<< You say that rape and incest account for only 1% of abortions. You then go on to say what is the "driving motivation behind promoting them", or whatever. Obviously, this would be relevant IF I WAS JUSTIFYING ABORTION because of rape and incest cases. You can't construct a rebuttal of an argument I never use. ===== My opponent's conclusion ===== I will go through little snippets of my opponent's argument to demonstrate the incredible "logic" he displays: >>>we are not comparing plants to human life, because you wouldn't kill a man just because it is alright to kill a plant...plant life is not relevant to abortion. however do keep in mind that however irrelevant it seems to me, i still argued it.<<< What is it, does life matter or not? Because you seem to say both sides. >>>MY opponent has not given me any info as to when a fetus can be concieved as actually living.<<< LIVING DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN BEING A PERSON. >>>me telling you your life is not important because you are not a live would be a contradiction just as my opponent pointed so gratefully for me.<<< Yes, a contradiction on YOUR PART. Those who are sensible, just read that closely. Telling someone their life is not important because they AREN'T ALIVE? Their life wouldn't be important because THEY DON'T HAVE ONE. Similarly so, I NEVER USE the life reason. ===== Conclusion ===== I'm sorry to say, but my opponent's argument is completely illogical and filled with strawmans. He hasn't even come to the understanding that living isn't necessarily make you a person - which I have you used as a measurement of justification for abortion. My opponent seriously needs to pay attention next time. VOTE PRO.

Society

Abortion-is-Morally-Justified/1/

I'll give this a shot. I'll propose a definition of human life that begins when the fetus can live independently of the mother, and argue that abortion is not murder because the life that is taken should not yet be classified as human. Looking forward to hearing the arguments.

marquis1212

I'll give this a shot. I'll propose a definition of human life that begins when the fetus can live independently of the mother, and argue that abortion is not murder because the life that is taken should not yet be classified as human. Looking forward to hearing the arguments.

Politics

Abortion-is-Murder/6/

It seems to me that this debate boils down to two fundamental questions: 1. When does human life begin? 2. What constitutes murder? For point 1, I argue that human life should be defined to begin at the moment of viability. For point 2, I accept Pro's definition of murder as intentionally ending another human life. Human life can be defined to begin before conception, at conception, at the moment of birth, or after any arbitrary time span; I argue for defining it to begin at the moment of viability, before which time it is unlikely that the fetus would survive if surgically removed from the mother, and after which time it is likely that the baby would be viable. Before the moment of viability the fetus is alive, but for the purposes of my argument I do not define it as human life until after the moment of viability. Before this moment it is a human fetus, still alive and with thoughts and feelings, but human life carries the potential to live independently of the mother, which a human fetus does not. Debating the definition of a word might seem academic, but the output of the first point feeds into the second: what constitutes murder? By shifting the beginning of human life on a time scale, we establish a point after which the act of aborting a fetus can be considered murder. We could let the beginning of human life be defined as starting at the moment of fertilization, after which point killing the resulting zygote would be considered murder. A zygote is certainly alive, but it is not yet human life, and although it has the potential to become human life if it is kept inside the mother, it has not yet advanced to the phase where it would be viable if it were removed. If a zygote were removed from the mother (or the "host"), it would carry no potential to become viable human life (at least not with our current medical technology). We could shift the time to be the moment the zygote becomes a blastocyst, an embryo, a human fetus, or when the baby is delivered. We lack a universally accepted term for the moment a human fetus transitions into a human, "birth" is what we usually call it, but that definition has a fundamental problem: if it is murder to kill a baby immediately after it is delivered, why is it not murder to kill it immediately before? It would be tough to argue that aborting a pregnancy five minutes before delivery (except in cases where the mother's life is endangered) would not be considered murder--I'm certainly not a person who can argue that point. So what we require is a moment where the potential for human life transitions to become viable human life. The moment of viability. I argue that aborting a human fetus is not murder because a fetus does not possess adequate potential to become human life independent of the mother. Aborting a human fetus after the moment it becomes viable human life is murder.

marquis1212

It seems to me that this debate boils down to two fundamental questions: 1. When does human life begin? 2. What constitutes murder? For point 1, I argue that human life should be defined to begin at the moment of viability. For point 2, I accept Pro's definition of murder as intentionally ending another human life. Human life can be defined to begin before conception, at conception, at the moment of birth, or after any arbitrary time span; I argue for defining it to begin at the moment of viability, before which time it is unlikely that the fetus would survive if surgically removed from the mother, and after which time it is likely that the baby would be viable. Before the moment of viability the fetus is alive, but for the purposes of my argument I do not define it as human life until after the moment of viability. Before this moment it is a human fetus, still alive and with thoughts and feelings, but human life carries the potential to live independently of the mother, which a human fetus does not. Debating the definition of a word might seem academic, but the output of the first point feeds into the second: what constitutes murder? By shifting the beginning of human life on a time scale, we establish a point after which the act of aborting a fetus can be considered murder. We could let the beginning of human life be defined as starting at the moment of fertilization, after which point killing the resulting zygote would be considered murder. A zygote is certainly alive, but it is not yet human life, and although it has the potential to become human life if it is kept inside the mother, it has not yet advanced to the phase where it would be viable if it were removed. If a zygote were removed from the mother (or the "host"), it would carry no potential to become viable human life (at least not with our current medical technology). We could shift the time to be the moment the zygote becomes a blastocyst, an embryo, a human fetus, or when the baby is delivered. We lack a universally accepted term for the moment a human fetus transitions into a human, "birth" is what we usually call it, but that definition has a fundamental problem: if it is murder to kill a baby immediately after it is delivered, why is it not murder to kill it immediately before? It would be tough to argue that aborting a pregnancy five minutes before delivery (except in cases where the mother's life is endangered) would not be considered murder--I'm certainly not a person who can argue that point. So what we require is a moment where the potential for human life transitions to become viable human life. The moment of viability. I argue that aborting a human fetus is not murder because a fetus does not possess adequate potential to become human life independent of the mother. Aborting a human fetus after the moment it becomes viable human life is murder.

Politics

Abortion-is-Murder/6/

I don't take issue with any part of your rebuttal. Defining any moment in a phase of life is inherently imprecise and fraught with uncertainty. There are countless ways we could define the moment of viability, and whatever definition we come up with will certainly change over time as our level of technology increases. Ultimately the definition of the moment is somewhat arbitrary, as it is nothing more than the term we humans outside of the womb have chosen to give it, backed by whatever data we have available to us. But this "obstacle" applies to any moment in the phases of life, not just the moment of viability: we cannot currently detect the precise millisecond fertilization occurs, or when the embryo officially becomes a fetus, and even if we could it would still just be our definition of the state of an organism that will grow regardless of what we choose to call it. But it is worth arriving at a definition for something as important as the concept of human life, even if that definition will be refined over time and be defined differently by our governments. We currently do perform viability tests for babies, and in many places an abortion is not permitted after the baby is deemed viable, so some attempt at this is being made. Some governments choose an arbitrary number of weeks and consider the baby viable based on the statistics of survival rates. If it is a moment that needs to be defined precisely, accordingly precise standards that depend on our current level of medical technology can be established to detect it. Theoretically a mechanism could be devised that would monitor a fetus continuously and pinpoint the exact moment the vital signs indicate an established threshold has been reached, and a light would flip from red to green to mark the precise moment the baby was deemed viable and can be classified as a human life form. But no dramatic physiological change would have taken place at this moment, as these physiological changes are continuous at some level -- it is merely a dramatic change in what we've chosen to call the fetus: human life. Defining the moment accurately is important because the consequence of getting it wrong is that a viable baby is miscategorized as a human fetus. Over time as the methods of detecting the moment are improved, abortions that were previously not classified as murder might become reclassified as such, and we would need to work out the ramifications of such a circumstance. An equivalent test could be devised to detect the exact moment of fertilization or implantation, and its output would be equally arbitrary, as the involved organism(s) were unarguably "alive" before the defined moment. The state transition into human life carries enormous implications. Once the fetus makes the transition to something we call human life, we start calling it murder to if it is intentionally terminated. But the implications cannot be the motivation for the definition of life, they are the consequences of the definition we choose. So we have to examine what makes the moment of viability a good definition for the beginning of human life. After the moment of viability the baby has the potential to live independently of the mother (although certainly not independent of a caregiver, as Pro pointed out), which is a characteristic of all human life, but a shared characteristic is not enough to make the argument that they should be classified the same. The significance is that after this point the baby is an individual, with a fate separate from the mother's. Before this moment their fates are tied; if the mother dies, so does the fetus. Therefore it makes sense to say this the beginning of the individual (or in the case of conjoint twins, the individuals). It makes more sense to define human life as beginning at the moment of viability than to define it at the moment of fertilization. The moment the chromosomes and the DNA sequence have been determined is just another moment in the process -- it is the moment the potential identity of the eventual individual is established so it is not at all insignificant, but there were moments preceding it involving the same organisms, with the difference being that the preceding chromosomes were separated by some distance in time and space. Theoretically if we could determine identity before fertilization, would it be considered murder to abort the organisms before fertilization, perhaps because it would result in a deficient identity? The moment of viability is also just a moment in the process, but it signifies the moment the identity becomes an individual. And since before you are an individual, you have an identity but no independent fate, and by extension no individual rights, because you are not yet your own individual person. An implication of my position is that it would not be considered murder to abort an identity that is not yet an individual, which has controversial ramifications when considering an abortion that is performed because the identity is genetically defective.

marquis1212

I don't take issue with any part of your rebuttal. Defining any moment in a phase of life is inherently imprecise and fraught with uncertainty. There are countless ways we could define the moment of viability, and whatever definition we come up with will certainly change over time as our level of technology increases. Ultimately the definition of the moment is somewhat arbitrary, as it is nothing more than the term we humans outside of the womb have chosen to give it, backed by whatever data we have available to us. But this "obstacle" applies to any moment in the phases of life, not just the moment of viability: we cannot currently detect the precise millisecond fertilization occurs, or when the embryo officially becomes a fetus, and even if we could it would still just be our definition of the state of an organism that will grow regardless of what we choose to call it. But it is worth arriving at a definition for something as important as the concept of human life, even if that definition will be refined over time and be defined differently by our governments. We currently do perform viability tests for babies, and in many places an abortion is not permitted after the baby is deemed viable, so some attempt at this is being made. Some governments choose an arbitrary number of weeks and consider the baby viable based on the statistics of survival rates. If it is a moment that needs to be defined precisely, accordingly precise standards that depend on our current level of medical technology can be established to detect it. Theoretically a mechanism could be devised that would monitor a fetus continuously and pinpoint the exact moment the vital signs indicate an established threshold has been reached, and a light would flip from red to green to mark the precise moment the baby was deemed viable and can be classified as a human life form. But no dramatic physiological change would have taken place at this moment, as these physiological changes are continuous at some level -- it is merely a dramatic change in what we've chosen to call the fetus: human life. Defining the moment accurately is important because the consequence of getting it wrong is that a viable baby is miscategorized as a human fetus. Over time as the methods of detecting the moment are improved, abortions that were previously not classified as murder might become reclassified as such, and we would need to work out the ramifications of such a circumstance. An equivalent test could be devised to detect the exact moment of fertilization or implantation, and its output would be equally arbitrary, as the involved organism(s) were unarguably "alive" before the defined moment. The state transition into human life carries enormous implications. Once the fetus makes the transition to something we call human life, we start calling it murder to if it is intentionally terminated. But the implications cannot be the motivation for the definition of life, they are the consequences of the definition we choose. So we have to examine what makes the moment of viability a good definition for the beginning of human life. After the moment of viability the baby has the potential to live independently of the mother (although certainly not independent of a caregiver, as Pro pointed out), which is a characteristic of all human life, but a shared characteristic is not enough to make the argument that they should be classified the same. The significance is that after this point the baby is an individual, with a fate separate from the mother's. Before this moment their fates are tied; if the mother dies, so does the fetus. Therefore it makes sense to say this the beginning of the individual (or in the case of conjoint twins, the individuals). It makes more sense to define human life as beginning at the moment of viability than to define it at the moment of fertilization. The moment the chromosomes and the DNA sequence have been determined is just another moment in the process -- it is the moment the potential identity of the eventual individual is established so it is not at all insignificant, but there were moments preceding it involving the same organisms, with the difference being that the preceding chromosomes were separated by some distance in time and space. Theoretically if we could determine identity before fertilization, would it be considered murder to abort the organisms before fertilization, perhaps because it would result in a deficient identity? The moment of viability is also just a moment in the process, but it signifies the moment the identity becomes an individual. And since before you are an individual, you have an identity but no independent fate, and by extension no individual rights, because you are not yet your own individual person. An implication of my position is that it would not be considered murder to abort an identity that is not yet an individual, which has controversial ramifications when considering an abortion that is performed because the identity is genetically defective.

Politics

Abortion-is-Murder/6/

I completely accept that the moment of viability is more difficult to detect precisely when compared to the moment of fertilization, but it does not follow that because it is more difficult to define it then it is the wrong definition. It is an obstacle to be overcome. We should not select the definition because it is the most convenient or easily identifiable. What should matter is what the moment represents, not our ability to precisely detect the moment. A thought experiment: what if it were possible to detect the moment of viability as precisely as the moment of fertilization? Say we had the capability to peer into an adjacent reality where the fetus was surgically removed that moment, and we could determine the baby's viability at that moment without actually removing it in our reality. Of course it's ridiculous, but if there were a technology that would provide a definitive answer to the question of viability, I argue it should not change the definition of where human life begins, it would only allow us to pinpoint the moment more precisely. The moment happens whether we have the capability to detect it or not. Examining our various laws that define life in different ways is interesting, as it reflects the political makeup of the communities that appointed the judges and elected the representatives that defined the laws. Under some laws abortion is currently defined as murder, and under others it is not. But this debate has been more fundamental than that; theoretically our discussion could have taken place in the context of any legal system that does not provide a clear and indisputable definition of when human life begins -- we've been discussing where the line ought to be drawn, not just examining where various legal systems currently draw it. Our genetic identity is most certainly realized at the moment of fertilization, it is our individuality that has not yet been formed. Before the moment of viability there is undoubtedly a human identity, what is questionable is the individuality of the identity, since it cannot yet exist as an individual. The core of this debate over the definition of human life seems to be over the question of a distinction between an identity and an individual. Pro argues that the individual emerges at the same time the identity is formed, and I argue that the individual emerges when it possesses the capacity to exist independently of the mother. Before the moment of viability there is one individual--a woman who carries the identity of potential human life within her--and after that moment there are two individuals. The individual will certainly require assistance from others to survive, as we all do to varying degrees throughout our lives, but before the moment of viability no amount of assistance from others could save the fetus if it were removed; it does not yet have the capability to survive as an individual. Thanks to my opponent for this debate--I have really enjoyed deeply thinking through this issue with you.

marquis1212

I completely accept that the moment of viability is more difficult to detect precisely when compared to the moment of fertilization, but it does not follow that because it is more difficult to define it then it is the wrong definition. It is an obstacle to be overcome. We should not select the definition because it is the most convenient or easily identifiable. What should matter is what the moment represents, not our ability to precisely detect the moment. A thought experiment: what if it were possible to detect the moment of viability as precisely as the moment of fertilization? Say we had the capability to peer into an adjacent reality where the fetus was surgically removed that moment, and we could determine the baby's viability at that moment without actually removing it in our reality. Of course it's ridiculous, but if there were a technology that would provide a definitive answer to the question of viability, I argue it should not change the definition of where human life begins, it would only allow us to pinpoint the moment more precisely. The moment happens whether we have the capability to detect it or not. Examining our various laws that define life in different ways is interesting, as it reflects the political makeup of the communities that appointed the judges and elected the representatives that defined the laws. Under some laws abortion is currently defined as murder, and under others it is not. But this debate has been more fundamental than that; theoretically our discussion could have taken place in the context of any legal system that does not provide a clear and indisputable definition of when human life begins -- we've been discussing where the line ought to be drawn, not just examining where various legal systems currently draw it. Our genetic identity is most certainly realized at the moment of fertilization, it is our individuality that has not yet been formed. Before the moment of viability there is undoubtedly a human identity, what is questionable is the individuality of the identity, since it cannot yet exist as an individual. The core of this debate over the definition of human life seems to be over the question of a distinction between an identity and an individual. Pro argues that the individual emerges at the same time the identity is formed, and I argue that the individual emerges when it possesses the capacity to exist independently of the mother. Before the moment of viability there is one individual--a woman who carries the identity of potential human life within her--and after that moment there are two individuals. The individual will certainly require assistance from others to survive, as we all do to varying degrees throughout our lives, but before the moment of viability no amount of assistance from others could save the fetus if it were removed; it does not yet have the capability to survive as an individual. Thanks to my opponent for this debate--I have really enjoyed deeply thinking through this issue with you.

Politics

Abortion-is-Murder/6/

I thank Rugby Pro5 for creating this debate. Before I get into the meat and the good stuff there are a few formalities to take care of first.... Scope of debate and burden of proof To clarify it is understood by me that when Pro seeks to justify that abortion is "wrong" except when a mothers life is at risk he is speaking in moral terms. Also Pro is the one who has the burden of proof to justify this claim. As such I need not have to justify that abortion is right and/or not immoral. If I can at least show Pro has not provided a good argument to support the claim then that is enough for the votes to go to me as the Con. The consequence of not allowing abortion = forced continuation of pregnancy for women The reason most people argue for immorality of abortion and try to equate it to murder is to justify the denial and using force to stop abortion. Now let's be clear here what this means (except with Pros exemption) is that a woman who is pregnant from the moment of conception MUST continue with that pregnancy. She gets no choice in the matter. This is a huge infringement of personal freedom for women so if you are going to argue for such things I don't think is too much that your argument be pretty rock solid containing no lies, deceptions or logical fallacies and can hold up to scrutiny. Freedom My first argument in support of allowing abortion is simply that people can do what they want unless we have a good reason to stop it. Now I anticipate that Pro will seek to give such a reason but up until this point none has being provided. Abortion isn't always murder Note when I talk about murder here I am speaking in moral terms. I could seek to justify this but I don't have to as Pro has already granted this when he says..."I am taking the stance that abortion is wrong in all cases except when the death of the mother is unpreventable I suppose this is a bit of a double edged sword for Pro. On one hand if you claim that abortion is wrong without exemption you end up with the absurd result where are a woman who will die from pregnancy or something related to it has to die cause you know abortion is wrong................ALWAYS. On the other hand if you make an exemption this leaves the door open to making other exemptions so you can chip away at the whole abortion is wrong or at least parts of it argument. But such is the nature of rules in general. The point being Pro opens the door for an exemption, sure he may want to make that exemption and close the door again and put the biggest pad lock he can find on it and a big sign that says do not open this door !!!..........but I am not going to let him do that, I wouldn't be doing my job as the Con if I did. As such I think Pro owes us an explanation as to why some abortions are morally wrong and some are not to be held up to examination. Sure Pro can assert what abortions are wrong and ok, but you see so can I, and so can you. It's wrong to kill humans because they are human and Spock A common argument is that it is wrong to kill humans and abortion kills a human ergo abortion is wrong. Consider for example we are visited by intelligent sentiment aliens. Now some one kills such an alien just because they wanted too. They claim they did nothing wrong cause after reading lots of abortion arguments and praying to Jesus and reading the bible and maybe mumbling something about man being made in Gods image he has concluded it's only wrong to kill a human and thus since what he killed is not human he has done no wrong. But for most of us this goes against our moral intuitions. In order to maintain our moral intuitions we have to reject this kind of reasoning. As such what this shows is that the fact that something is or isn't human is not the variable that determines if it is ok or not to kill it. Note the argument here isn't that from the moment of conception it is not human rather that the mere "humanity" or lack of isn't what determies if it is morally ok to kill it or not. Human value/moral equivalency Another argument is that from the moment of conception at all points of pregnancy we are dealing with something that has the same "value" as you me or a 5 year old child. Such arguments often make claims about how it is all the same on a rights and or moral level its just an issue of development or potentiality which are non moral relevant factors. As such just as we would reject the killing of a 5 year old child we should reject to killing of a human 3 day embryo. Here is a picture of a human 3 day embryo.... <URL>... Consider the following through experiment you arrive at two buildings next to each other that are on fire. In one building is a 5 year old human child, in the other is a 3 day human embryo. Your going for the 5 year old first aren't you ? Maybe you can tell your self something like well it's 1 vs 1, I have to pick one of them. Ok, let's up the ante......... Same situation in one building is a 5 year old human child in the other 10, 3 day human embryos ? Your still going for the child aren't you ? Let's up the ante again... Same situation one 5 year old child and 100, 3 day human embryos. The point here is that valuing a 3 day human embryo the same way as a human 5 year old child would lead to absurdities, imagine if a fire fighter came out from such a situation and said look I had to make a decision, save a 5 year old child or 100, 3 day human embryos, and since they are all have the same value I did the math and it was a no brainier I choose 100 embryos over the one 5 year old child. Shall we give him his medal now ? is there a medal for stupid ? But just for fun and to see where your moral intuitions and reasoning takes you, Same situation in one building 100 human 3 day embryos, In the other a puppy, a very very cute puppy, and he is scared. What you went for the puppy ? Your worse than Hitler !!! Bodily rights argument Most people even Pro lifers/anti abortion rights people grant that women have some sort of bodily rights. The question is to what extent ? clearly an anti choicer does not believe that right extends to allowing abortion. But does this hold up to scrutiny ? Consider another thought experiment. One day you wake up to find yourself attached to some one else. If that person is detached from you they will die. Do your bodily rights end here because if you choose a course of action a person who is dependent on your body will die ? There are such variations of this kind of argument that in practical terms are outrageous and in the foreseeable future won't be encountered but never the less they serve a point to provide insight and the insight is this, another person even if they are dependent on that others persons body for their own life does not negate that other persons bodily right, including the right to deny access to their own body, even if by denying that access another person will die. As such even if we grant at the moment of conception a "person" exists, and that person is dependent on that woman's body for their own life, that woman still has the right to deny accesses to that persons body. I look forward to Pros response

Illegalcombatant

I thank Rugby Pro5 for creating this debate. Before I get into the meat and the good stuff there are a few formalities to take care of first.... Scope of debate and burden of proof To clarify it is understood by me that when Pro seeks to justify that abortion is "wrong" except when a mothers life is at risk he is speaking in moral terms. Also Pro is the one who has the burden of proof to justify this claim. As such I need not have to justify that abortion is right and/or not immoral. If I can at least show Pro has not provided a good argument to support the claim then that is enough for the votes to go to me as the Con. The consequence of not allowing abortion = forced continuation of pregnancy for women The reason most people argue for immorality of abortion and try to equate it to murder is to justify the denial and using force to stop abortion. Now let's be clear here what this means (except with Pros exemption) is that a woman who is pregnant from the moment of conception MUST continue with that pregnancy. She gets no choice in the matter. This is a huge infringement of personal freedom for women so if you are going to argue for such things I don't think is too much that your argument be pretty rock solid containing no lies, deceptions or logical fallacies and can hold up to scrutiny. Freedom My first argument in support of allowing abortion is simply that people can do what they want unless we have a good reason to stop it. Now I anticipate that Pro will seek to give such a reason but up until this point none has being provided. Abortion isn't always murder Note when I talk about murder here I am speaking in moral terms. I could seek to justify this but I don't have to as Pro has already granted this when he says..."I am taking the stance that abortion is wrong in all cases except when the death of the mother is unpreventable I suppose this is a bit of a double edged sword for Pro. On one hand if you claim that abortion is wrong without exemption you end up with the absurd result where are a woman who will die from pregnancy or something related to it has to die cause you know abortion is wrong................ALWAYS. On the other hand if you make an exemption this leaves the door open to making other exemptions so you can chip away at the whole abortion is wrong or at least parts of it argument. But such is the nature of rules in general. The point being Pro opens the door for an exemption, sure he may want to make that exemption and close the door again and put the biggest pad lock he can find on it and a big sign that says do not open this door !!!..........but I am not going to let him do that, I wouldn't be doing my job as the Con if I did. As such I think Pro owes us an explanation as to why some abortions are morally wrong and some are not to be held up to examination. Sure Pro can assert what abortions are wrong and ok, but you see so can I, and so can you. It's wrong to kill humans because they are human and Spock A common argument is that it is wrong to kill humans and abortion kills a human ergo abortion is wrong. Consider for example we are visited by intelligent sentiment aliens. Now some one kills such an alien just because they wanted too. They claim they did nothing wrong cause after reading lots of abortion arguments and praying to Jesus and reading the bible and maybe mumbling something about man being made in Gods image he has concluded it's only wrong to kill a human and thus since what he killed is not human he has done no wrong. But for most of us this goes against our moral intuitions. In order to maintain our moral intuitions we have to reject this kind of reasoning. As such what this shows is that the fact that something is or isn't human is not the variable that determines if it is ok or not to kill it. Note the argument here isn't that from the moment of conception it is not human rather that the mere "humanity" or lack of isn't what determies if it is morally ok to kill it or not. Human value/moral equivalency Another argument is that from the moment of conception at all points of pregnancy we are dealing with something that has the same "value" as you me or a 5 year old child. Such arguments often make claims about how it is all the same on a rights and or moral level its just an issue of development or potentiality which are non moral relevant factors. As such just as we would reject the killing of a 5 year old child we should reject to killing of a human 3 day embryo. Here is a picture of a human 3 day embryo.... http://www.advancedfertility.com... Consider the following through experiment you arrive at two buildings next to each other that are on fire. In one building is a 5 year old human child, in the other is a 3 day human embryo. Your going for the 5 year old first aren't you ? Maybe you can tell your self something like well it's 1 vs 1, I have to pick one of them. Ok, let's up the ante......... Same situation in one building is a 5 year old human child in the other 10, 3 day human embryos ? Your still going for the child aren't you ? Let's up the ante again... Same situation one 5 year old child and 100, 3 day human embryos. The point here is that valuing a 3 day human embryo the same way as a human 5 year old child would lead to absurdities, imagine if a fire fighter came out from such a situation and said look I had to make a decision, save a 5 year old child or 100, 3 day human embryos, and since they are all have the same value I did the math and it was a no brainier I choose 100 embryos over the one 5 year old child. Shall we give him his medal now ? is there a medal for stupid ? But just for fun and to see where your moral intuitions and reasoning takes you, Same situation in one building 100 human 3 day embryos, In the other a puppy, a very very cute puppy, and he is scared. What you went for the puppy ? Your worse than Hitler !!! Bodily rights argument Most people even Pro lifers/anti abortion rights people grant that women have some sort of bodily rights. The question is to what extent ? clearly an anti choicer does not believe that right extends to allowing abortion. But does this hold up to scrutiny ? Consider another thought experiment. One day you wake up to find yourself attached to some one else. If that person is detached from you they will die. Do your bodily rights end here because if you choose a course of action a person who is dependent on your body will die ? There are such variations of this kind of argument that in practical terms are outrageous and in the foreseeable future won't be encountered but never the less they serve a point to provide insight and the insight is this, another person even if they are dependent on that others persons body for their own life does not negate that other persons bodily right, including the right to deny access to their own body, even if by denying that access another person will die. As such even if we grant at the moment of conception a "person" exists, and that person is dependent on that woman's body for their own life, that woman still has the right to deny accesses to that persons body. I look forward to Pros response

Philosophy

Abortion-is-Wrong/41/

Spelling Correction Previously I had said..." Consider for example we are visited by intelligent sentiment aliens." That should read... Consider for example we are visited by intelligent sentient aliens. Other than that I have nothing to add at this time.

Illegalcombatant

Spelling Correction Previously I had said..." Consider for example we are visited by intelligent sentiment aliens." That should read... Consider for example we are visited by intelligent sentient aliens. Other than that I have nothing to add at this time.

Philosophy

Abortion-is-Wrong/41/

This is, I believe, the most contentious and embattled political issue of all time. I am actually quite afraid to take it on, especially being so new here, but I hope my unique position (an anti-abortion atheist) might make things more challenging than usual for an opponent otherwise equally entrenched, because they would be accustomed to dealing with religious arguments I will not use. Because of the contentiousness, and admittedly selfishly to allow myself more leeway to amend whatever screwups I'm about to make on this important issue, I decided to make this 5 rounds. Best wishes to any opponent ... okay, I lie, I send ill wishes, because if I win this, I will really feel like I accomplished something! Definitely respects to anyone who takes it up, however. Every aspect of this debate I expect to be complicated, as I expect the very definitions of terms to be a source of contention, and I hope the debate will be able to somehow proceed even if there is an unmutually-recognized difference in the definitions of things. === I assert that abortion is a form of murder. This debate is to establish whether or not abortion is a form of murder. I contend that the "CON" side will, to win, need to establish that abortion is not a form of murder. I feel it necessary, to present my case, to define certain terms (that unfortunately are subjective and vague, even in "official" dictionaries) as follows: ABORTION - The willful termination of a pregnancy through action or decision made by an unborn child's mother CONCEPTION - The point at which a sperm (which contains half the father's DNA) and egg (which contains half the mother's DNA) combine to form (normally one) complete DNA strand, a combination from the mother and father (and thus, since the father and mother have DNA strands unique from each other, the new strand of DNA being a half-and-half combination is unique from either the father or mother) LIFE - An organism consisting of cells that consume nutrients, grow (through cellular devision) and reproduce. HUMAN BEING - A form of life of the species Homo Sapien. As with all known organic life, every member of the human species has a biological signature known as DNA, with the human race itself having a certain set of DNA parameters and each individual human being having a unique chain (or strand) of DNA molecules which fit the human DNA parameters. MURDER - The willful taking of a life. A FORM OF MURDER, by extension, is a particular type or "subset" of murder. TRIAGE: A term used in medicine to describe an unfortunate situation where, essentially, "not everyone can be saved." Essentially, given multiple individuals suffering medical emergencies (and often imminent death), priority is given to those deemed more likely to survive so as to offer the best chance to minimize the overall loss of life. UNBORN CHILD: A synonym for "fetus" that describes a macro-cellular organism between the stages of conception and birth. I stand opposed to the intentional termination of pregnancy (commonly referred to as an "abortion") with three and only three exceptions I contend are outliers and contend are not necessary to prove my assertion that abortion is a form of murder: Exception 1: A "triage" type situation where mother and unborn child are unlikely to both survive, and the mother has a reasonably improved chance of survival at the unfortunate expense of the unborn child's life. I contend that excepting (that's excepting as in making an exception of; this is not a mis-spell of accepting!) this situation is irrelevant to the subject of whether or not abortion is murder, as triage is not considered murder when it applies to post-birth humans (including full adults). Exception 2: There is certainty that the unborn child is suffering excruciating pain and its nervous/brain system is hopelessly crippled (or has not developed and medically deemed unlikely to develop) to the point that there is no or little medical expectation that the unborn child will ever have anything beyond a vegetative state, or will not be able to live without being in excruciating pain that cannot be reasonably medically relieved. In this case, it would be the decision of the mother and father as the de facto guardians of the unborn fetus once the above situation has been medically determined by qualified doctor(s). Exception 3: The unborn child is somehow proven in a court of law to be legally mature and sane (able to distinguish right and wrong) and knowingly commits an act determined by the legal system to be sentenceable by death. While I cannot in any stretch of the imagination conceive any way this could happen and it seems silly, I nonetheless must include it, since in this improbability, I would then have to prove that executing a convicted murderer is itself murder, which is not an argument I support (and contend is a matter for a seperate debate) This exception DOES NOT COVER any non-medical situations (economics, out-of-wedlock marriage, criminal act resulting in conception), NOR DOES IT COVER situations in which the baby is expected to have lifelong abnormalities, such as non-excruciating and non-vegetating birth defects/disabilities. Given the above definitions and exceptions, I contend these following points, pro-"abortion is murer" contention arguments: PCA #1: With my definition of LIFE above, life begins at conception which forms an unborn child (or "fetus") (also as defined above) PCA #2: The unborn child's DNA is that of an individual human being, distinct from its mother despite being naturally 'within' and attached through an umbellical. PCA #3: Abortion, as defined above, is the mother's (and/or join parents') decision to terminate the life of the unborn child PCA #4: Excluding my previously listed and described exceptions (triage, "death with dignity," capital punishment), any human being willfully taking the life of another human being (or ordering their death, such as "hiring a hitman" -- or in the case of abortion -- telling a doctor to perform an abortion) is committing a murder Given the above, I can only determine that abortion is, indeed, a form of murder.

PervRat

This is, I believe, the most contentious and embattled political issue of all time. I am actually quite afraid to take it on, especially being so new here, but I hope my unique position (an anti-abortion atheist) might make things more challenging than usual for an opponent otherwise equally entrenched, because they would be accustomed to dealing with religious arguments I will not use. Because of the contentiousness, and admittedly selfishly to allow myself more leeway to amend whatever screwups I'm about to make on this important issue, I decided to make this 5 rounds. Best wishes to any opponent ... okay, I lie, I send ill wishes, because if I win this, I will really feel like I accomplished something! Definitely respects to anyone who takes it up, however. Every aspect of this debate I expect to be complicated, as I expect the very definitions of terms to be a source of contention, and I hope the debate will be able to somehow proceed even if there is an unmutually-recognized difference in the definitions of things. === I assert that abortion is a form of murder. This debate is to establish whether or not abortion is a form of murder. I contend that the "CON" side will, to win, need to establish that abortion is not a form of murder. I feel it necessary, to present my case, to define certain terms (that unfortunately are subjective and vague, even in "official" dictionaries) as follows: ABORTION - The willful termination of a pregnancy through action or decision made by an unborn child's mother CONCEPTION - The point at which a sperm (which contains half the father's DNA) and egg (which contains half the mother's DNA) combine to form (normally one) complete DNA strand, a combination from the mother and father (and thus, since the father and mother have DNA strands unique from each other, the new strand of DNA being a half-and-half combination is unique from either the father or mother) LIFE - An organism consisting of cells that consume nutrients, grow (through cellular devision) and reproduce. HUMAN BEING - A form of life of the species Homo Sapien. As with all known organic life, every member of the human species has a biological signature known as DNA, with the human race itself having a certain set of DNA parameters and each individual human being having a unique chain (or strand) of DNA molecules which fit the human DNA parameters. MURDER - The willful taking of a life. A FORM OF MURDER, by extension, is a particular type or "subset" of murder. TRIAGE: A term used in medicine to describe an unfortunate situation where, essentially, "not everyone can be saved." Essentially, given multiple individuals suffering medical emergencies (and often imminent death), priority is given to those deemed more likely to survive so as to offer the best chance to minimize the overall loss of life. UNBORN CHILD: A synonym for "fetus" that describes a macro-cellular organism between the stages of conception and birth. I stand opposed to the intentional termination of pregnancy (commonly referred to as an "abortion") with three and only three exceptions I contend are outliers and contend are not necessary to prove my assertion that abortion is a form of murder: Exception 1: A "triage" type situation where mother and unborn child are unlikely to both survive, and the mother has a reasonably improved chance of survival at the unfortunate expense of the unborn child's life. I contend that excepting (that's excepting as in making an exception of; this is not a mis-spell of accepting!) this situation is irrelevant to the subject of whether or not abortion is murder, as triage is not considered murder when it applies to post-birth humans (including full adults). Exception 2: There is certainty that the unborn child is suffering excruciating pain and its nervous/brain system is hopelessly crippled (or has not developed and medically deemed unlikely to develop) to the point that there is no or little medical expectation that the unborn child will ever have anything beyond a vegetative state, or will not be able to live without being in excruciating pain that cannot be reasonably medically relieved. In this case, it would be the decision of the mother and father as the de facto guardians of the unborn fetus once the above situation has been medically determined by qualified doctor(s). Exception 3: The unborn child is somehow proven in a court of law to be legally mature and sane (able to distinguish right and wrong) and knowingly commits an act determined by the legal system to be sentenceable by death. While I cannot in any stretch of the imagination conceive any way this could happen and it seems silly, I nonetheless must include it, since in this improbability, I would then have to prove that executing a convicted murderer is itself murder, which is not an argument I support (and contend is a matter for a seperate debate) This exception DOES NOT COVER any non-medical situations (economics, out-of-wedlock marriage, criminal act resulting in conception), NOR DOES IT COVER situations in which the baby is expected to have lifelong abnormalities, such as non-excruciating and non-vegetating birth defects/disabilities. Given the above definitions and exceptions, I contend these following points, pro-"abortion is murer" contention arguments: PCA #1: With my definition of LIFE above, life begins at conception which forms an unborn child (or "fetus") (also as defined above) PCA #2: The unborn child's DNA is that of an individual human being, distinct from its mother despite being naturally 'within' and attached through an umbellical. PCA #3: Abortion, as defined above, is the mother's (and/or join parents') decision to terminate the life of the unborn child PCA #4: Excluding my previously listed and described exceptions (triage, "death with dignity," capital punishment), any human being willfully taking the life of another human being (or ordering their death, such as "hiring a hitman" -- or in the case of abortion -- telling a doctor to perform an abortion) is committing a murder Given the above, I can only determine that abortion is, indeed, a form of murder.

Politics

Abortion-is-a-form-of-murder/1/

I concede Con's re-definition of murder to specify human beings, but I am not so certain of "malice aforethought" ... is that truly identical to the definition of murder as it applies to post-born human beings? If one human being kills another (post-birth) human being (against that person's consent, ridiculous though it may seem to be so specific) with no hateful "malice" in their mind, but merely feeling their destitution or other circumstance makes life too unbearable for that other person, is that not still murder? I am glad my opponent concedes the basic point that if ("only if") a fetus is a human person, is abortion murder. I feel this is a common point of contention, and as petty as I think for most debates for such a single point to be so focused, on abortion I think it a valid "super-focus" that I hope Con concurs is where the vast majority of people on both sides of the issue have their conflict -- at what point someone becomes a human being, whereas whatever they were before was not a human being. I argue Con's determination of a fetus not being human are flawed on the following points Con made - "A fetus brain is not capable of conscious thought or memory." This would seem to correlate with, say, a person in a vegetative state and thus might seem to fit with the Terry Schiavo case where her husband wished to exercise her previously said to him wishes to have herself disconnected from lifesupport in the event where she unfortunately reached of having no reasonable chance of recovery. However, this fails for a 'fetus' because, barring some unforseen tragedy (natural, or in the case of abortion, not natural), as the fetus would 'recover' (or more accurately generate) conscious thought and memory on its own if allowed to live. "A fetus cannot breathe or make sounds." So anyone, even a post-born adult, who is unable to breathe and requires an iron lung to survive (but otherwise is not in a vegetative state) is no longer a human being deserving of protections? The same for a mute person? I call this, too, ridiculous. "A fetus lacks a social identity, an integral part of what we associate with a human being." So does a newborn baby who only knows to cry for mom, or a sufferer of Asperger's Syndrome by some perspectives, or a person who suffers from multiple personalities -- they lack "a social identity" as they have multiple they cannot control. "A fetus cannot be recognized as a legal person" -- This, too, is wrong. I concur that fetuses are NOT recognized as a legal person, but not that they COULD NOT be. This debate is not whether or not a fetus fits the legal definition of a human being currently (its obviously excepted currently), but -- in essence -- whether or not a fetus /should/ be defined as a human being and given the same protections as other human beings. CONCLUSION I have countered each of Con's supports to disprove that a human fetus is a human being, and because this "human being or not a human being" question is the crux of Con's challenge, I assert that I have defeated all of Con's arguments. Notably, Con did not address my specific arguments. I presume (it was not made clear to me from Con's arguments) that the arguments list for why "a fetus is not human" are the support given for the claim that first trimester/second trimester magic border where I gather Con believes a human fetus dons the identity of a human being and deserving of such protections. A human fetus is a human being and deserving of all the rights and protections accorded to other human beings, including the right to life and (by extension) the right to not be murdered.

PervRat

I concede Con's re-definition of murder to specify human beings, but I am not so certain of "malice aforethought" ... is that truly identical to the definition of murder as it applies to post-born human beings? If one human being kills another (post-birth) human being (against that person's consent, ridiculous though it may seem to be so specific) with no hateful "malice" in their mind, but merely feeling their destitution or other circumstance makes life too unbearable for that other person, is that not still murder? I am glad my opponent concedes the basic point that if ("only if") a fetus is a human person, is abortion murder. I feel this is a common point of contention, and as petty as I think for most debates for such a single point to be so focused, on abortion I think it a valid "super-focus" that I hope Con concurs is where the vast majority of people on both sides of the issue have their conflict -- at what point someone becomes a human being, whereas whatever they were before was not a human being. I argue Con's determination of a fetus not being human are flawed on the following points Con made - "A fetus brain is not capable of conscious thought or memory." This would seem to correlate with, say, a person in a vegetative state and thus might seem to fit with the Terry Schiavo case where her husband wished to exercise her previously said to him wishes to have herself disconnected from lifesupport in the event where she unfortunately reached of having no reasonable chance of recovery. However, this fails for a 'fetus' because, barring some unforseen tragedy (natural, or in the case of abortion, not natural), as the fetus would 'recover' (or more accurately generate) conscious thought and memory on its own if allowed to live. "A fetus cannot breathe or make sounds." So anyone, even a post-born adult, who is unable to breathe and requires an iron lung to survive (but otherwise is not in a vegetative state) is no longer a human being deserving of protections? The same for a mute person? I call this, too, ridiculous. "A fetus lacks a social identity, an integral part of what we associate with a human being." So does a newborn baby who only knows to cry for mom, or a sufferer of Asperger's Syndrome by some perspectives, or a person who suffers from multiple personalities -- they lack "a social identity" as they have multiple they cannot control. "A fetus cannot be recognized as a legal person" -- This, too, is wrong. I concur that fetuses are NOT recognized as a legal person, but not that they COULD NOT be. This debate is not whether or not a fetus fits the legal definition of a human being currently (its obviously excepted currently), but -- in essence -- whether or not a fetus /should/ be defined as a human being and given the same protections as other human beings. CONCLUSION I have countered each of Con's supports to disprove that a human fetus is a human being, and because this "human being or not a human being" question is the crux of Con's challenge, I assert that I have defeated all of Con's arguments. Notably, Con did not address my specific arguments. I presume (it was not made clear to me from Con's arguments) that the arguments list for why "a fetus is not human" are the support given for the claim that first trimester/second trimester magic border where I gather Con believes a human fetus dons the identity of a human being and deserving of such protections. A human fetus is a human being and deserving of all the rights and protections accorded to other human beings, including the right to life and (by extension) the right to not be murdered.

Politics

Abortion-is-a-form-of-murder/1/

== DEFINITION CONTESTION == Con's expansion on his meaning of "malice aforethought" dodged my questions of whether someone need malice (murderous hatred in my personal vocabulary definitions) in their motive or heart for an act of killing to be murder. Questions of legal standing are irrelevant for debates, as abortion in the United States is currently not legally considered murder. The question is not whether or not abortion is considered murder, but whether or not it should be; I hope this, at least, is in concurrence with Con. I hope Con is not attempting here to claim that abortions are "accidents" and not intentionally carried out. Considering an abortion requires special permissions, requests and actions on the part of the mother and doctor (presuming the abortion was not something somehow forced on a mother, something that while possible I hope Con agrees is not the intention of this debate), it is premeditated, planned and willfully carried out. If Con agrees the contention of this debate on abortion (and the vast majority of abortion arguments) is primarily, if not solely, on the point of whether or not a fetus is a human being deserving of the same protections on its life as a post-born human being. I consider this attempt to contest the other component of murder -- willful intent and action -- is ridiculous to claim is absent or below the legal definition of intent/motive that determines whether a death is the result of pre-meditated intent to achieve the intended result of "death" / "termination" of a life, as I cannot see how the requisite decision by the mother, her request to the abortionist and the abortionist's actions resulting in the termination of the pregnancy could be construed as non-intentional actions. == IS THE FETUS A HUMAN BEING? REBUTTALS == I do not recall and would appreciate Con pointing out that I accepted his definition that a human fetus is not a human being. I believe I quite clearly stated, in fact, that a living human fetus is a living human being in my book, and whatever mis-understandings I have made on the subject, I have not wavered in this belief and assertion. Once again, so it is not unclear, from my perspective: A LIVING HUMAN FETUS IS A LIVING HUMAN BEING. Ugly, un-Internet-civil all caps, I certainly hope any confusion Con may have had on whether or not I consider a fetus to be a human being should, I hope, be clear by that line. Please let me know, Con, if you are still confused on whether or not I consider a human fetus to be a human being worthy of the same right-to-life we grant to post-birth human beings. Possibility a) Con asserts that if there is contention on whether or not a fetus is a human being, that abortion is not murder by some law of default. I highly contest this -- if there is uncertainty beyond reasonable doubt as to whether or not X is a living human being, does Con truly assert that it is safe to take action to ensure X is not a living human being by terminating any semblance of life within X? I have serious questions as to the morality of that. Applied to a seemingly unrelated hypothetical situation involving the same question (If there is an unknown possibility of human life existing in a situation, is it okay to take action that would kill any human life present?) I draw on this hypothetical situation: Say there appears to be someone laying by the side of the road. There is reason to question whether or not the person is alive. Would it then be okay to shoot the person, since you do not know for certain whether or not they are alive? Shooting a corpse would certainly not be murder. Shooting a body, not knowing whether or not it is alive, Con considers to be the same lack-of-murder-status as shooting a body you know to not be alive. Does Con continue to assert that, in the absence of certainty as to the status of a living human fetus as a human being, that it is safe to terminate its life and the term murder is not applicable? (b) i) Conscious thought and memory -- To determine that only a person with provable conscious thought and memory qualifies as a human being (and anything else can be killed without fitting the bill of murder) is again ridiculous. A person in a long-term coma (but for whom there remains a reasonable chance of eventually coming out of it and recovering) fails both at having conscious thought and memory. An amnesiac fails at having memory. The two people fail Con's explicit requisites to determine whether or not something is a living human being, and if one considers the premeditated and intentional killing of a person in a coma (even if they are not in a vegetative state and there is no reason to determine they could not, at some point, recover and lead an otherwise normal life) or a person suffering amnesia as being MURDER, then Con's defining characteristics of what a human being is cannot be considered reasonable, applicable nor relevant. ii, iii, iv) I am confused as to Con's statements here. Con specified "conscious thought and memory" as being requisites for someone to be considered human. I make no profession of being word-perfect, but the conjunction "and" means both the items before and after the "and" conjunction must be true for the evaluation to work. If this was not the intention, and Con meant "and/or" in place of merely "and," I assert that I have still successfully countered his definition, in that I reasoned both components as being untrue. Con actually cast a good image of the problem. Con says "I argue that for A to equal B, X and Y must be true." Pro: "X is not true because of K, Y is not true because of J; therefore Con's argument fails." Con: "You should take my points collectively, not seperately." Does anyone else sense my confusion on this on how Con's arguments could be considered successful in this fashion? Even when I disprove constituent points, Con asserts his conclusion still stands ... that rather defies logic and reason to me, so I would appreciate further explanation. As to my declaration of "COULD BE" ... that is rather what this whole debate is about, and I could sum up Con's remaining argument as "It is absurd to consider the possibility that a fetus is a living human being, because a fetus is legally determined to not be a living human being, therefore it should not have the possibility to acquire the determination of being a human being in the future." The other claims and gripes about fetuses getting rights minority-age children do not have are equally absurd to me. With regret, I fail to grasp Con's arguments here and would ask him to explain them further, in detailed reasoning, that I might better understand his position in the next round. Thank you for your ongoing participation!

PervRat

== DEFINITION CONTESTION == Con's expansion on his meaning of "malice aforethought" dodged my questions of whether someone need malice (murderous hatred in my personal vocabulary definitions) in their motive or heart for an act of killing to be murder. Questions of legal standing are irrelevant for debates, as abortion in the United States is currently not legally considered murder. The question is not whether or not abortion is considered murder, but whether or not it should be; I hope this, at least, is in concurrence with Con. I hope Con is not attempting here to claim that abortions are "accidents" and not intentionally carried out. Considering an abortion requires special permissions, requests and actions on the part of the mother and doctor (presuming the abortion was not something somehow forced on a mother, something that while possible I hope Con agrees is not the intention of this debate), it is premeditated, planned and willfully carried out. If Con agrees the contention of this debate on abortion (and the vast majority of abortion arguments) is primarily, if not solely, on the point of whether or not a fetus is a human being deserving of the same protections on its life as a post-born human being. I consider this attempt to contest the other component of murder -- willful intent and action -- is ridiculous to claim is absent or below the legal definition of intent/motive that determines whether a death is the result of pre-meditated intent to achieve the intended result of "death" / "termination" of a life, as I cannot see how the requisite decision by the mother, her request to the abortionist and the abortionist's actions resulting in the termination of the pregnancy could be construed as non-intentional actions. == IS THE FETUS A HUMAN BEING? REBUTTALS == I do not recall and would appreciate Con pointing out that I accepted his definition that a human fetus is not a human being. I believe I quite clearly stated, in fact, that a living human fetus is a living human being in my book, and whatever mis-understandings I have made on the subject, I have not wavered in this belief and assertion. Once again, so it is not unclear, from my perspective: A LIVING HUMAN FETUS IS A LIVING HUMAN BEING. Ugly, un-Internet-civil all caps, I certainly hope any confusion Con may have had on whether or not I consider a fetus to be a human being should, I hope, be clear by that line. Please let me know, Con, if you are still confused on whether or not I consider a human fetus to be a human being worthy of the same right-to-life we grant to post-birth human beings. Possibility a) Con asserts that if there is contention on whether or not a fetus is a human being, that abortion is not murder by some law of default. I highly contest this -- if there is uncertainty beyond reasonable doubt as to whether or not X is a living human being, does Con truly assert that it is safe to take action to ensure X is not a living human being by terminating any semblance of life within X? I have serious questions as to the morality of that. Applied to a seemingly unrelated hypothetical situation involving the same question (If there is an unknown possibility of human life existing in a situation, is it okay to take action that would kill any human life present?) I draw on this hypothetical situation: Say there appears to be someone laying by the side of the road. There is reason to question whether or not the person is alive. Would it then be okay to shoot the person, since you do not know for certain whether or not they are alive? Shooting a corpse would certainly not be murder. Shooting a body, not knowing whether or not it is alive, Con considers to be the same lack-of-murder-status as shooting a body you know to not be alive. Does Con continue to assert that, in the absence of certainty as to the status of a living human fetus as a human being, that it is safe to terminate its life and the term murder is not applicable? (b) i) Conscious thought and memory -- To determine that only a person with provable conscious thought and memory qualifies as a human being (and anything else can be killed without fitting the bill of murder) is again ridiculous. A person in a long-term coma (but for whom there remains a reasonable chance of eventually coming out of it and recovering) fails both at having conscious thought and memory. An amnesiac fails at having memory. The two people fail Con's explicit requisites to determine whether or not something is a living human being, and if one considers the premeditated and intentional killing of a person in a coma (even if they are not in a vegetative state and there is no reason to determine they could not, at some point, recover and lead an otherwise normal life) or a person suffering amnesia as being MURDER, then Con's defining characteristics of what a human being is cannot be considered reasonable, applicable nor relevant. ii, iii, iv) I am confused as to Con's statements here. Con specified "conscious thought and memory" as being requisites for someone to be considered human. I make no profession of being word-perfect, but the conjunction "and" means both the items before and after the "and" conjunction must be true for the evaluation to work. If this was not the intention, and Con meant "and/or" in place of merely "and," I assert that I have still successfully countered his definition, in that I reasoned both components as being untrue. Con actually cast a good image of the problem. Con says "I argue that for A to equal B, X and Y must be true." Pro: "X is not true because of K, Y is not true because of J; therefore Con's argument fails." Con: "You should take my points collectively, not seperately." Does anyone else sense my confusion on this on how Con's arguments could be considered successful in this fashion? Even when I disprove constituent points, Con asserts his conclusion still stands ... that rather defies logic and reason to me, so I would appreciate further explanation. As to my declaration of "COULD BE" ... that is rather what this whole debate is about, and I could sum up Con's remaining argument as "It is absurd to consider the possibility that a fetus is a living human being, because a fetus is legally determined to not be a living human being, therefore it should not have the possibility to acquire the determination of being a human being in the future." The other claims and gripes about fetuses getting rights minority-age children do not have are equally absurd to me. With regret, I fail to grasp Con's arguments here and would ask him to explain them further, in detailed reasoning, that I might better understand his position in the next round. Thank you for your ongoing participation!

Politics

Abortion-is-a-form-of-murder/1/

(a) Who introduced "malice aforethought" to the discussion, sir? It was not I. (b) I certainly need an elaboration to respond. I'm left with not much meat to respond here, so I guess I'll put out some new arguments or to re-sum-up my arguments. I believe my opponent agrees that if a fetus were human (and known beyond a doubt to be a human being), then abortion would be murder. He contends that a fetus is not a human being and thus not deserving of protections against murder, however, so it is this definition and question of "when life as a human being begins" as the contention, and he further asserts that if there is a chance but no certainty that a fetus is a human being, that we should assume it is not so we don't waste a right-to-life unnecessarily on the fetus. Clearly I disagree. If I were in charge of demolishing a building and was ready to push down the plunger to bring it down, but I had the slightest rumor of a whisper that some homeless guy was living inside, I'd make damned sure that the building was empty with no living person in it before blowing it up. If I killed a person I didn't know was there, I would be guilty of manslaughter (accidental infliction of death) under both the law and in my own book. The usual pro-abortion argument, that I have noticed my opponent has not brought up, is that its a "woman's right to choose." An adult may choose to kill, but that does not give the choice to do so more meaning than the victim's right to live. I wonder if my opponent has refrained from this common argument because he's sufficiently experienced to know its the definition, or defining mark, of when a human being's life begins that is the contention and a "woman's right" is really not the contentious issue, or if he recognizes that a right to live overrules another's right to choose to take it, and its the where-does-a-right-to-live contention that is the question.

PervRat

(a) Who introduced "malice aforethought" to the discussion, sir? It was not I. (b) I certainly need an elaboration to respond. I'm left with not much meat to respond here, so I guess I'll put out some new arguments or to re-sum-up my arguments. I believe my opponent agrees that if a fetus were human (and known beyond a doubt to be a human being), then abortion would be murder. He contends that a fetus is not a human being and thus not deserving of protections against murder, however, so it is this definition and question of "when life as a human being begins" as the contention, and he further asserts that if there is a chance but no certainty that a fetus is a human being, that we should assume it is not so we don't waste a right-to-life unnecessarily on the fetus. Clearly I disagree. If I were in charge of demolishing a building and was ready to push down the plunger to bring it down, but I had the slightest rumor of a whisper that some homeless guy was living inside, I'd make damned sure that the building was empty with no living person in it before blowing it up. If I killed a person I didn't know was there, I would be guilty of manslaughter (accidental infliction of death) under both the law and in my own book. The usual pro-abortion argument, that I have noticed my opponent has not brought up, is that its a "woman's right to choose." An adult may choose to kill, but that does not give the choice to do so more meaning than the victim's right to live. I wonder if my opponent has refrained from this common argument because he's sufficiently experienced to know its the definition, or defining mark, of when a human being's life begins that is the contention and a "woman's right" is really not the contentious issue, or if he recognizes that a right to live overrules another's right to choose to take it, and its the where-does-a-right-to-live contention that is the question.

Politics

Abortion-is-a-form-of-murder/1/

Debates on abortion I feel, through experience, invariably get down to (if they continue so far) contests of definitions, and I do not think it a failing for my opponent nor myself that here, in the final round of this 5-round marathon, we still do not agree on terms. That is where you, audience, must decide in terms of whether someone changed your mind or not. I find it highly unlikely that anyone's mind is changed, as abortion is one of those "once you go down path X or Y, forever will it dominate your future!" issues. Its probably pointless to debate, but I still think it worth rehashing once in awhile to get your particular message or take on it, and I believe my opponent agrees with me at least on that. Anyhow, back onto the debate ... First, I do not agree that 'murder' applies only to people, but I do concede that very few people -- to the point that it would be a ridiculous argument for me to make -- value all life (even non-human) as obsessively as I do. That's sort of an ad-hominem attack on myself, though, and its a point I'll surrender during abortion debates. My opponent has altered or clarified his definition of "human being" such that (I gather now) if any of the conditions he gave are met, the lump of living flesh qualifies as a human being. This is still grotesquely ridiculous in my book, and I have several hypothetical examples to show why: === CON: "I argued that a fetus is not a human being because it satisfies none of the following conditions: having conscious thought, memory, an ability to breathe or make sounds, a social identity, an ability to feel pain [1] [2](which I just added now), and a separate identity." === Note that con still uses "and" as a conjunction, so in a literal sense (going by what he typed instead of what he appears to mean), all of those conditions must be met for a life to be considered a human being. However, I realize semantics is a minor argument and doubtlessly I have my own flawed semantics here or there, and add to that, Con did clarify that he meant any one of those items (grammar correction: if so, he should have used 'or' or perhaps 'and/or' instead of 'and'). Here are hypothetical examples that prove con's definition of a human being, even clarified, are ridiculous: Con may argue against dolphins having conscious thought, memory, a social or separat identity -- things I would disagree with (I believe a dolphin possesses all of these things), I no longer need to prove that a dolphin does to stick a dolphin in the category of being a human being under Con's clarified position. Merely the inarguable (I presume!) facts that dolphins have an ability to breath, make sounds and feel pain, is sufficient to qualify a dolphin as a human being under Con's "any of these conditions" list. A dolphin would /not/ qualify under my definition as a human being, which is simply: A living being genetically identifiable as belonging to the species homo sapien. A 'living' being to me is fairly simple: its cells are "alive" and undergoing cellular division. Both requirements must be met for something to be identified as a human being. A dolphin, lacking genetic identifiability as a human being, would fail my definition. Another ridiculous hypothetical situation: If, hypothetically, you assumed that a fetus can feel pain, wouldn't that suffice to make a fetus a human being under your clarified "any of these conditions" versus the literal one I tried to follow as "all of these conditions?" If it is "any of the conditions," then the bar is so low that a fetus would qualify as a human being -- but as stated above, even a non-human would have traits to qualify them as a human being as well. A third ridiculous hypothetical situation: A person is struck by a car and takes a lot of damage. There's a good chance they will recover, but for a time they are in a coma and dependent on an iron lung to breathe. They have no conscious thought, no memory, no ability to breathe or make sounds, no social identity, no ability to feel pain (they are unconscious, their nervous system is inactive), nor a separate identity. A person in a coma dependent on life support to breathe, but believed to have a reasonably good chance of recovery, does not meet any of Con's conditions to qualify as a human being and anyone could terminate their life and not be guilty of murder nor even manslaughter. Con can whine about straw man arguments all he wants, but it is up to you, voters, to decide whether my counterarguments are reasonable (whether or not you agree with my side or position, that's a separate part of the voting process). === This debate has sadly reached its final round, so I am down to a conclusive summary and I have no more chances within this debate to respond to any rebuttals: When a sperm and egg come together in the process we call conception, a new life is created. It may not have recognizeable organs such as a heart or lung when it is only a few cells, but it is nonetheless alive ... its cells consume nutrients and divide; that fits the bill as being alive, in my book. And if you were to pluck one of those cells out of the mother's womb and take it to a DNA analyzer, you would find that cell to be that of a human being, having a unique combination of half of its mother's and half of its father's DNA ... while it may be dependent on its mother for life support, it is a separate entity with a genetic identity all of its own. Barring some tragic incident causing miscarriage, there is no reason to assume that it will not grow from its conscious-less state into a conscious being -- this is, to me, akin to someone in a coma who nonetheless has a reasonable chance to wake up someday and come out of it. Not Terry Schiavo at all, as she had no real chance of recovery and she was permanently dependent on life support and medically it was determined that she was brain dead with no conscious thought nor memory. No, a fetus -- as someone otherwise healthy in a coma -- will 'recover' from their 'inactive' status and they are very much alive. I know a lot will disagree with that, as abortion is a highly contentious issue (I daresay -the- most contentious and divisive issue of all time). I have come to greatly respect and admire DDO debaters for their willingness to take up the opposite side of an argument than they truly believe as a challenge, and they still give it their all. I have also been impressed by voters taking sides on a debate opposite to how they truly feel, when they acknowledged the opposition did put up a better argument. I am not generally a fan of blind faith, but I want each of you voters to know that I place faith in each of you to read and re-read through the arguments and vote for the debater who made the most reasonable arguments, did the most to understand what their opponent was stating and respond to it, and for the one who did not resort to name-calling taunts or slams. I nervously look forward to the results of this debate, and I look forward to future debates. I do thank Con for hanging in there with this debate with me (I'm a total newbie), this has been a fascinating debate and I look forward to my next one with you. Overall, I am very impressed with DDO, I am glad it has not been overrun too badly by trolls or ad hominem arguers. Adieu and Namaste!

PervRat

Debates on abortion I feel, through experience, invariably get down to (if they continue so far) contests of definitions, and I do not think it a failing for my opponent nor myself that here, in the final round of this 5-round marathon, we still do not agree on terms. That is where you, audience, must decide in terms of whether someone changed your mind or not. I find it highly unlikely that anyone's mind is changed, as abortion is one of those "once you go down path X or Y, forever will it dominate your future!" issues. Its probably pointless to debate, but I still think it worth rehashing once in awhile to get your particular message or take on it, and I believe my opponent agrees with me at least on that. Anyhow, back onto the debate ... First, I do not agree that 'murder' applies only to people, but I do concede that very few people -- to the point that it would be a ridiculous argument for me to make -- value all life (even non-human) as obsessively as I do. That's sort of an ad-hominem attack on myself, though, and its a point I'll surrender during abortion debates. My opponent has altered or clarified his definition of "human being" such that (I gather now) if any of the conditions he gave are met, the lump of living flesh qualifies as a human being. This is still grotesquely ridiculous in my book, and I have several hypothetical examples to show why: === CON: "I argued that a fetus is not a human being because it satisfies none of the following conditions: having conscious thought, memory, an ability to breathe or make sounds, a social identity, an ability to feel pain [1] [2](which I just added now), and a separate identity." === Note that con still uses "and" as a conjunction, so in a literal sense (going by what he typed instead of what he appears to mean), all of those conditions must be met for a life to be considered a human being. However, I realize semantics is a minor argument and doubtlessly I have my own flawed semantics here or there, and add to that, Con did clarify that he meant any one of those items (grammar correction: if so, he should have used 'or' or perhaps 'and/or' instead of 'and'). Here are hypothetical examples that prove con's definition of a human being, even clarified, are ridiculous: Con may argue against dolphins having conscious thought, memory, a social or separat identity -- things I would disagree with (I believe a dolphin possesses all of these things), I no longer need to prove that a dolphin does to stick a dolphin in the category of being a human being under Con's clarified position. Merely the inarguable (I presume!) facts that dolphins have an ability to breath, make sounds and feel pain, is sufficient to qualify a dolphin as a human being under Con's "any of these conditions" list. A dolphin would /not/ qualify under my definition as a human being, which is simply: A living being genetically identifiable as belonging to the species homo sapien. A 'living' being to me is fairly simple: its cells are "alive" and undergoing cellular division. Both requirements must be met for something to be identified as a human being. A dolphin, lacking genetic identifiability as a human being, would fail my definition. Another ridiculous hypothetical situation: If, hypothetically, you assumed that a fetus can feel pain, wouldn't that suffice to make a fetus a human being under your clarified "any of these conditions" versus the literal one I tried to follow as "all of these conditions?" If it is "any of the conditions," then the bar is so low that a fetus would qualify as a human being -- but as stated above, even a non-human would have traits to qualify them as a human being as well. A third ridiculous hypothetical situation: A person is struck by a car and takes a lot of damage. There's a good chance they will recover, but for a time they are in a coma and dependent on an iron lung to breathe. They have no conscious thought, no memory, no ability to breathe or make sounds, no social identity, no ability to feel pain (they are unconscious, their nervous system is inactive), nor a separate identity. A person in a coma dependent on life support to breathe, but believed to have a reasonably good chance of recovery, does not meet any of Con's conditions to qualify as a human being and anyone could terminate their life and not be guilty of murder nor even manslaughter. Con can whine about straw man arguments all he wants, but it is up to you, voters, to decide whether my counterarguments are reasonable (whether or not you agree with my side or position, that's a separate part of the voting process). === This debate has sadly reached its final round, so I am down to a conclusive summary and I have no more chances within this debate to respond to any rebuttals: When a sperm and egg come together in the process we call conception, a new life is created. It may not have recognizeable organs such as a heart or lung when it is only a few cells, but it is nonetheless alive ... its cells consume nutrients and divide; that fits the bill as being alive, in my book. And if you were to pluck one of those cells out of the mother's womb and take it to a DNA analyzer, you would find that cell to be that of a human being, having a unique combination of half of its mother's and half of its father's DNA ... while it may be dependent on its mother for life support, it is a separate entity with a genetic identity all of its own. Barring some tragic incident causing miscarriage, there is no reason to assume that it will not grow from its conscious-less state into a conscious being -- this is, to me, akin to someone in a coma who nonetheless has a reasonable chance to wake up someday and come out of it. Not Terry Schiavo at all, as she had no real chance of recovery and she was permanently dependent on life support and medically it was determined that she was brain dead with no conscious thought nor memory. No, a fetus -- as someone otherwise healthy in a coma -- will 'recover' from their 'inactive' status and they are very much alive. I know a lot will disagree with that, as abortion is a highly contentious issue (I daresay -the- most contentious and divisive issue of all time). I have come to greatly respect and admire DDO debaters for their willingness to take up the opposite side of an argument than they truly believe as a challenge, and they still give it their all. I have also been impressed by voters taking sides on a debate opposite to how they truly feel, when they acknowledged the opposition did put up a better argument. I am not generally a fan of blind faith, but I want each of you voters to know that I place faith in each of you to read and re-read through the arguments and vote for the debater who made the most reasonable arguments, did the most to understand what their opponent was stating and respond to it, and for the one who did not resort to name-calling taunts or slams. I nervously look forward to the results of this debate, and I look forward to future debates. I do thank Con for hanging in there with this debate with me (I'm a total newbie), this has been a fascinating debate and I look forward to my next one with you. Overall, I am very impressed with DDO, I am glad it has not been overrun too badly by trolls or ad hominem arguers. Adieu and Namaste!

Politics

Abortion-is-a-form-of-murder/1/

Welcome, PervRat. I'm relatively new here too, and this is the first time I have debated abortion, so I hope that this debate proves educational to us both. To win this debate, I will need to show that Abortion is not a form of murder. However, I will not defend all forms of abortion, and like my opponent, will set one restriction: I will defend only abortion within the first trimester (0-12 weeks) of the pregnancy. --WE'RE ALL MURDERERS?-- Pro's definitions lead to absurd conclusions. According to Pro's definition of murder ("the willful taking of a life"), anything from plucking a flower to scratching your nose will be considered murder! You would be right to reject such a non-intuitive and ridiculous conclusion. Instead, I offer you an alternative definition, one that is more consistent with common sense: "Murder is the unlawful killing of another human person with malice aforethought." [1] So only if a fetus is a human person, is abortion murder. --THEN IS A FETUS A HUMAN PERSON?-- Under my definition, abortion is not a form of a murder, because a fetus is not demonstrably a human person. In the ABSENCE of any argument FOR why a fetus is human, we must profess ignorance about whether a fetus is human or not. In that case, abortion is not a form of murder. But moreover, I argue that a fetus is not human [2]: - A fetus brain is not capable of conscious thought or memory. - A fetus cannot breathe or make sounds. - A fetus lacks a social identity, an integral part of what we associate with a human being. - A fetus cannot be recognized as a legal person... would you want to include fetuses in our census reports, or grant them the freedoms of free speech and assembly? - A fetus is not a separate individual, and is entirely dependent on one person for its sustenance. CONCLUSION Since a fetus cannot be shown to be a human person, and as I argue, is in fact not a human person, abortion is not murder. Sources: [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>...

trendem

Welcome, PervRat. I'm relatively new here too, and this is the first time I have debated abortion, so I hope that this debate proves educational to us both. To win this debate, I will need to show that Abortion is not a form of murder. However, I will not defend all forms of abortion, and like my opponent, will set one restriction: I will defend only abortion within the first trimester (0-12 weeks) of the pregnancy. --WE'RE ALL MURDERERS?-- Pro's definitions lead to absurd conclusions. According to Pro's definition of murder ("the willful taking of a life"), anything from plucking a flower to scratching your nose will be considered murder! You would be right to reject such a non-intuitive and ridiculous conclusion. Instead, I offer you an alternative definition, one that is more consistent with common sense: "Murder is the unlawful killing of another human person with malice aforethought." [1] So only if a fetus is a human person, is abortion murder. --THEN IS A FETUS A HUMAN PERSON?-- Under my definition, abortion is not a form of a murder, because a fetus is not demonstrably a human person. In the ABSENCE of any argument FOR why a fetus is human, we must profess ignorance about whether a fetus is human or not. In that case, abortion is not a form of murder. But moreover, I argue that a fetus is not human [2]: - A fetus brain is not capable of conscious thought or memory. - A fetus cannot breathe or make sounds. - A fetus lacks a social identity, an integral part of what we associate with a human being. - A fetus cannot be recognized as a legal person... would you want to include fetuses in our census reports, or grant them the freedoms of free speech and assembly? - A fetus is not a separate individual, and is entirely dependent on one person for its sustenance. CONCLUSION Since a fetus cannot be shown to be a human person, and as I argue, is in fact not a human person, abortion is not murder. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://mypage.direct.ca...

Politics

Abortion-is-a-form-of-murder/1/

Thank you for a quick and thorough rebuttal. Although I will spend a small amount of time defending my definition, I think we both agree regarding the essence of the debate: whether or not a fetus is a human being. -----------------------DEFINITION ("malice aforethought")------------------------------ My opponent questions my definition of murder on the "malice aforethought" part. Pro's doubts are misfounded, because "malice aforethought" is a technical legal term that basically translates in layman language to "intentional" or "grossly reckless". Even mercy killings can be murder. [1] ---------------------IS THE FETUS A HUMAN BEING?----------------------------- Pro says I ignored his arguments from R1, but I implicitly refuted his argument by refuting his definition. Explicitly, I refuted his PCA #3. Using my new definition that he has accepted, since my opponent has not shown that fetuses are human beings, he has not proved that abortion is murder. I will elaborate on 2 possibilities here: (a) Currently indeterminate: If the status of the fetus as a human being is currently indeterminate, then as I argued earlier, abortion will not be murder. This is because to pronounce a moral judgment on the unknown is foolishness. (b) A fetus is not a human person because it lacks: i) Conscious thought and memory: My opponent argues that since a fetus WILL IN THE FUTURE develop cognitive processes, it should be considered a human being. This only shows that the fetus WILL IN THE FUTURE be a human person. But it is not a human person now, nor has ever been so in its past. ii, iii, iv) The mistake Pro makes here is that he considers each of my points separately. They should be considered collectively. I'll use an analogy to explain what I mean: Con: I argue that everything that can fly and is human should need a flying license. Pro: Birds can fly and don't need a flying license. And there are many janitors in my neighborhood that don't need a flying license. Con: You should take my points collectively, not separately. My opponent argues that fetuses COULD BE recognized as a legal human person, but I argue that to do so would be absurd. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." This means that if fetuses are human beings, they should share the same rights as all humans. Will we grant fetuses Social Security Numbers, include them in censuses, and allow them freedom of free assembly? Fetuses of the world, assemble? I ask my readers to consider whether something that cannot think, recall, breathe, or make sounds; something that lacks a social and legal identity is a human being. -------- Sources: [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>...

trendem

Thank you for a quick and thorough rebuttal. Although I will spend a small amount of time defending my definition, I think we both agree regarding the essence of the debate: whether or not a fetus is a human being. -----------------------DEFINITION ("malice aforethought")------------------------------ My opponent questions my definition of murder on the "malice aforethought" part. Pro's doubts are misfounded, because "malice aforethought" is a technical legal term that basically translates in layman language to "intentional" or "grossly reckless". Even mercy killings can be murder. [1] ---------------------IS THE FETUS A HUMAN BEING?----------------------------- Pro says I ignored his arguments from R1, but I implicitly refuted his argument by refuting his definition. Explicitly, I refuted his PCA #3. Using my new definition that he has accepted, since my opponent has not shown that fetuses are human beings, he has not proved that abortion is murder. I will elaborate on 2 possibilities here: (a) Currently indeterminate: If the status of the fetus as a human being is currently indeterminate, then as I argued earlier, abortion will not be murder. This is because to pronounce a moral judgment on the unknown is foolishness. (b) A fetus is not a human person because it lacks: i) Conscious thought and memory: My opponent argues that since a fetus WILL IN THE FUTURE develop cognitive processes, it should be considered a human being. This only shows that the fetus WILL IN THE FUTURE be a human person. But it is not a human person now, nor has ever been so in its past. ii, iii, iv) The mistake Pro makes here is that he considers each of my points separately. They should be considered collectively. I'll use an analogy to explain what I mean: Con: I argue that everything that can fly and is human should need a flying license. Pro: Birds can fly and don't need a flying license. And there are many janitors in my neighborhood that don't need a flying license. Con: You should take my points collectively, not separately. My opponent argues that fetuses COULD BE recognized as a legal human person, but I argue that to do so would be absurd. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." This means that if fetuses are human beings, they should share the same rights as all humans. Will we grant fetuses Social Security Numbers, include them in censuses, and allow them freedom of free assembly? Fetuses of the world, assemble? I ask my readers to consider whether something that cannot think, recall, breathe, or make sounds; something that lacks a social and legal identity is a human being. -------- Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.un.org...

Politics

Abortion-is-a-form-of-murder/1/

This is unbelievable, but I have somehow procrastinated until I have only 3 minutes left. The essence of my rebuttal would be: (a) The discussion about "malice aforethought" is irrelevant to the debate, because I have never actually used it in my argument. (b) When I said abortion is wrong only if X AND Y, it meant something quite different from what you have understood. I'll elaborate, in my next post.

trendem

This is unbelievable, but I have somehow procrastinated until I have only 3 minutes left. The essence of my rebuttal would be: (a) The discussion about "malice aforethought" is irrelevant to the debate, because I have never actually used it in my argument. (b) When I said abortion is wrong only if X AND Y, it meant something quite different from what you have understood. I'll elaborate, in my next post.

Politics

Abortion-is-a-form-of-murder/1/

My opponent's arguments, regrettably, were based mostly on red herrings and strawmen. --------- THE IRRELEVANT DEFINITION ISSUE------------ (a) Pro says in R3 that" I consider this attempt to contest the other component of murder -- willful intent and action -- is ridiculous...". Dear audience, please notice that I have NEVER argued anywhere that the mother engages in abortion unintentionally, or without "malice aforementioned". I have never attempted to use "malice aforementioned" to prove that abortion is not murder. Pro's arguments are, at worst, strawmen; at best, red herrings. (b) Nevertheless, since Pro deems the definition of "malice aforementioned" such a hot and relevant issue of contention, I will once again clarify it for his benefit. He accuses me of "dodging" the question about whether murder needs to contain malice, but I have already answered his queries. Let me requote myself from R2: ""malice aforethought" is a technical legal term that basically translates in layman language to "intentional" or "grossly reckless". Even mercy killings can be murder." As you can see, the translation of "malice aforethought" does not contain any hint of malice. And I explicitly said that even mercy killings, which might not contain malice, are murder. So, no: murder need not contain malice. "Malice aforethought" is a technical term that does not mean what its individual parts connote. ------------IS THE FETUS A HUMAN BEING?-------------- There are 3 possible sides: the fetus is a human being, the fetus has an indeterminate status, and the fetus is NOT a human being. I will evaluate the arguments for each side: (a) The fetus is a human being: Pro has presented only 1 argument, back in R1, as to why fetuses are human beings. However, that argument of his rested on the ridiculous definition of murder being the "intentional termination of a life". To quote his PCA#3: "PCA #3: "Abortion, AS DEFINED ABOVE, is the mother's (and/or join parents') decision to terminate the LIFE of the unborn child". Later, Pro accepted my definition of murder insofar he agreed that only human beings are murdered. Since Pro never proved anywhere that a fetus is a human being, his R1 argument is refuted. He said:"I do not recall and would appreciate Con pointing out that I accepted his definition that a human fetus is not a human being. " This is another strawman, because I meant that Pro has accepted my definition of "murder" (at least to the extent of accepting that only human beings are murdered). I never even defined a "human fetus"! (b) The fetus has indeterminate status: Pro argues" does Con truly assert that it is SAFE to take action to ensure X is not a living human being by terminating any semblance of life within X?"[emphasis mine]. This is again: a STRAWMAN! I never contested that if we cannot determine the fetal status, then abortion is "safe". I only contest that we cannot term it murder, because we cannot determine whether the fetus is a human being. To go back to Pro's analogy: if I shoot someone lying on the street, and if there is a GOOD "reason to question" whether or not the human being is alive, then you cannot classify me immediately as a murderer. To call my act murder, you will first need to investigate whether the person truly was alive. Even if he was alive, then I would be guilty of merely manslaughter (not murder). In R4, Pro simply proves my point when he says: "If I killed a person I didn't know was there, I would be guilty of manslaughter (accidental infliction of death) under both the law and in my own book." Yes, manslaughter, but not murder! Furthermore, Pro's analogy is flawed because it appeals to a situation where common-sense tells us that people lying on the side of the road are, more often than not, still alive. We have no common experience to tell us that fetuses are, more often than not, alive. (c) A fetus is not a human being: I argued that a fetus is not a human being because it satisfies none of the following conditions: having conscious thought, memory, an ability to breathe or make sounds, a social identity, an ability to feel pain [1] [2](which I just added now), and a separate identity. All of Con's arguents against mine go in this form: person X (an amnesiac) lacks one of the conditions (say memory), but is still considered human. Yes, but the amnesiac satisfies other conditions: the amnesiac has a social identity, can speak, can breathe, can feel pain and has a separate identity. Similarly, a new-born baby, a person with Asperger's,m a comatose person, etc, which Pro uses as counter-examples, all satisfy at least one of the previous mentioned conditions. A fetus satisfies none, because of which I argue it is not a human being. Pro says: "I could sum up Con's remaining argument as "It is absurd to consider the possibility that a fetus is a living human being, because a fetus is legally determined to not be a living human being,..."". Another STRAWMAN! I never argued that fetuses cannot be human beings because they lack legal recognition in the status quo. I argued that fetuses cannot get a legal identity because to grant them a legal identity would lead to absurd conclusions. However, I understand it is possible to grant fetuses limited legal rights, so I retract this point. ---------SUMMARY------------- My contention that the fetus is not a human being still stands, because a fetus does not satisfy any of my aforementioned conditions. Really, a fetus is no more than a cockroach injected with human cells. Indeed, you could feel some remorse for squashing cockroaches, because they have some rudimentary thinking ability, can feel pain, can respire, and have an individual identity, but fetuses lack even these. SOURCES: [1] "Expert Said Fetuses Do Not Feel Pain": <URL>... [2] "When Can Fetuses Feel Pain?": <URL>...

trendem

My opponent's arguments, regrettably, were based mostly on red herrings and strawmen. --------- THE IRRELEVANT DEFINITION ISSUE------------ (a) Pro says in R3 that" I consider this attempt to contest the other component of murder -- willful intent and action -- is ridiculous...". Dear audience, please notice that I have NEVER argued anywhere that the mother engages in abortion unintentionally, or without "malice aforementioned". I have never attempted to use "malice aforementioned" to prove that abortion is not murder. Pro's arguments are, at worst, strawmen; at best, red herrings. (b) Nevertheless, since Pro deems the definition of "malice aforementioned" such a hot and relevant issue of contention, I will once again clarify it for his benefit. He accuses me of "dodging" the question about whether murder needs to contain malice, but I have already answered his queries. Let me requote myself from R2: ""malice aforethought" is a technical legal term that basically translates in layman language to "intentional" or "grossly reckless". Even mercy killings can be murder." As you can see, the translation of "malice aforethought" does not contain any hint of malice. And I explicitly said that even mercy killings, which might not contain malice, are murder. So, no: murder need not contain malice. "Malice aforethought" is a technical term that does not mean what its individual parts connote. ------------IS THE FETUS A HUMAN BEING?-------------- There are 3 possible sides: the fetus is a human being, the fetus has an indeterminate status, and the fetus is NOT a human being. I will evaluate the arguments for each side: (a) The fetus is a human being: Pro has presented only 1 argument, back in R1, as to why fetuses are human beings. However, that argument of his rested on the ridiculous definition of murder being the "intentional termination of a life". To quote his PCA#3: "PCA #3: "Abortion, AS DEFINED ABOVE, is the mother's (and/or join parents') decision to terminate the LIFE of the unborn child". Later, Pro accepted my definition of murder insofar he agreed that only human beings are murdered. Since Pro never proved anywhere that a fetus is a human being, his R1 argument is refuted. He said:"I do not recall and would appreciate Con pointing out that I accepted his definition that a human fetus is not a human being. " This is another strawman, because I meant that Pro has accepted my definition of "murder" (at least to the extent of accepting that only human beings are murdered). I never even defined a "human fetus"! (b) The fetus has indeterminate status: Pro argues" does Con truly assert that it is SAFE to take action to ensure X is not a living human being by terminating any semblance of life within X?"[emphasis mine]. This is again: a STRAWMAN! I never contested that if we cannot determine the fetal status, then abortion is "safe". I only contest that we cannot term it murder, because we cannot determine whether the fetus is a human being. To go back to Pro's analogy: if I shoot someone lying on the street, and if there is a GOOD "reason to question" whether or not the human being is alive, then you cannot classify me immediately as a murderer. To call my act murder, you will first need to investigate whether the person truly was alive. Even if he was alive, then I would be guilty of merely manslaughter (not murder). In R4, Pro simply proves my point when he says: "If I killed a person I didn't know was there, I would be guilty of manslaughter (accidental infliction of death) under both the law and in my own book." Yes, manslaughter, but not murder! Furthermore, Pro's analogy is flawed because it appeals to a situation where common-sense tells us that people lying on the side of the road are, more often than not, still alive. We have no common experience to tell us that fetuses are, more often than not, alive. (c) A fetus is not a human being: I argued that a fetus is not a human being because it satisfies none of the following conditions: having conscious thought, memory, an ability to breathe or make sounds, a social identity, an ability to feel pain [1] [2](which I just added now), and a separate identity. All of Con's arguents against mine go in this form: person X (an amnesiac) lacks one of the conditions (say memory), but is still considered human. Yes, but the amnesiac satisfies other conditions: the amnesiac has a social identity, can speak, can breathe, can feel pain and has a separate identity. Similarly, a new-born baby, a person with Asperger's,m a comatose person, etc, which Pro uses as counter-examples, all satisfy at least one of the previous mentioned conditions. A fetus satisfies none, because of which I argue it is not a human being. Pro says: "I could sum up Con's remaining argument as "It is absurd to consider the possibility that a fetus is a living human being, because a fetus is legally determined to not be a living human being,..."". Another STRAWMAN! I never argued that fetuses cannot be human beings because they lack legal recognition in the status quo. I argued that fetuses cannot get a legal identity because to grant them a legal identity would lead to absurd conclusions. However, I understand it is possible to grant fetuses limited legal rights, so I retract this point. ---------SUMMARY------------- My contention that the fetus is not a human being still stands, because a fetus does not satisfy any of my aforementioned conditions. Really, a fetus is no more than a cockroach injected with human cells. Indeed, you could feel some remorse for squashing cockroaches, because they have some rudimentary thinking ability, can feel pain, can respire, and have an individual identity, but fetuses lack even these. SOURCES: [1] "Expert Said Fetuses Do Not Feel Pain": http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... [2] "When Can Fetuses Feel Pain?": http://www.cbsnews.com...

Politics

Abortion-is-a-form-of-murder/1/

Thank you for a spirited debate. I will resummarize my case and general philosophy in this last post. Some of you readers might be going: "Con has conducted a 5-round debate without even defining a human being!" I did so intentionally, because conventional definitions of a human being reveal so little. Consider Pro's definition that he brought up in R5: "A living being genetically identifiable as belonging to the species homo sapien".... er, that doesn't really tell us much. First, the definition is sort of circular ("species homo sapien"), and second, it does not really answer the everyday questions we would ask to identify a human being. Instead of a definition of a human being, I have merely offered a list of criteria that a human being must satisfy in at least one instance. There are, of course, additional requirements to be a human person that I omitted because I thought them obvious: one must have human DNA in most of your cells; one must physically be comparable to a human, etc. I merely listed all the criteria that would be relevant to this abortion debate. As such, Pro's argument in the last round argument that I define a dolphin as a human benig is again... a strawman! I never ever claimed to provide a definition for human beings, but merely furnished a list of criteria that any human being must satisfy at least partially. To quote myself: "I argued that a fetus is not a human being because it satisfies none of the following conditions..." [In technical term, I gave a SUFFICIENT cause, not a NECESSARY cause]. So, no, I'm not saying dolphins are human. Pro has frequently taken the most uncharitable and downright contrary interpretation of my arguments. He doesn't respond to my strawman accusations except to tell you that I'm a "whiner"... but a strawman is a serious fallacy [1] that erodes the very foundations of debate. Newsflash: Debate requires 2 people to argue each other's opinions, not to argue imaginary attributed strawmen! Pro takes great delight in pointing out my "and/or" error, so let me return the favor! Here's one of Pro's sentences from R3: "I consider this attempt to contest the other component of murder -- willful intent and action -- IS ridiculous to claim is absent or below the legal definition of intent/motive that determines whether a death IS the result of pre-meditated intent to achieve the intended result of "death" / "termination" of a life, as I cannot see how the requisite decision by the mother, her request to the abortionist and the abortionist's actions resulting in the termination of the pregnancy could be construed as non-intentional actions." 'Arr, methinks I've caught the Moby Dick the Run-off Sentences! Pro claims that "hypothetically", a fetus could feel pain. I fail to understand why the "hypothetical" matters, since I provided non-hypothetical evidence in my last post that fetuses do not feel pain. Pro provides only 1 relevant rebuttal to my argument. He gives the unlikely example of a man in a coma who allegedly would satisfy all my conditions. However, even comatose patient have the ability to breathe, possess some traces of memory, possess some ability to feel pain, and/or possess an individual identity, although it might just be a residue of the patient's earlier life. =========== Pro, finally, brings up a positive argument as to why fetuses are human being: because they are alive, have unique human DNA, have separate identities, and will eventually develop into conscious human beings. I concede that fetuses are alive and have human DNAs. However, fetuses lack separate identities. They are merely a clump of cells inside the woman; they exist entirely inside her and depend solely on her for sustenance. Fetuses have as much an individual identity as a kidney or a virus has an individual identity. Let me give 2 common definitions of identity: "Identity is an umbrella term used throughout the social sciences to describe an individual's comprehension of him or herself as a discrete, separate entity."[2] "the distinct personality of an individual regarded as a persisting entity."[3] I will leave it to the readers to decide whether a fetus can have either a "comprehension of him or herself" or a "personality" of any sort, let alone a "distinct" one. ==================== REASONS TO VOTE FOR ME: (a) If fetuses are not human beings: I argued that fetuses are not human beings because they fail to satisfy even one of a list of intuitive criteria. They lack the ability to breathe, lack all memory and thought, lack the ability to feel pain, lack any social or individual identity. My argument for why fetuses aren't human beings was left unattacked because Pro burned strawmen. Admittedly, my R1 argument was unclear, but I made it sufficiently clear in later posts, such that Pro lacks excuses. Given that my argument about fetuses as not being a human being stands, abortion is not murder. (b) If fetuses have indeterminate status: Even if you reject my argument about fetuses as NOT being human persons, remember that apart from an attempt in R4 that I have rebutted, Pro has failed to show you why fetuses ARE human beings. Thus, the fetus is left with an indeterminate status, in which case I have demonstrated that abortion is not murder, until some later date where you may find out that the fetus is a human being. Furthermore, Pro himself labels the killing in such cases as "manslaughter", not murder. I thank Pro for a courteous and enjoyable debate. Though we got off to several false starts, perhaps it is to be expected if this is our first debate on abortion. I look forward to debating you in the future too! SOURCES: [1] A primer on strawmen: <URL>... [2] <URL>... (social_science) [3] <URL>...

trendem

Thank you for a spirited debate. I will resummarize my case and general philosophy in this last post. Some of you readers might be going: "Con has conducted a 5-round debate without even defining a human being!" I did so intentionally, because conventional definitions of a human being reveal so little. Consider Pro's definition that he brought up in R5: "A living being genetically identifiable as belonging to the species homo sapien".... er, that doesn't really tell us much. First, the definition is sort of circular ("species homo sapien"), and second, it does not really answer the everyday questions we would ask to identify a human being. Instead of a definition of a human being, I have merely offered a list of criteria that a human being must satisfy in at least one instance. There are, of course, additional requirements to be a human person that I omitted because I thought them obvious: one must have human DNA in most of your cells; one must physically be comparable to a human, etc. I merely listed all the criteria that would be relevant to this abortion debate. As such, Pro's argument in the last round argument that I define a dolphin as a human benig is again... a strawman! I never ever claimed to provide a definition for human beings, but merely furnished a list of criteria that any human being must satisfy at least partially. To quote myself: "I argued that a fetus is not a human being because it satisfies none of the following conditions..." [In technical term, I gave a SUFFICIENT cause, not a NECESSARY cause]. So, no, I'm not saying dolphins are human. Pro has frequently taken the most uncharitable and downright contrary interpretation of my arguments. He doesn't respond to my strawman accusations except to tell you that I'm a "whiner"... but a strawman is a serious fallacy [1] that erodes the very foundations of debate. Newsflash: Debate requires 2 people to argue each other's opinions, not to argue imaginary attributed strawmen! Pro takes great delight in pointing out my "and/or" error, so let me return the favor! Here's one of Pro's sentences from R3: "I consider this attempt to contest the other component of murder -- willful intent and action -- IS ridiculous to claim is absent or below the legal definition of intent/motive that determines whether a death IS the result of pre-meditated intent to achieve the intended result of "death" / "termination" of a life, as I cannot see how the requisite decision by the mother, her request to the abortionist and the abortionist's actions resulting in the termination of the pregnancy could be construed as non-intentional actions." 'Arr, methinks I've caught the Moby Dick the Run-off Sentences! Pro claims that "hypothetically", a fetus could feel pain. I fail to understand why the "hypothetical" matters, since I provided non-hypothetical evidence in my last post that fetuses do not feel pain. Pro provides only 1 relevant rebuttal to my argument. He gives the unlikely example of a man in a coma who allegedly would satisfy all my conditions. However, even comatose patient have the ability to breathe, possess some traces of memory, possess some ability to feel pain, and/or possess an individual identity, although it might just be a residue of the patient's earlier life. =========== Pro, finally, brings up a positive argument as to why fetuses are human being: because they are alive, have unique human DNA, have separate identities, and will eventually develop into conscious human beings. I concede that fetuses are alive and have human DNAs. However, fetuses lack separate identities. They are merely a clump of cells inside the woman; they exist entirely inside her and depend solely on her for sustenance. Fetuses have as much an individual identity as a kidney or a virus has an individual identity. Let me give 2 common definitions of identity: "Identity is an umbrella term used throughout the social sciences to describe an individual's comprehension of him or herself as a discrete, separate entity."[2] "the distinct personality of an individual regarded as a persisting entity."[3] I will leave it to the readers to decide whether a fetus can have either a "comprehension of him or herself" or a "personality" of any sort, let alone a "distinct" one. ==================== REASONS TO VOTE FOR ME: (a) If fetuses are not human beings: I argued that fetuses are not human beings because they fail to satisfy even one of a list of intuitive criteria. They lack the ability to breathe, lack all memory and thought, lack the ability to feel pain, lack any social or individual identity. My argument for why fetuses aren't human beings was left unattacked because Pro burned strawmen. Admittedly, my R1 argument was unclear, but I made it sufficiently clear in later posts, such that Pro lacks excuses. Given that my argument about fetuses as not being a human being stands, abortion is not murder. (b) If fetuses have indeterminate status: Even if you reject my argument about fetuses as NOT being human persons, remember that apart from an attempt in R4 that I have rebutted, Pro has failed to show you why fetuses ARE human beings. Thus, the fetus is left with an indeterminate status, in which case I have demonstrated that abortion is not murder, until some later date where you may find out that the fetus is a human being. Furthermore, Pro himself labels the killing in such cases as "manslaughter", not murder. I thank Pro for a courteous and enjoyable debate. Though we got off to several false starts, perhaps it is to be expected if this is our first debate on abortion. I look forward to debating you in the future too! SOURCES: [1] A primer on strawmen: http://www.nizkor.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... (social_science) [3] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

Politics

Abortion-is-a-form-of-murder/1/

What else is there to say? I accept and good luck.

DakotaKrafick

What else is there to say? I accept and good luck.

Society

Abortion-is-generally-morally-wrong./1/

Thank you, johnnyis, for your very well-written response. My opponent's argument To remind the audience, this is the argument that my opponent shall be trying to defend and I shall be trying to refute over the course of the debate: 1. It is generally morally wrong to kill a newborn [human] baby. 2. There is no significant moral difference between a newborn human baby and a human zygote. 3. Abortion results in the killing of a human zygote. 4. Therefore, abortion is generally morally wrong. Once I add the missing "[human]" in premise one (which I shall since I'm such a nice guy), the argument becomes logically valid; that is to say if the premises are true, then the conclusion would necessarily have to be true as well. It's validity as an argument is not in question; it's soundness is. An argument is only sound when it meets two conditions: 1. Its conclusion logically follows from its premises (valid). and 2. Its premises are all true. My opponent's argument, however, is not sound, because one of its premises is untrue. The Untrue Premise Well, which premise isn't true, huh, smart guy? Surely it's not the first one. No, I would agree that it is generally morally wrong to kill a newborn human baby. Wouldn't this have been a more interesting debate if I disagreed with this one, though? The third premise is also unobjectionable; it simply defines what abortion is. It's the second premise that I have a problem with. To say that there is no morally significant difference between a zygote and a newborn baby raises the question "what exactly are your morals for?" The Moral Significance; Why is Murder Wrong? My opponent says it's prima facie wrong to kill an infant, which it is; the concept of murdering a fellow human being is undoubtedly deeply engraved into our very natures as being morally apprehensible. But I fear many people (my opponent included) do not take the time to bother asking "why". And when they do, they usually come up with something like "Well, it's just obvious. I mean, I wouldn't want to be murdered." But this question deserves much more than a nonchalant answer or a mere dismissal on the grounds that it's just "prima facie". Ask yourself seriously: why is it wrong to kill another human being? Is it also wrong to kill a sea urchin? If not, why not? The way I see it, there are only a few differences between a plankton and a human being: size, environment, and dependency. But none of these are morally significant differences, as you've said, johnnyis. Maybe I've neglected the most important difference of all: species. Maybe you think it's wrong to kill a human being just because it's a human being. If that's the case, Pro, then is it wrong to hurt a puppy? I'm sure your frontal cortex just lit up, saying "Of course it is", but do you even know why? This is the poor result of prioritizing intuition over logic, of being satisfied saying it's prima facie wrong to kill another human being instead of asking yourself why is it wrong to kill another human being? Alright, enough banter; it's time I said what needs to be said already. The most significant moral difference (perhaps the only difference even worth noting) between a zygote and a newborn baby, and between a puppy and a plankton, is sentience. Why is sentience morally significant? Is life an important attribute to take into account when discerning moral values? For instance, is it morally wrong to punch an inanimate object, such as an empty bucket? What about a bucket of water? A bucket half full of water? (Or is it half empty...? ) Obviously, it doesn't how much water this bucket has; it's not alive. So punch away, Rocky, you're not doing anything morally wrong. Clearly, if something isn't alive, there's no need to bother acting politely to it. You can tip your hat to as many rocks as you like, but none of them will so much as curtsy back. However, to say life is a deciding factor in moral values and obligations is to only understanding the issue halfway. At the risk of sounding temporarily barbaric, I would argue that it is morally acceptable to punch a housefly square in its tiny face, even though its alive . Why? Because it's not human, right, johnnysis? No. To say being human is a deciding factor in moral values and obligations is to be inequitably and unjustifiably selective. In all actuality, being human has very little, if anything at all, to do with it. The reason is because, essentially, punching a housefly is no different than punching a bucket. They both lack sentience, the cognitive functioning necessary to feel pain, pleasure, and everything in between. A housefly reflexively reacts to stimuli in its environment, but it is incapable of knowing pain, or even of being aware of its own existence. "Animated Matter" A life, such one like a housefly's, is what I will henceforth refer to as "animated matter". It is a species of animal, so is therefore categorized as "alive", but its existence is more known to us than it is to itself (and other houseflies). It never knows it's alive; it never knows pain; it never knows anything. For the sake of making the answering of moral questions simpler, a housefly might as well not be considered alive, though it biologically is of course. So punch away. It may seem, at the very least, odd for one to do so without prior instigation, but punching a housefly is not morally wrong. The principles of morality are not a guiding doctrine to keep things existing just because they exist (like a zygote), or just because they're alive, or just because they're human. Or any combination of the three. They are a guiding doctrine for us to avoid pain and promote happiness in the overall well-being of sentient creatures. That's why it's wrong to murder something: you cause it pain, physically and/or mentally, going against its want to live. That's why sentience is important; without the ability to feel pain, or be aware of your own existence, you're just animated matter. And that's why my opponent's second premise is untrue. A zygote is much smaller than even one foot on a housefly. It's smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. It lacks sentience and has never, at any point in its existence, been aware of its existence. It does not want to live, nor does it even have the capacity to want to live. Therefore, there are no morally negative consequences to terminating a zygote, aside from those that might arise as a byproduct of misplaces values. A zygote is merely animated matter, so punch away.

DakotaKrafick

Thank you, johnnyis, for your very well-written response. My opponent's argument To remind the audience, this is the argument that my opponent shall be trying to defend and I shall be trying to refute over the course of the debate: 1. It is generally morally wrong to kill a newborn [human] baby. 2. There is no significant moral difference between a newborn human baby and a human zygote. 3. Abortion results in the killing of a human zygote. 4. Therefore, abortion is generally morally wrong. Once I add the missing "[human]" in premise one (which I shall since I'm such a nice guy), the argument becomes logically valid; that is to say if the premises are true, then the conclusion would necessarily have to be true as well. It's validity as an argument is not in question; it's soundness is. An argument is only sound when it meets two conditions: 1. Its conclusion logically follows from its premises (valid). and 2. Its premises are all true. My opponent's argument, however, is not sound, because one of its premises is untrue. The Untrue Premise Well, which premise isn't true, huh, smart guy? Surely it's not the first one. No, I would agree that it is generally morally wrong to kill a newborn human baby. Wouldn't this have been a more interesting debate if I disagreed with this one, though? The third premise is also unobjectionable; it simply defines what abortion is. It's the second premise that I have a problem with. To say that there is no morally significant difference between a zygote and a newborn baby raises the question "what exactly are your morals for?" The Moral Significance; Why is Murder Wrong? My opponent says it's prima facie wrong to kill an infant, which it is; the concept of murdering a fellow human being is undoubtedly deeply engraved into our very natures as being morally apprehensible. But I fear many people (my opponent included) do not take the time to bother asking "why". And when they do, they usually come up with something like "Well, it's just obvious. I mean, I wouldn't want to be murdered." But this question deserves much more than a nonchalant answer or a mere dismissal on the grounds that it's just "prima facie". Ask yourself seriously: why is it wrong to kill another human being? Is it also wrong to kill a sea urchin? If not, why not? The way I see it, there are only a few differences between a plankton and a human being: size, environment, and dependency. But none of these are morally significant differences, as you've said, johnnyis. Maybe I've neglected the most important difference of all: species. Maybe you think it's wrong to kill a human being just because it's a human being. If that's the case, Pro, then is it wrong to hurt a puppy? I'm sure your frontal cortex just lit up, saying "Of course it is", but do you even know why? This is the poor result of prioritizing intuition over logic, of being satisfied saying it's prima facie wrong to kill another human being instead of asking yourself why is it wrong to kill another human being? Alright, enough banter; it's time I said what needs to be said already. The most significant moral difference (perhaps the only difference even worth noting) between a zygote and a newborn baby, and between a puppy and a plankton, is sentience. Why is sentience morally significant? Is life an important attribute to take into account when discerning moral values? For instance, is it morally wrong to punch an inanimate object, such as an empty bucket? What about a bucket of water? A bucket half full of water? (Or is it half empty...? ) Obviously, it doesn't how much water this bucket has; it's not alive. So punch away, Rocky, you're not doing anything morally wrong. Clearly, if something isn't alive, there's no need to bother acting politely to it. You can tip your hat to as many rocks as you like, but none of them will so much as curtsy back. However, to say life is a deciding factor in moral values and obligations is to only understanding the issue halfway. At the risk of sounding temporarily barbaric, I would argue that it is morally acceptable to punch a housefly square in its tiny face, even though its alive . Why? Because it's not human, right, johnnysis? No. To say being human is a deciding factor in moral values and obligations is to be inequitably and unjustifiably selective. In all actuality, being human has very little, if anything at all, to do with it. The reason is because, essentially, punching a housefly is no different than punching a bucket. They both lack sentience, the cognitive functioning necessary to feel pain, pleasure, and everything in between. A housefly reflexively reacts to stimuli in its environment, but it is incapable of knowing pain, or even of being aware of its own existence. "Animated Matter" A life, such one like a housefly's, is what I will henceforth refer to as "animated matter". It is a species of animal, so is therefore categorized as "alive", but its existence is more known to us than it is to itself (and other houseflies). It never knows it's alive; it never knows pain; it never knows anything. For the sake of making the answering of moral questions simpler, a housefly might as well not be considered alive, though it biologically is of course. So punch away. It may seem, at the very least, odd for one to do so without prior instigation, but punching a housefly is not morally wrong. The principles of morality are not a guiding doctrine to keep things existing just because they exist (like a zygote), or just because they're alive, or just because they're human. Or any combination of the three. They are a guiding doctrine for us to avoid pain and promote happiness in the overall well-being of sentient creatures. That's why it's wrong to murder something: you cause it pain, physically and/or mentally, going against its want to live. That's why sentience is important; without the ability to feel pain, or be aware of your own existence, you're just animated matter. And that's why my opponent's second premise is untrue. A zygote is much smaller than even one foot on a housefly. It's smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. It lacks sentience and has never, at any point in its existence, been aware of its existence. It does not want to live, nor does it even have the capacity to want to live. Therefore, there are no morally negative consequences to terminating a zygote, aside from those that might arise as a byproduct of misplaces values. A zygote is merely animated matter, so punch away.

Society

Abortion-is-generally-morally-wrong./1/

Thanks for your response, Pro. I'm confident my colony of nudists will be enough to squish your pesky mosquito (which is morally acceptable since it lacks sentience). Burning House Thought Experiment My opponent states this: "Con's question of the moral wrongness of harming a puppy demonstrates that this indeed is not the fact, or killing a puppy would be morally equivalent to murdering a human. This alone serves to demonstrate the insufficiency of Con's definition of morality." Pro, if you think I am unwilling or unprepared to defend the stance that hurting a puppy is equally as morally wrong as hurting a newborn human, you are mistaken. Admittedly, though, it is slightly irrelevant as my primary objection is that sentience is the most significant property to consider when asking questions of morality. You bring up the scenario, hypothetically if you're house was on fire, and you could only save one, which would you save: a newborn dog or a newborn human? Clearly, we inherit some rudimentary understanding of morality from birth, a byproduct of every social species as a means to perpetuate that species' survival. However, a significant aspect of thinking logically is to disregard what our intuition tells us, at least until that intuition can be logically justified. Our initial thought may be to save the human, but why ought we save the human over the puppy? Burning alive will cause just as much suffering in a puppy as a human. If we place more value in the human, it is either because our DNA wants to be passed on another generation, or because we recognize that the human has more practical value (it will one day be able to contribute to society), not necessarily more moral value. And before I move on from this point, tell me, Pro- if you were in a burning house and could save only one, which would you save: a newborn human or a zygote in a petri dish? Let's even grant the hypothetical case that if you save the petri dish, the zygote will be medically inserted into the womb of a woman and continue to grow naturally and safely. Hopefully, you would save the newborn since it will suffer horribly otherwise, while the zygote would not. More Thought Experiments (welcome to philosophy 101) Other than the above mentioned, my opponent spent a lot of words to raise one small objection to my moral significance, sentience: "A housefly has no potential to become sentient, while a zygote does." To prelude, let me just say I love moral thought experiments. It's very easy to come up with some truly absurd ones, and can be difficult to figure out what the "morally right" answers are. Let me share five similar, yet very distinguishable, moral thought experiments relating to the issue of abortion and sentience. 1. The man who will never wake up Imagine there was an adult, 25-or-so-years-old, who was hit by a semi-truck. Miraculously, he survived, but he now lies in a hospital bed in a state of comatose. In other words, he is not sentient; he cannot feel pain or pleasure or anything at all; he is unaware of his existence, he never dreams, and although his brain still sits in its skull in one piece, it never does anything worth writing home about. He will never awake from this comatose state and you know this. Is it morally acceptable to pull the plugs on whatever machines are keeping his heart beating? His family may not want this, since the flatlining of his heart monitor means his life is truly over, but an unbiased third party, such as the man's doctor, would say his life ended when the semi hit him. He may be technically, biologically alive, but his life has lost all value. It is not morally wrong to pull the plug on a brain-dead human being. After all, no harm is caused. 2. The man who will wake up But wait a minute. There is a difference between our hypothetical man and a fetus. The fetus will eventually "wake up" (that is to say it will gain sentience later in its development). So let's change the thought experiment a little. Let's say the man will wake up in a month or so, and we know this. Is it morally acceptable to pull the plug on him? I would say no. It can be said that while pulling the plug would have no negative consequences (it wouldn't cause the man pain or anything of the sort), leaving the machines running would have a positive consequence (the man will wake up). This is unlike the first scenario where leaving the machines running and pulling the plugs both have neither positive nor negative consequences (though it can be argued that a negative consequence of leaving the machines running is the wasted resources on a hopeless case). 3. The man who will wake up, but at a cost Well, if we're trying to be as accurate to the issue of abortion as possible, there is another discrepancy in our thought experiment. The man will wake up in a month, and we know this, but only at a cost: someone else must be severely hurt. This someone else must endure morning sicknesses, random nausea, fatigue (an inability to perform any physical labor, from heavy lifting to merely bending over), increased headaches, minor to severe back-pains, higher blood pressure (which could lead to other medical problems), hormonal changes, and all of this leads up the grand finale, the most physically painful phenomena a mammal's existence can endure: childbirth. Not to mention the huge financial strain the entire process will cost, and the permanent effects to physical appearance afterwards. Suppose, then, that no one volunteers themselves for this experience (hard to imagine, right?). Would it be morally acceptable to force someone to go through all of this pain in order to allow our non-sentient man become sentient? Of course not. To not force this upon someone has no negative consequences (again, the man will not feel pain; he will simply continue is existence as "animated matter", or biologically die, both of which are morally indistinguishable), while forcing pain upon someone for this purpose would have the positive consequence of the man becoming sentient and the negative consequence of this person enduring horrible pain. Is it morally right to prioritize the rights of the stranger over the rights of the brain-dead man? It is important to keep in mind that while one can become sentient, one already is sentient. In cases like this, I assert that the rights of a sentient being override the rights of a non-sentient being (even if that being has the potential to become sentient in the future). Therefore, I would say it is morally wrong to force someone to endure pain for the sake of the man becoming sentient. It prioritizes the rights of the non-sentient man higher than they ought to be, and causes unnecessary and unwanted suffering to an innocent person. 4. The man who will wake up, but at a cost to the one who caused it Okay, to be fair to the pro-lifers, there is yet another difference: this person who will have to suffer was the one who caused this man to be in a coma in the first place. He/she was the one driving the semi-truck who ran into him (ie, the one who got pregnant and created this fetus to begin with). Is it morally acceptable to force the one who caused this man's comatose state in the first place to suffer so that the man can regain his sentience? Actually, I'm unsure about the answer to this one, but it doesn't really matter, because there is another difference... 5. The man who will wake up, but at a cost to the one who caused it accidentally The one who hit him with the semi-truck did so accidentally (ie, failed contraceptives). Should this person be forced to suffer so the man can regain sentience even though it was an accident? No; we ought not to be held responsible for the consequences of actions that are out of our control. You could say she just shouldn't have had sex, but that's like saying the driver just shouldn't have been driving a semi. She shouldn't be held responsible for failed contraceptives anymore than the driver should be held responsible for failed brakes.

DakotaKrafick

Thanks for your response, Pro. I'm confident my colony of nudists will be enough to squish your pesky mosquito (which is morally acceptable since it lacks sentience). Burning House Thought Experiment My opponent states this: "Con’s question of the moral wrongness of harming a puppy demonstrates that this indeed is not the fact, or killing a puppy would be morally equivalent to murdering a human. This alone serves to demonstrate the insufficiency of Con’s definition of morality." Pro, if you think I am unwilling or unprepared to defend the stance that hurting a puppy is equally as morally wrong as hurting a newborn human, you are mistaken. Admittedly, though, it is slightly irrelevant as my primary objection is that sentience is the most significant property to consider when asking questions of morality. You bring up the scenario, hypothetically if you're house was on fire, and you could only save one, which would you save: a newborn dog or a newborn human? Clearly, we inherit some rudimentary understanding of morality from birth, a byproduct of every social species as a means to perpetuate that species' survival. However, a significant aspect of thinking logically is to disregard what our intuition tells us, at least until that intuition can be logically justified. Our initial thought may be to save the human, but why ought we save the human over the puppy? Burning alive will cause just as much suffering in a puppy as a human. If we place more value in the human, it is either because our DNA wants to be passed on another generation, or because we recognize that the human has more practical value (it will one day be able to contribute to society), not necessarily more moral value. And before I move on from this point, tell me, Pro– if you were in a burning house and could save only one, which would you save: a newborn human or a zygote in a petri dish? Let's even grant the hypothetical case that if you save the petri dish, the zygote will be medically inserted into the womb of a woman and continue to grow naturally and safely. Hopefully, you would save the newborn since it will suffer horribly otherwise, while the zygote would not. More Thought Experiments (welcome to philosophy 101) Other than the above mentioned, my opponent spent a lot of words to raise one small objection to my moral significance, sentience: "A housefly has no potential to become sentient, while a zygote does." To prelude, let me just say I love moral thought experiments. It's very easy to come up with some truly absurd ones, and can be difficult to figure out what the "morally right" answers are. Let me share five similar, yet very distinguishable, moral thought experiments relating to the issue of abortion and sentience. 1. The man who will never wake up Imagine there was an adult, 25-or-so-years-old, who was hit by a semi-truck. Miraculously, he survived, but he now lies in a hospital bed in a state of comatose. In other words, he is not sentient; he cannot feel pain or pleasure or anything at all; he is unaware of his existence, he never dreams, and although his brain still sits in its skull in one piece, it never does anything worth writing home about. He will never awake from this comatose state and you know this. Is it morally acceptable to pull the plugs on whatever machines are keeping his heart beating? His family may not want this, since the flatlining of his heart monitor means his life is truly over, but an unbiased third party, such as the man's doctor, would say his life ended when the semi hit him. He may be technically, biologically alive, but his life has lost all value. It is not morally wrong to pull the plug on a brain-dead human being. After all, no harm is caused. 2. The man who will wake up But wait a minute. There is a difference between our hypothetical man and a fetus. The fetus will eventually "wake up" (that is to say it will gain sentience later in its development). So let's change the thought experiment a little. Let's say the man will wake up in a month or so, and we know this. Is it morally acceptable to pull the plug on him? I would say no. It can be said that while pulling the plug would have no negative consequences (it wouldn't cause the man pain or anything of the sort), leaving the machines running would have a positive consequence (the man will wake up). This is unlike the first scenario where leaving the machines running and pulling the plugs both have neither positive nor negative consequences (though it can be argued that a negative consequence of leaving the machines running is the wasted resources on a hopeless case). 3. The man who will wake up, but at a cost Well, if we're trying to be as accurate to the issue of abortion as possible, there is another discrepancy in our thought experiment. The man will wake up in a month, and we know this, but only at a cost: someone else must be severely hurt. This someone else must endure morning sicknesses, random nausea, fatigue (an inability to perform any physical labor, from heavy lifting to merely bending over), increased headaches, minor to severe back-pains, higher blood pressure (which could lead to other medical problems), hormonal changes, and all of this leads up the grand finale, the most physically painful phenomena a mammal's existence can endure: childbirth. Not to mention the huge financial strain the entire process will cost, and the permanent effects to physical appearance afterwards. Suppose, then, that no one volunteers themselves for this experience (hard to imagine, right?). Would it be morally acceptable to force someone to go through all of this pain in order to allow our non-sentient man become sentient? Of course not. To not force this upon someone has no negative consequences (again, the man will not feel pain; he will simply continue is existence as "animated matter", or biologically die, both of which are morally indistinguishable), while forcing pain upon someone for this purpose would have the positive consequence of the man becoming sentient and the negative consequence of this person enduring horrible pain. Is it morally right to prioritize the rights of the stranger over the rights of the brain-dead man? It is important to keep in mind that while one can become sentient, one already is sentient. In cases like this, I assert that the rights of a sentient being override the rights of a non-sentient being (even if that being has the potential to become sentient in the future). Therefore, I would say it is morally wrong to force someone to endure pain for the sake of the man becoming sentient. It prioritizes the rights of the non-sentient man higher than they ought to be, and causes unnecessary and unwanted suffering to an innocent person. 4. The man who will wake up, but at a cost to the one who caused it Okay, to be fair to the pro-lifers, there is yet another difference: this person who will have to suffer was the one who caused this man to be in a coma in the first place. He/she was the one driving the semi-truck who ran into him (ie, the one who got pregnant and created this fetus to begin with). Is it morally acceptable to force the one who caused this man's comatose state in the first place to suffer so that the man can regain his sentience? Actually, I'm unsure about the answer to this one, but it doesn't really matter, because there is another difference... 5. The man who will wake up, but at a cost to the one who caused it accidentally The one who hit him with the semi-truck did so accidentally (ie, failed contraceptives). Should this person be forced to suffer so the man can regain sentience even though it was an accident? No; we ought not to be held responsible for the consequences of actions that are out of our control. You could say she just shouldn't have had sex, but that's like saying the driver just shouldn't have been driving a semi. She shouldn't be held responsible for failed contraceptives anymore than the driver should be held responsible for failed brakes.

Society

Abortion-is-generally-morally-wrong./1/

Thank you, Pro, for your response. Before I continue, let me just say it's been a lot of fun and I do look forward to seeing more of your work here on DDO in the future. With that said, and only one round left, let's wrap this up! Burning House Thought Experiment You say my answer to your question eluded you: do we save the newborn dog or the newborn human? I'm honestly not sure how I could have represented my stance any more palpably. Both of these two living things would suffer horribly when burning alive; it is, therefore, equally justified to save either one over the other. I'm glad, though, that you answered my follow-up question to this experiment. You said it was "less cruel" to save the newborn human than the zygote. This alone shows that you recognize there is a significant difference between the two when answering moral questions ( a fatal contradiction to your second premise ). However, you say this is more an act of mercy than a sign of its moral worth. I disagree, and unfortunately for your case, so did you. You yourself said as a reason for your answer "above all, do no harm". "Above all, do no harm" Beautiful moral compass there, Pro, and I completely agree. If we ought to consider anything when determining morally good courses of action, we ought to consider the harm it would cause or prevent. In fact, that's the exact definition of morality I gave, the one you (for some strange reason) have trouble considering valuable in this debate. You say my definition of morality is "question-begging", but with all due respect, it is certainly better than the nothing of a definition you never gave in the past three rounds. You said you had a problem with my definition on the basis that it is question-begging; in other words, because it promotes my case and refutes yours. However, after three rounds of never giving your own definition of morality, you finally gave one that coincides with mine. If we should, indeed, "above all, do no harm" then aborting a zygote is, at the very least, a morally acceptable course of action. It causes no harm to the zygote, and prevents future harm in the mother (see the great many things I listed in my third thought experiment). You have now admitted that avoidance of harm is, at least somewhat, a driving force behind your morality. Therefore, the capacity to experience harm (sentience) is a morally significant property. By your own words' betrayal, your argument falls; premise two has been refuted by the both of us. Comatose Thought Experiments You fail to see the relevancy of my thought experiments, or at least claim to. They are merely to illustrate the same moral principle you yourself conceded: "above all, do no harm". This is why it is not morally acceptable to force someone to endure suffering for the sake of a non-sentient being to become sentient. If that person volunteers to suffer, then fine, but it is morally acceptable to not do so. The Real Issue of Pregnancy Impatiently, it seems, you jump from my thought experiments to the real issue at hand: pregnancy. Fair enough; that's what we're here to discuss after all. You ask many questions, though, that you should already know my answers to. Firstly, though, you say "You should be held responsible for those consequences that you knew were not only possible, but the natural order of things, barring extrinsic circumstances (i.e., contraceptives)." Of course, you have to tag on that "barring contraceptives" bit, because we ought not be held accountable for accidents. Again, though, you defeat yourself. To exclude failed contraceptives in your argument is to say that abortion is "generally" morally acceptable, because more than one-half of all abortions occur from failed contraceptives (not failure to use contraceptives) [1][2]. Shotgun Argumentation This term ("shotgun argumentation") refers to when a debater bombards the other with a slew of questions, perhaps so he/she will be unable to answer them all in-depth. I will do my best in this case; however, Pro, you should already know the answers to many of these questions. 1. You ask is it okay to kill a child if that child is causing a burden to the mother's finances or career? No, it's not. For one, there are other options: you could put him up for adoption. For two, the child is sentient. You say level of development is not a morally significant difference between a zygote and a child, but I think you'll find you and I have both agreed that it is. 2. You then ask when does sentience begin? I'm not sure, and neither are you; but at least we can both agree that sentience is morally significant. However, it is quite evidence that a zygote is not sentient. 3. Again you ask when does sentience end (ie, when we sleep)? This is, first and foremost, grossly irrelevant to the debate at hand. However, another purpose of my five thought experiments was to dispel this ridiculous question. I already conceded that the potential for sentience is morally significant as well. It is not morally acceptable to kill a person in their sleep because that person will more than likely wake up, and we know this. However, in order for the zygote to "wake up", it must cause suffering in another human being (an already sentient human being). Above all, Pro, do no harm. 4. You then (as a side note) would love to hear my opinion on the fact that some research indicates other animals don't experience pain in the same way humans do. To this I have two things to say. One, your source ("reasonable faith") is biased. Two, the research only shows the animals are less conscious than we are (they do not understand they themselves are existing in a state of pain), not less sentient (they do still feel the pain). Conclusion You claim I didn't refute the soundness of your argument, but that's okay; even if I didn't, you did (on several points): 1. By conceded that avoidance of harm is an aspect of your morality, you concede abortion is not morally wrong (as it avoids more harm than it causes, which is none). 2. By excluding all cases of abortion that arose due to failed contraceptives as morally wrong, you admit that abortion is not generally morally wrong (as abortions are generally the result of failed contraceptives). Again, johnnyis, it's been a blast. Thank you for debating this with me, and thank you, members of the audience, for reading. Please consider both of our arguments carefully and vote accordingly. Sources [1] <URL>... ;(contraceptive use pattern) [2] <URL>...

DakotaKrafick

Thank you, Pro, for your response. Before I continue, let me just say it's been a lot of fun and I do look forward to seeing more of your work here on DDO in the future. With that said, and only one round left, let's wrap this up! Burning House Thought Experiment You say my answer to your question eluded you: do we save the newborn dog or the newborn human? I'm honestly not sure how I could have represented my stance any more palpably. Both of these two living things would suffer horribly when burning alive; it is, therefore, equally justified to save either one over the other. I'm glad, though, that you answered my follow-up question to this experiment. You said it was "less cruel" to save the newborn human than the zygote. This alone shows that you recognize there is a significant difference between the two when answering moral questions ( a fatal contradiction to your second premise ). However, you say this is more an act of mercy than a sign of its moral worth. I disagree, and unfortunately for your case, so did you. You yourself said as a reason for your answer "above all, do no harm". "Above all, do no harm" Beautiful moral compass there, Pro, and I completely agree. If we ought to consider anything when determining morally good courses of action, we ought to consider the harm it would cause or prevent. In fact, that's the exact definition of morality I gave, the one you (for some strange reason) have trouble considering valuable in this debate. You say my definition of morality is "question-begging", but with all due respect, it is certainly better than the nothing of a definition you never gave in the past three rounds. You said you had a problem with my definition on the basis that it is question-begging; in other words, because it promotes my case and refutes yours. However, after three rounds of never giving your own definition of morality, you finally gave one that coincides with mine. If we should, indeed, "above all, do no harm" then aborting a zygote is, at the very least, a morally acceptable course of action. It causes no harm to the zygote, and prevents future harm in the mother (see the great many things I listed in my third thought experiment). You have now admitted that avoidance of harm is, at least somewhat, a driving force behind your morality. Therefore, the capacity to experience harm (sentience) is a morally significant property. By your own words' betrayal, your argument falls; premise two has been refuted by the both of us. Comatose Thought Experiments You fail to see the relevancy of my thought experiments, or at least claim to. They are merely to illustrate the same moral principle you yourself conceded: "above all, do no harm". This is why it is not morally acceptable to force someone to endure suffering for the sake of a non-sentient being to become sentient. If that person volunteers to suffer, then fine, but it is morally acceptable to not do so. The Real Issue of Pregnancy Impatiently, it seems, you jump from my thought experiments to the real issue at hand: pregnancy. Fair enough; that's what we're here to discuss after all. You ask many questions, though, that you should already know my answers to. Firstly, though, you say "You should be held responsible for those consequences that you knew were not only possible, but the natural order of things, barring extrinsic circumstances (i.e., contraceptives)." Of course, you have to tag on that "barring contraceptives" bit, because we ought not be held accountable for accidents. Again, though, you defeat yourself. To exclude failed contraceptives in your argument is to say that abortion is "generally" morally acceptable, because more than one-half of all abortions occur from failed contraceptives (not failure to use contraceptives) [1][2]. Shotgun Argumentation This term ("shotgun argumentation") refers to when a debater bombards the other with a slew of questions, perhaps so he/she will be unable to answer them all in-depth. I will do my best in this case; however, Pro, you should already know the answers to many of these questions. 1. You ask is it okay to kill a child if that child is causing a burden to the mother's finances or career? No, it's not. For one, there are other options: you could put him up for adoption. For two, the child is sentient. You say level of development is not a morally significant difference between a zygote and a child, but I think you'll find you and I have both agreed that it is. 2. You then ask when does sentience begin? I'm not sure, and neither are you; but at least we can both agree that sentience is morally significant. However, it is quite evidence that a zygote is not sentient. 3. Again you ask when does sentience end (ie, when we sleep)? This is, first and foremost, grossly irrelevant to the debate at hand. However, another purpose of my five thought experiments was to dispel this ridiculous question. I already conceded that the potential for sentience is morally significant as well. It is not morally acceptable to kill a person in their sleep because that person will more than likely wake up, and we know this. However, in order for the zygote to "wake up", it must cause suffering in another human being (an already sentient human being). Above all, Pro, do no harm. 4. You then (as a side note) would love to hear my opinion on the fact that some research indicates other animals don't experience pain in the same way humans do. To this I have two things to say. One, your source ("reasonable faith") is biased. Two, the research only shows the animals are less conscious than we are (they do not understand they themselves are existing in a state of pain), not less sentient (they do still feel the pain). Conclusion You claim I didn't refute the soundness of your argument, but that's okay; even if I didn't, you did (on several points): 1. By conceded that avoidance of harm is an aspect of your morality, you concede abortion is not morally wrong (as it avoids more harm than it causes, which is none). 2. By excluding all cases of abortion that arose due to failed contraceptives as morally wrong, you admit that abortion is not generally morally wrong (as abortions are generally the result of failed contraceptives). Again, johnnyis, it's been a blast. Thank you for debating this with me, and thank you, members of the audience, for reading. Please consider both of our arguments carefully and vote accordingly. Sources [1] http://www.guttmacher.org... ;(contraceptive use pattern) [2] http://www.lifenews.com...

Society

Abortion-is-generally-morally-wrong./1/

I am extremely angry with people like yourself. You are a man and act as if you know what it is to be a woman. You discuss life while being uninvolved in the creation for more than a good night of sex. As a male myself, I would never be ignorant nor arrogant enough to pose as one who knows what it is to be a woman yet you act as if you do. I agree that abortion is the destruction of life but I disagree that it is immoral. Definitions Abortion[1]: The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks. Immoral[2]: N ot conforming to accepted standards of morality. Morality[3]: P rinciples concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. Good[4]: T o be desired or approved of. Bad[5]: N ot such as to be hoped for or desired; unpleasant or unwelcome. Behaviour[6]: T he way in which an animal or person behaves in response to a particular situation or stimulus. C=Contention and A= argument so I prefer to use C. C#1: A fetus is not a "person" so can't have rights protecting it from abortion: Is terminating a fetus, which can neither feel emotions nor be conscious of its own "existence," really be considered equivalent to killing a "person?" Some define personhood (qualifying for rights) through a set of criteria. A being need not exhibit every criterion to qualify as a person, but failure to exhibit most is proposed as disqualification. One list includes consciousness (at least the capacity to feel pain), reasoning, self motivation, the ability to communicate on many possible topics, and self-awareness. Lists like this are intended to help someone be able to objectively distinguish between a biological human and a person. An embryo is not a person because it satisfies only one criterion, namely consciousness (and this only after it becomes susceptible to pain). Other sets of criteria conclude that an embryo lacks personhood (and a right to life) because it lacks self-consciousness, rationality, and autonomy. These lists diverge over precisely which features confer a right to life, but tend to propose that they are developed psychological features not found in embryos. C#2: The fetus causes physical pain; the woman has a right to self-defense. The fetus causes sickness, discomfort, and and extreme pain to a woman during her pregnancy and labor. It is, therefore, justifiable for a woman to pursue an abortion in self-defense. C#3: There is no inviolable "right to life" in abortion and other cases. It is clear that the notion of "the right to life" can sometimes be violated for certain ends. This is the case in sending soldiers to war. So as in abortion, it can be justified to kill a fetus under certain circumstances. C#4: No woman "wants" an abortion; it is only the least bad alternative: Women do not "want" abortions. They find themselves in a position in which abortion is the less bad between bad alternatives. This argument is important in explaining that abortion is not about a malicious desire to "kill babies" or even to express their right to choose; it is about allowing women to make the best choice that they can. C#5: Abortion must be justified in cases of impregnation by rape: Woman, and in some cases girls, who have been raped should not have to suffer the additional torment of being pregnant with the product of that ordeal. To force a woman to produce a living, constant reminder of that act is unfair on both mother and child. C#6: If women (not men) are solely burdened by pregnancy, they must have a choice. Men are dominant in their ability to impregnate a woman, but carry no responsibilities afterward. If woman carry the entire burden of pregnancy, they must have a choice. C#7: It is odd to defend the dignity of a fetus over a child-rearer: There is a peculiar double standard being applied by opponents of abortion. The dignity of the fetus is glorified, while the dignity of the child-rearer is seemingly ignored and even trampled. This is particularly concerning when more men appear to support abortion than woman; it appears that men are more willing to trample the child-bearer (a woman) than the child. C#8: Abortion is just when birth control fails (involuntary impregnation): If a woman does not voluntarily choose to seek a pregnancy, it is impossible for a fetus to have any claim over the woman's body. Only when the woman participates voluntarily in creating a life, does she open the door to any responsibilities to the fetus or to any rights that the fetus may have over the mother. If a pregnancy is a result of an accident (the failure of birth control), it cannot be called voluntary. Therefore, the fetus cannot be said to have any rights over the mother's body, and abortion can be said to be justified. C#9: Abortion is justified when the fetus is certain to suffer and die from a disability: Finally, due to advances in medical technology it is possible to determine during pregnancy whether the child will be disabled. In cases of severe disability, in which the child would have a very short, very painful and tragic life, it is surely the right course of action to allow the parents to choose a termination. This avoids both the suffering of the parents and of the child. C#10: Poor women are disproportionately deprived choice when abortion is illegal. Poor woman are most susceptible to circumstances in which abortion is necessary. If abortion is illegal, therefore, this socio-economic group will be disproportionately affected. C#11: Abortion might forestall the potential birth of another Hitler. This is a counter-argument to the notion that abortion could have wiped out some of the greatest social contributors in history; it also could have wiped out some of the worst individuals in history. C#12: If a fetus was defined as a "person", the legal shifts would be too dramatic: No abortions would be permitted for any reason, including rape or incest. Each miscarriage would have to be investigated. The legal consequences of such an amendment would be massive. Sources: [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>... [6] <URL>...

RationalMadman

I am extremely angry with people like yourself. You are a man and act as if you know what it is to be a woman. You discuss life while being uninvolved in the creation for more than a good night of sex. As a male myself, I would never be ignorant nor arrogant enough to pose as one who knows what it is to be a woman yet you act as if you do. I agree that abortion is the destruction of life but I disagree that it is immoral. Definitions Abortion[1]: The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks. Immoral[2]: N ot conforming to accepted standards of morality. Morality[3]: P rinciples concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. Good[4]: T o be desired or approved of. Bad[5]: N ot such as to be hoped for or desired; unpleasant or unwelcome. Behaviour[6]: T he way in which an animal or person behaves in response to a particular situation or stimulus. C=Contention and A= argument so I prefer to use C. C#1: A fetus is not a "person" so can't have rights protecting it from abortion: Is terminating a fetus, which can neither feel emotions nor be conscious of its own "existence," really be considered equivalent to killing a "person?" Some define personhood (qualifying for rights) through a set of criteria. A being need not exhibit every criterion to qualify as a person, but failure to exhibit most is proposed as disqualification. One list includes consciousness (at least the capacity to feel pain), reasoning, self motivation, the ability to communicate on many possible topics, and self-awareness. Lists like this are intended to help someone be able to objectively distinguish between a biological human and a person. An embryo is not a person because it satisfies only one criterion, namely consciousness (and this only after it becomes susceptible to pain). Other sets of criteria conclude that an embryo lacks personhood (and a right to life) because it lacks self-consciousness, rationality, and autonomy. These lists diverge over precisely which features confer a right to life, but tend to propose that they are developed psychological features not found in embryos. C#2: The fetus causes physical pain; the woman has a right to self-defense. The fetus causes sickness, discomfort, and and extreme pain to a woman during her pregnancy and labor. It is, therefore, justifiable for a woman to pursue an abortion in self-defense. C#3: There is no inviolable "right to life" in abortion and other cases. It is clear that the notion of "the right to life" can sometimes be violated for certain ends. This is the case in sending soldiers to war. So as in abortion, it can be justified to kill a fetus under certain circumstances. C#4: No woman "wants" an abortion; it is only the least bad alternative: Women do not "want" abortions. They find themselves in a position in which abortion is the less bad between bad alternatives. This argument is important in explaining that abortion is not about a malicious desire to "kill babies" or even to express their right to choose; it is about allowing women to make the best choice that they can. C#5: Abortion must be justified in cases of impregnation by rape: Woman, and in some cases girls, who have been raped should not have to suffer the additional torment of being pregnant with the product of that ordeal. To force a woman to produce a living, constant reminder of that act is unfair on both mother and child. C#6: If women (not men) are solely burdened by pregnancy, they must have a choice. Men are dominant in their ability to impregnate a woman, but carry no responsibilities afterward. If woman carry the entire burden of pregnancy, they must have a choice. C#7: It is odd to defend the dignity of a fetus over a child-rearer: There is a peculiar double standard being applied by opponents of abortion. The dignity of the fetus is glorified, while the dignity of the child-rearer is seemingly ignored and even trampled. This is particularly concerning when more men appear to support abortion than woman; it appears that men are more willing to trample the child-bearer (a woman) than the child. C#8: Abortion is just when birth control fails (involuntary impregnation): If a woman does not voluntarily choose to seek a pregnancy, it is impossible for a fetus to have any claim over the woman's body. Only when the woman participates voluntarily in creating a life, does she open the door to any responsibilities to the fetus or to any rights that the fetus may have over the mother. If a pregnancy is a result of an accident (the failure of birth control), it cannot be called voluntary. Therefore, the fetus cannot be said to have any rights over the mother's body, and abortion can be said to be justified. C#9: Abortion is justified when the fetus is certain to suffer and die from a disability: Finally, due to advances in medical technology it is possible to determine during pregnancy whether the child will be disabled. In cases of severe disability, in which the child would have a very short, very painful and tragic life, it is surely the right course of action to allow the parents to choose a termination. This avoids both the suffering of the parents and of the child. C#10: Poor women are disproportionately deprived choice when abortion is illegal. Poor woman are most susceptible to circumstances in which abortion is necessary. If abortion is illegal, therefore, this socio-economic group will be disproportionately affected. C#11: Abortion might forestall the potential birth of another Hitler. This is a counter-argument to the notion that abortion could have wiped out some of the greatest social contributors in history; it also could have wiped out some of the worst individuals in history. C#12: If a fetus was defined as a "person", the legal shifts would be too dramatic: No abortions would be permitted for any reason, including rape or incest. Each miscarriage would have to be investigated. The legal consequences of such an amendment would be massive. Sources: [1] http://oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://oxforddictionaries.com... [3] http://oxforddictionaries.com... [4] http://oxforddictionaries.com... [5] http://oxforddictionaries.com... [6] http://oxforddictionaries.com...

Society

Abortion-is-immoral-and-the-destruction-of-life./1/

All your rebuttals are wrong. Firstly I shall discuss the issues you bring up in your round one debate, then the new 'A5' raised in round two as well as countering your rebuttals. IRRELEVANT A#1: Life starts the moment the sperm meets the egg, a cell is alive, thus your determination of when life starts is truly irrelevant for every cell is split up (hence killed) in order to reproduce via mitosis, it is how we grow, old cells die to produce newer cells in larger quantity. The heart is merely one organ made of many living cells thus every cell was alive even before it began 'beating'. there is nothing special about the heartbeat. NOT EVEN AN ARGUMENT FOR PRO A#2: You state that it is immoral and the destruction of life. How is it not being murder even deserving of being your second argument? It's not even relevant for your side of the debate. Need for clarification A#3: What exactly is your point here? The doctor hurts the foetus? Does the foetus even know it exists? Can it even consciously register its pain? IRRELEVANT A#4: Yes, there are alternatives to abortion. Yes there is the option of adoption. However, this is not a valid argument to prove that abortion is immoral, only that it is one of many alternatives, not that it in itself is immoral. THE HYPOCRISY ALMOST MADE ME LAUGH A#5: "The destruction of life is immoral" Have you ever heard of the meat industry? The vegetable industry? the food industry? The cases of transplant where a pig is killed for a heart? The self-defence laws regarding a murderer being found not guilty if it was done in self-defence? Every single part of a human society displays that if we benefit, taking life is not necessarily immoral, your point is so ridiculously reliant on emotion that it throws all logic out of the window. The fact that you followed up the statement "The destruction of life is immoral" with the remark "Even if a person or group of people benefits from that destruction" Shows me how ignorant you are. Are you saying all wars, all police who shoot the criminal to death due to weapon raising and perhaps all people who put down their dog to save its suffering are immoral? Well then you surely have a great burden of proof on your part. Countering Rebuttals C#1: "A fetus can begin feeling pain as early as 20 weeks." there is no more sign of a foetus showing pain than there is an ant, and believe me when you step on an ant it writhes in agony, even runs faster to overcome the pain, thus are you suggesting the foetus is equal to an ant? There is no evidence that bacteria don't feel pain, should we stop all acts of hygiene? You then go on to say "If a living person is unconscious, unreasoning, unmotivated, uncommunicative, and unaware; they still have a right to life . " Well no they don't. The issue with a four to five year old is that the duty of the parent is to save it by law. The issue of the person under anesthesia is that the surgeon has the duty to save this person's life, duty by profession and duty by law. It is the same with any scenario you can give me regarding a person in such a helpless state, any medic has a duty thus it is not about morality but about legal and professional duty to save a person's life. Also this doesn't even slightly succeed in countering my point that a foetus is not a person. C#2: Someone at my work is not the issue, the virus is. Thus killing the virus is ethical and hence I try to do it (usually by merely leaving my immune system to do the job for me). It is totally different when the foetus itself is causing the physical deterioration and pain. A baby is out of the body, not a part of it so you can't really compare the two. C#3: You have a burden of proof to prove that all wars are immoral and that governments of all nations that ever went to war were morally incorrect to do so. You also have to prove that bacterium have a right to life which we violate by using soap. If you can't prove this then there is no intrinsic right to life. C#4: It's not immoral. It's just better than the alternative scenario, often in places where the woman is burdened with a raped baby in a place of extreme poverty. C#5: Rape is related to this debate. Nowhere in your conditions for debate did you state that rape was not included. I Think you should concede this rebuttal and try again. C#6: I think you should research father's leaving the mother alone with the baby, as is very common in less economically developed regions of this world. The mother is often left with either aborting the baby or raising it in poverty, not all countries allow adoption in poor areas, especially rural ones. C#7: I think you didn't read my point properly. I shall repeat it. There is a peculiar double standard being applied by opponents of abortion. The dignity of the fetus is glorified, while the dignity of the child-rearer is seemingly ignored and even trampled. This is particularly concerning when more men appear to support abortion than woman; it appears that men are more willing to trample the child-bearer (a woman) than the child. Read it this time and please realise why this is a strong point countering the false concept of the immorality of abortion. C#8: Condoms that break or have even the smallest tear also often led to unplanned pregnancy. Causes of condom damage include improper use, inadequate use of a water-based lubricant, using condoms past the expiration date, improper storage. Jewellery, fingernails, and other objects may create tiny tears in condoms that render them ineffective. If condoms are your choice in contraception, make sure to use a vaginal spermicide to decrease your risk of unplanned pregnancy should condom damage occur. For a given individual, it's difficult to know why her birth control might have failed. Skipping pills is certainly a common reason. But some people also metabolize the pill more quickly than others, which results in the medication being cleared more quickly from the body. Certain medications, particularly the tuberculosis-treatment drug rifampin, can potentially interfere with pill metabolism. Body weight could also have an effect. Barbieri says that birth control pills are not tested on women who are obese, and some observational studies of women taking the pill have detected a slightly higher failure rate in those women.[1] How do you justify these cases of failure? Stop thinking that contraception is 100% effective, it is not. If you are suggesting not having sex at all then you have a very big burden of proof as to why this should be the case. C#9: I didn't say the foetus doesn't come to term. I said foetus comes to term but would die from a severe disability. C#10: You didn't address my point. Poor woman are most susceptible to circumstances in which abortion is necessary. If abortion is illegal, therefore, this socio-economic group will be disproportionately affected. THEREFORE ABORTION IS NOT IMMORAL! C#11: This was merely a contention to oppose a possible one you would raise. C#12: If it can't be implemented as a law how can it be moral? Are you suggesting having an immoral law system? Sources: [1] <URL>...

RationalMadman

All your rebuttals are wrong. Firstly I shall discuss the issues you bring up in your round one debate, then the new 'A5' raised in round two as well as countering your rebuttals. IRRELEVANT A#1: Life starts the moment the sperm meets the egg, a cell is alive, thus your determination of when life starts is truly irrelevant for every cell is split up (hence killed) in order to reproduce via mitosis, it is how we grow, old cells die to produce newer cells in larger quantity. The heart is merely one organ made of many living cells thus every cell was alive even before it began 'beating'. there is nothing special about the heartbeat. NOT EVEN AN ARGUMENT FOR PRO A#2: You state that it is immoral and the destruction of life. How is it not being murder even deserving of being your second argument? It's not even relevant for your side of the debate. Need for clarification A#3: What exactly is your point here? The doctor hurts the foetus? Does the foetus even know it exists? Can it even consciously register its pain? IRRELEVANT A#4: Yes, there are alternatives to abortion. Yes there is the option of adoption. However, this is not a valid argument to prove that abortion is immoral, only that it is one of many alternatives, not that it in itself is immoral. THE HYPOCRISY ALMOST MADE ME LAUGH A#5: "The destruction of life is immoral" Have you ever heard of the meat industry? The vegetable industry? the food industry? The cases of transplant where a pig is killed for a heart? The self-defence laws regarding a murderer being found not guilty if it was done in self-defence? Every single part of a human society displays that if we benefit, taking life is not necessarily immoral, your point is so ridiculously reliant on emotion that it throws all logic out of the window. The fact that you followed up the statement "The destruction of life is immoral" with the remark "Even if a person or group of people benefits from that destruction" Shows me how ignorant you are. Are you saying all wars, all police who shoot the criminal to death due to weapon raising and perhaps all people who put down their dog to save its suffering are immoral? Well then you surely have a great burden of proof on your part. Countering Rebuttals C#1: "A fetus can begin feeling pain as early as 20 weeks." there is no more sign of a foetus showing pain than there is an ant, and believe me when you step on an ant it writhes in agony, even runs faster to overcome the pain, thus are you suggesting the foetus is equal to an ant? There is no evidence that bacteria don't feel pain, should we stop all acts of hygiene? You then go on to say "If a living person is unconscious, unreasoning, unmotivated, uncommunicative, and unaware; they still have a right to life . " Well no they don't. The issue with a four to five year old is that the duty of the parent is to save it by law. The issue of the person under anesthesia is that the surgeon has the duty to save this person's life, duty by profession and duty by law. It is the same with any scenario you can give me regarding a person in such a helpless state, any medic has a duty thus it is not about morality but about legal and professional duty to save a person's life. Also this doesn't even slightly succeed in countering my point that a foetus is not a person. C#2: Someone at my work is not the issue, the virus is. Thus killing the virus is ethical and hence I try to do it (usually by merely leaving my immune system to do the job for me). It is totally different when the foetus itself is causing the physical deterioration and pain. A baby is out of the body, not a part of it so you can't really compare the two. C#3: You have a burden of proof to prove that all wars are immoral and that governments of all nations that ever went to war were morally incorrect to do so. You also have to prove that bacterium have a right to life which we violate by using soap. If you can't prove this then there is no intrinsic right to life. C#4: It's not immoral. It's just better than the alternative scenario, often in places where the woman is burdened with a raped baby in a place of extreme poverty. C#5: Rape is related to this debate. Nowhere in your conditions for debate did you state that rape was not included. I Think you should concede this rebuttal and try again. C#6: I think you should research father's leaving the mother alone with the baby, as is very common in less economically developed regions of this world. The mother is often left with either aborting the baby or raising it in poverty, not all countries allow adoption in poor areas, especially rural ones. C#7: I think you didn't read my point properly. I shall repeat it. There is a peculiar double standard being applied by opponents of abortion. The dignity of the fetus is glorified, while the dignity of the child-rearer is seemingly ignored and even trampled. This is particularly concerning when more men appear to support abortion than woman; it appears that men are more willing to trample the child-bearer (a woman) than the child. Read it this time and please realise why this is a strong point countering the false concept of the immorality of abortion. C#8: Condoms that break or have even the smallest tear also often led to unplanned pregnancy. Causes of condom damage include improper use, inadequate use of a water-based lubricant, using condoms past the expiration date, improper storage. Jewellery, fingernails, and other objects may create tiny tears in condoms that render them ineffective. If condoms are your choice in contraception, make sure to use a vaginal spermicide to decrease your risk of unplanned pregnancy should condom damage occur. For a given individual, it’s difficult to know why her birth control might have failed. Skipping pills is certainly a common reason. But some people also metabolize the pill more quickly than others, which results in the medication being cleared more quickly from the body. Certain medications, particularly the tuberculosis-treatment drug rifampin, can potentially interfere with pill metabolism. Body weight could also have an effect. Barbieri says that birth control pills are not tested on women who are obese, and some observational studies of women taking the pill have detected a slightly higher failure rate in those women.[1] How do you justify these cases of failure? Stop thinking that contraception is 100% effective, it is not. If you are suggesting not having sex at all then you have a very big burden of proof as to why this should be the case. C#9: I didn't say the foetus doesn't come to term. I said foetus comes to term but would die from a severe disability. C#10: You didn't address my point. Poor woman are most susceptible to circumstances in which abortion is necessary. If abortion is illegal, therefore, this socio-economic group will be disproportionately affected. THEREFORE ABORTION IS NOT IMMORAL! C#11: This was merely a contention to oppose a possible one you would raise. C#12: If it can't be implemented as a law how can it be moral? Are you suggesting having an immoral law system? Sources: [1] http://www.boston.com...

Society

Abortion-is-immoral-and-the-destruction-of-life./1/

Right well you seem to think that humans have a 'right to life' but cells that make us up do not. Justify this.

RationalMadman

Right well you seem to think that humans have a 'right to life' but cells that make us up do not. Justify this.

Society

Abortion-is-immoral-and-the-destruction-of-life./1/

Look: If the mum has been raped, it's okay (according to you). If the mum would die to have baby it's okay(according to you). But if the mum would have to miss months of work for maternity leave, be weak to the knees and covered in her own sick because she is in the slums of India or any country where this occurs then it's not okay according to you. If she decided to take one sad night out of her working life and have sex with her boyfriend and perhaps was in a country where contraception was like gold and a bowl of rice was the only thing she could afford then if her man didn't pull out in time she has to be burdened with it? I don't appreciate your morality, and I think you need to understand just how harsh some women live. They never had the chance to know about contraception, they might have been barely legal age-wise or perhaps felt like getting dominated but then it felt too good to stop. Why do we do any medical procedure? Why do we save people who jump off a building due to being drunk, after all it's their fault for being drunk, why do we bother to help anyone? This is the key error in your moral system, you think ALL abortions should have the same moral reading, in fact this is not only naive but rather ignorant as a world view. If killing is wrong, then should we just not fight any wars? Let terrorists take over? Foolish in every regard has your debate been so far. You don't understand that pregnancy itself is very damaging, there are women who eat so little that pregnancy won't kill them, in fact they can't afford having this tested, all they know is if they have the baby all the 9 months they'll probably be exhausted and collapse by the end. Just consider what you are talking about.

RationalMadman

Look: If the mum has been raped, it's okay (according to you). If the mum would die to have baby it's okay(according to you). But if the mum would have to miss months of work for maternity leave, be weak to the knees and covered in her own sick because she is in the slums of India or any country where this occurs then it's not okay according to you. If she decided to take one sad night out of her working life and have sex with her boyfriend and perhaps was in a country where contraception was like gold and a bowl of rice was the only thing she could afford then if her man didn't pull out in time she has to be burdened with it? I don't appreciate your morality, and I think you need to understand just how harsh some women live. They never had the chance to know about contraception, they might have been barely legal age-wise or perhaps felt like getting dominated but then it felt too good to stop. Why do we do any medical procedure? Why do we save people who jump off a building due to being drunk, after all it's their fault for being drunk, why do we bother to help anyone? This is the key error in your moral system, you think ALL abortions should have the same moral reading, in fact this is not only naive but rather ignorant as a world view. If killing is wrong, then should we just not fight any wars? Let terrorists take over? Foolish in every regard has your debate been so far. You don't understand that pregnancy itself is very damaging, there are women who eat so little that pregnancy won't kill them, in fact they can't afford having this tested, all they know is if they have the baby all the 9 months they'll probably be exhausted and collapse by the end. Just consider what you are talking about.

Society

Abortion-is-immoral-and-the-destruction-of-life./1/

This debate is for Freeman's tournament. This first round serves as an introduction, definitions, and parameters. My opponent can decide to start his arguments in his first round, or wait for subsequent rounds. Abortion will refer to the intentional termination of a human pregnancy. Furthermore, I will focus on first trimester abortions exclusively as the vast majority of abortions are of such. The issue of later abortions get more complicated due to the development of certain biological features - I want to focus the debate on a few primary ethical considerations. I will hope that my opponent shares the same presupposition of moral realism as I do, but he need not to. I just want to focus on having a discussion about abortion in the foray of normative ethics, not having to change this conversation into a meta-ethical or even epistemological discussion. But of course, it is ultimately up to my opponent's decision. Let's have a good debate.

TheSkeptic

This debate is for Freeman's tournament. This first round serves as an introduction, definitions, and parameters. My opponent can decide to start his arguments in his first round, or wait for subsequent rounds. Abortion will refer to the intentional termination of a human pregnancy. Furthermore, I will focus on first trimester abortions exclusively as the vast majority of abortions are of such. The issue of later abortions get more complicated due to the development of certain biological features - I want to focus the debate on a few primary ethical considerations. I will hope that my opponent shares the same presupposition of moral realism as I do, but he need not to. I just want to focus on having a discussion about abortion in the foray of normative ethics, not having to change this conversation into a meta-ethical or even epistemological discussion. But of course, it is ultimately up to my opponent's decision. Let's have a good debate.

Philosophy

Abortion-is-morally-permissible/2/

My argument for abortion is simple: fetus' are not persons in the sense of being morally relevant entities. The reasoning for this is that they have not psychologically developed to be entitled with rights to life and so forth. I'm incapable of giving a precise set of conditions that qualify as personhood characteristics, but I'd argue that personhood is most likely founded on a psychological account (i.e. appealing to consciousness, ability to reason, etc.). Given that abortions deal with subjects that clearly fail most if not all of these conditions, abortion is morally permissible. The job, then, is to show that my account of personhood is suitable. I'd argue a psychological account is the most likely case as it best explains issues of personal identity/personhood, and thus a psychological approach to be most plausible. It is able to answer most issues relating to identity such as the classic connundrum of what happens if your brain were to be swapped into another organism. Or the memory criterion attributed to Locke; it serves as a significant test for a criteria to be a person. The psychological approach pays special heed to mental properties fetuses' wouldn't have, providing ample ground for my position.

TheSkeptic

My argument for abortion is simple: fetus' are not persons in the sense of being morally relevant entities. The reasoning for this is that they have not psychologically developed to be entitled with rights to life and so forth. I'm incapable of giving a precise set of conditions that qualify as personhood characteristics, but I'd argue that personhood is most likely founded on a psychological account (i.e. appealing to consciousness, ability to reason, etc.). Given that abortions deal with subjects that clearly fail most if not all of these conditions, abortion is morally permissible. The job, then, is to show that my account of personhood is suitable. I'd argue a psychological account is the most likely case as it best explains issues of personal identity/personhood, and thus a psychological approach to be most plausible. It is able to answer most issues relating to identity such as the classic connundrum of what happens if your brain were to be swapped into another organism. Or the memory criterion attributed to Locke; it serves as a significant test for a criteria to be a person. The psychological approach pays special heed to mental properties fetuses' wouldn't have, providing ample ground for my position.

Philosophy

Abortion-is-morally-permissible/2/

My opponent provides proposed counterexamples to my adherence to a psychological theory of personhood - he uses the cases of people in comas, amnesia, etc. Furthermore, he seems to hold the case that being a 'human' is sufficient to be a 'person'. I'll start with the latter contention. "I will be arguing that fetuses are persons in that they are human...Abortion is not morally permissible because it involves the needless killing of a human . I hope we can accept that the needless killing of a person in the traditional sense is clearly immoral. There is no crucial distinction between the two." Put into a syllogism, my opponent's argument is outlined as followed: P1. Humans are persons. P2. Abortion is the termination of a human. P3. Given P1 and P2, abortion, barring cases of rape and incest, is the needless termination of a person. P4. Needless terminations of persons is morally impermissible. C1. Therefore, abortion, barring cases of rape and incest, is morally impermissible. If my opponent were to defend his theory of personhood, he would need to explain the crucial premise that necessarily all humans are persons. What feature of being a human would grant personhood? If he can't defend this foundational point, then his entire theory collapses. Onto his objections to a psychological approach: "... what rights are given to a person in a coma who will never come out of it? Is one allowed to kill them? What about a person in a coma who has complete amnesia and remembers nothing (poor guy)? Does he have no right to life?" Both examples my opponent provides feature human beings who are psychologically impaired in some way. Both imply serious problems for a memory criterion (ability to recall memories of oneself) or just the psychological features I mentioned (e.g. ability to reason). My response is simple: a psychological continuity theory that is upheld now is often seen as a refined version of Lockean theory - that is, the memory criterion is important but is not the only way of grounding an identity relation. We can incorporate other psychological features, such as belief/desires, similar character traits, etc. that can serve as a part of a conglomerate relation of 'psychological uniqueness'. So arguably, some sort of relation can be upheld even for a complete amnesiac -- if they have sufficient similarities in character traits, goals, actions, etc. they would be the same person. Using the same example, if the same amnesiac also had erraticly different behavior, wouldn't this lead us to intuitively believe he would be a different person? If someone were to lapse into a coma indefinitley and were devoid of appropriate psychological features then they would cease to be a person in the same way fetus' are not persons.

TheSkeptic

My opponent provides proposed counterexamples to my adherence to a psychological theory of personhood - he uses the cases of people in comas, amnesia, etc. Furthermore, he seems to hold the case that being a 'human' is sufficient to be a 'person'. I'll start with the latter contention. "I will be arguing that fetuses are persons in that they are human...Abortion is not morally permissible because it involves the needless killing of a human . I hope we can accept that the needless killing of a person in the traditional sense is clearly immoral. There is no crucial distinction between the two." Put into a syllogism, my opponent's argument is outlined as followed: P1. Humans are persons. P2. Abortion is the termination of a human. P3. Given P1 and P2, abortion, barring cases of rape and incest, is the needless termination of a person. P4. Needless terminations of persons is morally impermissible. C1. Therefore, abortion, barring cases of rape and incest, is morally impermissible. If my opponent were to defend his theory of personhood, he would need to explain the crucial premise that necessarily all humans are persons. What feature of being a human would grant personhood? If he can't defend this foundational point, then his entire theory collapses. Onto his objections to a psychological approach: "... what rights are given to a person in a coma who will never come out of it? Is one allowed to kill them? What about a person in a coma who has complete amnesia and remembers nothing (poor guy)? Does he have no right to life?" Both examples my opponent provides feature human beings who are psychologically impaired in some way. Both imply serious problems for a memory criterion (ability to recall memories of oneself) or just the psychological features I mentioned (e.g. ability to reason). My response is simple: a psychological continuity theory that is upheld now is often seen as a refined version of Lockean theory - that is, the memory criterion is important but is not the only way of grounding an identity relation. We can incorporate other psychological features, such as belief/desires, similar character traits, etc. that can serve as a part of a conglomerate relation of 'psychological uniqueness'. So arguably, some sort of relation can be upheld even for a complete amnesiac -- if they have sufficient similarities in character traits, goals, actions, etc. they would be the same person. Using the same example, if the same amnesiac also had erraticly different behavior, wouldn't this lead us to intuitively believe he would be a different person? If someone were to lapse into a coma indefinitley and were devoid of appropriate psychological features then they would cease to be a person in the same way fetus' are not persons.

Philosophy

Abortion-is-morally-permissible/2/

My opponent's response is ultimately weak, and doesn't do much to illuminate the difficulties it's supposed to point out in my position. For starters, let it note that in the Wikipedia article the sentences immediately afterward state "...or an entity that has certain capacities or attributes associated with personhood, for example in a particular moral or legal context. Such capacities or attributes can include agency, self-awareness, a notion of the past and future, and the possession of rights and duties, among others." I doubt my opponent is using Wikipedia as a definitive source, but I can't see what's the point in quoting it at all if it does nothing to further the debate's progression. "It would appear that my opponent believes that the killing of an indefinately comatose patient is morally permissible." Yes, I do believe such is morally permissible granted some restrictions (you can't needlessly kill comatose patients if there are emotionally attached family members who haven't given their consent). However, a suitable response I would expect should be something more than an response of intuitive shock. "The psychological argument relies on there being a set point during the fetus' development at which it reaches personhood ... This would be utter nonsense, as it would mean that the cells, already established to be an individual human, rearranging themselves in some slight manner or growing would give it this personhood." How would that be "utter nonsense"? I clearly described and argued that the acquirement of certain necessary psychological features will bring about personhood in the same way a person can mature enough to be eligible for 'adult' activities (going to the army, drinking, voting etc.). Figuring out when an entity achieves personhood, appriopriate adult intellectual maturity, etc. may be difficult and shaded in grayness but this doesn't mean there is a philosophical slippery slope - a cut off line can be argued for. "The only set point at which such a radical change in rights can occur is at conception, when a wholly unique cell is formed." Why is this so, simply being in virtue of a single cell organism? There is no reason to value this over the psychological approach, especially given how the latter answers questions of personal identity deeply interconnected to personhood. As you can defer counterexamples to my theory, I could do the same with perhaps prima facie intuitively more awkward situations - would a wholly unique human cell kept in a biological 'limbo' state (due to advances in science) be reasonably called a person with fundamentally equal moral value as rational, human adults? I would highly doubt so.

TheSkeptic

My opponent's response is ultimately weak, and doesn't do much to illuminate the difficulties it's supposed to point out in my position. For starters, let it note that in the Wikipedia article the sentences immediately afterward state "...or an entity that has certain capacities or attributes associated with personhood, for example in a particular moral or legal context. Such capacities or attributes can include agency, self-awareness, a notion of the past and future, and the possession of rights and duties, among others." I doubt my opponent is using Wikipedia as a definitive source, but I can't see what's the point in quoting it at all if it does nothing to further the debate's progression. "It would appear that my opponent believes that the killing of an indefinately comatose patient is morally permissible." Yes, I do believe such is morally permissible granted some restrictions (you can't needlessly kill comatose patients if there are emotionally attached family members who haven't given their consent). However, a suitable response I would expect should be something more than an response of intuitive shock. "The psychological argument relies on there being a set point during the fetus' development at which it reaches personhood ... This would be utter nonsense, as it would mean that the cells, already established to be an individual human, rearranging themselves in some slight manner or growing would give it this personhood." How would that be "utter nonsense"? I clearly described and argued that the acquirement of certain necessary psychological features will bring about personhood in the same way a person can mature enough to be eligible for 'adult' activities (going to the army, drinking, voting etc.). Figuring out when an entity achieves personhood, appriopriate adult intellectual maturity, etc. may be difficult and shaded in grayness but this doesn't mean there is a philosophical slippery slope - a cut off line can be argued for. "The only set point at which such a radical change in rights can occur is at conception, when a wholly unique cell is formed." Why is this so, simply being in virtue of a single cell organism? There is no reason to value this over the psychological approach, especially given how the latter answers questions of personal identity deeply interconnected to personhood. As you can defer counterexamples to my theory, I could do the same with perhaps prima facie intuitively more awkward situations - would a wholly unique human cell kept in a biological 'limbo' state (due to advances in science) be reasonably called a person with fundamentally equal moral value as rational, human adults? I would highly doubt so.

Philosophy

Abortion-is-morally-permissible/2/

I see that you are for abortion. I would like to debate this with you.

1dustpelt

I see that you are for abortion. I would like to debate this with you.

Politics

Abortion-is-morally-wrong./1/

Thanks for accepting. Argument-Abortion is murder The fetus has a right to live just like any other human being. A fetus is a future human being. It is wrong to kill a human being, therefore it is wrong to kill a fetus. Each abortion takes the life of a new, innocent, unique human being. I will await my opponent's arguments in the next round.

1dustpelt

Thanks for accepting. Argument-Abortion is murder The fetus has a right to live just like any other human being. A fetus is a future human being. It is wrong to kill a human being, therefore it is wrong to kill a fetus. Each abortion takes the life of a new, innocent, unique human being. I will await my opponent's arguments in the next round.

Politics

Abortion-is-morally-wrong./1/

Rebuttals "You are incorrect because, in order for it to be murder, the victim must be "a human being," something that a fetus is not. In fact, a vast majority of abortion doctors, biologists, and scientists agree that the fetus is not actually a human until it's self sustainability (the period in which it can live without its mother). Before that point, it is nothing more than a parasite, absorbing it's parent's nutrients for it's own well being. For that matter, any abortions before the 20th week of pregnancy (the prerequisite to the self sustainability period) are more or less the removal of a seed that will eventually GROW into a human. Therefore, saying abortion is murder is like saying destroying a seed is the equivalent of cutting down a tree, which is obviously not the case. For that matter, anyone who considers abortion to be murder because the fetus will eventually become a human MUST agree that anytime a woman has her period she is killing a baby, because she is loosing her egg. Again, that is just not the case." Imagine you are a hunter. You see a shadow. It could be a bear, but it also could be a human. Would you shoot? Most people would say no because of the possibility of it being a human. The same goes with abortion. The fetus has a very high possibility of becoming a human, so would you kill it before it has the chance to? "Point 1) Some 250 years ago, our Fore Fathers came upon this land with dreams of Liberty, and Freedom from government oppression. Those ideals have remained a staple of American culture all of these years. Unfortunately, people like my opponent are stepping into the spotlight with different notions. They are attempting to seize these ideas of "Liberty" and "Freedom" and utterly destroy them, claiming women, during THEIR time of pregnancy, CANNOT refuse to give up the seed that is inside of THEM, or else these women aren't moral! Let me ask you, Pro Lifers, how can you call yourselves moral when you are telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies during their time of pregnancy! It's Fascism, if you ask me, or a significant majority of Americans. We need to go back to what made this country the great nation that it was, and we can only do that through allowing people the freedom to choose." My opponent's argument is that women have the right to choose. However, does the future-human get to choose? Think about it, if you had the choice to get killed and not get a chance to live or live and become a human, what would you choose? Normal people would want to live! It's a bit hypocritical that Pro-Choice people want women to be able to choose, while denying the choice of life. "Point 2) Tell me Con: what if a woman is raped? According to the United States Department of Justice, that is something that happens over 190,000 times a year. Do you think that all of these women should have to go through the most painful natural process in life? And after 10 hours of this gut-wrenching pain, they should receive a baby they don't even want? No! No sensible person agrees with this. It is not fair, and in situations like rape, when birth control is not an option, abortion is the only option! It is a fast, moral, relatively cheap method to prevent yourself from having to carry, and it is nothing more than that. " Most rapes do not cause pregnancy. Of the 200,000 women who were forcibly raped, one-third were either too old or too young to get pregnant. [9] so right of the bat scratch 1/3. Women are capable of being fertilized only 3 days (perhaps 5) out of a 30-day month. [9] So right there take of more because chances are you will not be raped in that 3 day period. Only half of assailants penetrate her body and/or deposit sperm in her vagina [9] take off some there. Fifteen percent of men are sterile [9] so some rapists do not have sperm, lower that number Fifteen percent of non-surgically sterilized women are naturally sterile [9] The number of possibly women pregnant from rape is below 5,000 from the original 200,000 The average couple takes 5-9 months to get pregnant. [9] SO according to the source the original 200,000 lowers to 450. Most do not become pregnant. Conclusion Abortion is not moral because a fetus should at least get a chance to live. My opponent's argument is that women have the right to choose. However, does the future-human get to choose? Think about it, if you had the choice to get killed and not get a chance to live or live and become a human, what would you choose? Normal people would want to live! It's a bit hypocritical that Pro-Choice people want women to be able to choose, while denying the choice of life.

1dustpelt

Rebuttals "You are incorrect because, in order for it to be murder, the victim must be "a human being," something that a fetus is not. In fact, a vast majority of abortion doctors, biologists, and scientists agree that the fetus is not actually a human until it's self sustainability (the period in which it can live without its mother). Before that point, it is nothing more than a parasite, absorbing it's parent's nutrients for it's own well being. For that matter, any abortions before the 20th week of pregnancy (the prerequisite to the self sustainability period) are more or less the removal of a seed that will eventually GROW into a human. Therefore, saying abortion is murder is like saying destroying a seed is the equivalent of cutting down a tree, which is obviously not the case. For that matter, anyone who considers abortion to be murder because the fetus will eventually become a human MUST agree that anytime a woman has her period she is killing a baby, because she is loosing her egg. Again, that is just not the case." Imagine you are a hunter. You see a shadow. It could be a bear, but it also could be a human. Would you shoot? Most people would say no because of the possibility of it being a human. The same goes with abortion. The fetus has a very high possibility of becoming a human, so would you kill it before it has the chance to? "Point 1) Some 250 years ago, our Fore Fathers came upon this land with dreams of Liberty, and Freedom from government oppression. Those ideals have remained a staple of American culture all of these years. Unfortunately, people like my opponent are stepping into the spotlight with different notions. They are attempting to seize these ideas of "Liberty" and "Freedom" and utterly destroy them, claiming women, during THEIR time of pregnancy, CANNOT refuse to give up the seed that is inside of THEM, or else these women aren't moral! Let me ask you, Pro Lifers, how can you call yourselves moral when you are telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies during their time of pregnancy! It's Fascism, if you ask me, or a significant majority of Americans. We need to go back to what made this country the great nation that it was, and we can only do that through allowing people the freedom to choose." My opponent's argument is that women have the right to choose. However, does the future-human get to choose? Think about it, if you had the choice to get killed and not get a chance to live or live and become a human, what would you choose? Normal people would want to live! It's a bit hypocritical that Pro-Choice people want women to be able to choose, while denying the choice of life. "Point 2) Tell me Con: what if a woman is raped? According to the United States Department of Justice, that is something that happens over 190,000 times a year. Do you think that all of these women should have to go through the most painful natural process in life? And after 10 hours of this gut-wrenching pain, they should receive a baby they don't even want? No! No sensible person agrees with this. It is not fair, and in situations like rape, when birth control is not an option, abortion is the only option! It is a fast, moral, relatively cheap method to prevent yourself from having to carry, and it is nothing more than that. " Most rapes do not cause pregnancy. Of the 200,000 women who were forcibly raped, one-third were either too old or too young to get pregnant. [9] so right of the bat scratch 1/3. Women are capable of being fertilized only 3 days (perhaps 5) out of a 30-day month. [9] So right there take of more because chances are you will not be raped in that 3 day period. Only half of assailants penetrate her body and/or deposit sperm in her vagina [9] take off some there. Fifteen percent of men are sterile [9] so some rapists do not have sperm, lower that number Fifteen percent of non-surgically sterilized women are naturally sterile [9] The number of possibly women pregnant from rape is below 5,000 from the original 200,000 The average couple takes 5-9 months to get pregnant. [9] SO according to the source the original 200,000 lowers to 450. Most do not become pregnant. Conclusion Abortion is not moral because a fetus should at least get a chance to live. My opponent's argument is that women have the right to choose. However, does the future-human get to choose? Think about it, if you had the choice to get killed and not get a chance to live or live and become a human, what would you choose? Normal people would want to live! It's a bit hypocritical that Pro-Choice people want women to be able to choose, while denying the choice of life.

Politics

Abortion-is-morally-wrong./1/

Rebuttals So tell me Con, is a woman killing a baby before it has a chance to live whenever she has her period and looses an egg? Well, you must think so if you think "we are killing fetuses before them have a chance to live." Please use proper English next time so I can understand you. The reason we are not giving fetuses a choice is because they would be incapable of choosing if we happened to ask them. But who would choose to die? Nobody would want to be aborted as a fetus. For that matter, they are incapable of feeling pain, thinking, digestion, or self awareness. A fetus can feel pain at 8 weeks. At 8 weeks, it has all the musles and organs needed to feel pain. Scientists even did studies that proved fetuses can feel pain. Souces at the bottom. Where, may I ask, are you getting these "facts?" I will post them at the bottom of this round. While the 3-5 day ovulation period is the most common time, you can be fertilized any time of the month, even during period. See: <URL>... ... Still, the number of rape victims that get pregnant is very low. Besides, only 1% of all abortions are because of rape. There are many methods of birth control in today's world. You can attempt natural birth control, by only having sex during ovulation. Or condoms can be used to prevent the flow of sperm. Also, pills such as daily pills or morning after supplements can eliminate the zygote. However, what if the girl ovulates at an unexpected time? Or what if your condom breaks, like some 4% of them do? Maybe the pill doesn't work either, as the chances of failure are always there? Abortion is a last resort for many people. A common "misconception" (no pun intended!) is that pro-choice people love abortion. Abortion is not a great thing, but in situations like teen pregnancies, it can be necessary. Again, a fetus is biologically a member of the human species, therefore you cannot morally kill an innocent fetus. There are cases when birth control fails, but they will just have to deal with it. Besides, it was their idea to have sex in the first place. New point- A fetus can feel pain A fetus can feel pain at 8 weeks, and abortion causes alot of pain. Summary A fetus is biologically a member of the human species. You cannot morally kill an innocent human. You cannot morally kill a fetus. Sources: <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>...

1dustpelt

Rebuttals So tell me Con, is a woman killing a baby before it has a chance to live whenever she has her period and looses an egg? Well, you must think so if you think "we are killing fetuses before them have a chance to live." Please use proper English next time so I can understand you. The reason we are not giving fetuses a choice is because they would be incapable of choosing if we happened to ask them. But who would choose to die? Nobody would want to be aborted as a fetus. For that matter, they are incapable of feeling pain, thinking, digestion, or self awareness. A fetus can feel pain at 8 weeks. At 8 weeks, it has all the musles and organs needed to feel pain. Scientists even did studies that proved fetuses can feel pain. Souces at the bottom. Where, may I ask, are you getting these "facts?" I will post them at the bottom of this round. While the 3-5 day ovulation period is the most common time, you can be fertilized any time of the month, even during period. See: http://www.positive.org... ... Still, the number of rape victims that get pregnant is very low. Besides, only 1% of all abortions are because of rape. There are many methods of birth control in today's world. You can attempt natural birth control, by only having sex during ovulation. Or condoms can be used to prevent the flow of sperm. Also, pills such as daily pills or morning after supplements can eliminate the zygote. However, what if the girl ovulates at an unexpected time? Or what if your condom breaks, like some 4% of them do? Maybe the pill doesn't work either, as the chances of failure are always there? Abortion is a last resort for many people. A common "misconception" (no pun intended!) is that pro-choice people love abortion. Abortion is not a great thing, but in situations like teen pregnancies, it can be necessary. Again, a fetus is biologically a member of the human species, therefore you cannot morally kill an innocent fetus. There are cases when birth control fails, but they will just have to deal with it. Besides, it was their idea to have sex in the first place. New point- A fetus can feel pain A fetus can feel pain at 8 weeks, and abortion causes alot of pain. Summary A fetus is biologically a member of the human species. You cannot morally kill an innocent human. You cannot morally kill a fetus. Sources: http://www.rainn.org... http://www.abortionfacts.com... http://news.discovery.com... http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu...

Politics

Abortion-is-morally-wrong./1/

I am assuming arguments start next round. Good luck, and may Rick Santorum be with you. That was a joke, in case you were wondering.

LiberalJoe

I am assuming arguments start next round. Good luck, and may Rick Santorum be with you. That was a joke, in case you were wondering.

Politics

Abortion-is-morally-wrong./1/

Thank you Con. It is an interesting point, howeveryour argument is not valid in any way, shape, or form. Rebuttal: According to your argument: "It is wrong to kill a human being, therefore it is wrong to kill a fetus." Aha! That is where you are wrong sir. This is a blatantly false fact and it should not ever be taken this way. You seem to be under the impression that abortion is murder. However, that is incorrect according to the definition of murder: murder/'m@rd@r/ Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. You are incorrect because, in order for it to be murder, the victim must be "a human being," something that a fetus is not. In fact, a vast majority of abortion doctors, biologists, and scientists agree that the fetus is not actually a human until it's self sustainability (the period in which it can live without its mother). Before that point, it is nothing more than a parasite, absorbing it's parent's nutrients for it's own well being. For that matter, any abortions before the 20th week of pregnancy (the prerequisite to the self sustainability period) are more or less the removal of a seed that will eventually GROW into a human. Therefore, saying abortion is murder is like saying destorying a seed is the equivalent of cutting down a tree, which is obviously not the case. For that matter, anyone who considers abortion to be murder because the fetus will eventually become a human MUST agree that anytime a woman has her period she is killing a baby, because she is loosing her egg. Again, that is just not the case. ARGUEMENT Point 1) Some 250 years ago, our Fore Fathers came upon this land with dreams of Liberty, and Freedom from government oppression. Those ideals have remained a staple of American culture all of these years. Unfortunately, people like my opponent are stepping into the spotlight with different notions. They are attempting to seize these ideas of "Liberty" and "Freedom" and utterly destroy them, claiming women, during THEIR time of pregnancy, CANNOT refuse to give up the seed that is inside of THEM, or else these women aren't moral! Let me ask you, Pro Lifers, how can you call yourselves moral when you are telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies during their time of pregnancy! It's Fascism, if you ask me, or a significant majority of Americans. We need to go back to what made this country the great nation that it was, and we can only do that through allowing people the freedom to choose. Point 2) Tell me Con: what if a woman is raped? According to the United States Department of Justice, that is something that happens over 190,000 times a year. Do you think that all of these women should have to go through the most painful natural process in life? And after 10 hours of this gut-wrenching pain, they should receive a baby they don't even want? No! No sensible person agrees with this. It is not fair, and in situations like rape, when birth control is not an option, abortion is the only option! It is a fast, moral, relatively cheap method to prevent yourself from having to carry, and it is nothing more than that. Thank you, and more arguments will be posted next round.

LiberalJoe

Thank you Con. It is an interesting point, howeveryour argument is not valid in any way, shape, or form. Rebuttal: According to your argument: "It is wrong to kill a human being, therefore it is wrong to kill a fetus." Aha! That is where you are wrong sir. This is a blatantly false fact and it should not ever be taken this way. You seem to be under the impression that abortion is murder. However, that is incorrect according to the definition of murder: mur�der/ˈmərdər/ Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. You are incorrect because, in order for it to be murder, the victim must be "a human being," something that a fetus is not. In fact, a vast majority of abortion doctors, biologists, and scientists agree that the fetus is not actually a human until it's self sustainability (the period in which it can live without its mother). Before that point, it is nothing more than a parasite, absorbing it's parent's nutrients for it's own well being. For that matter, any abortions before the 20th week of pregnancy (the prerequisite to the self sustainability period) are more or less the removal of a seed that will eventually GROW into a human. Therefore, saying abortion is murder is like saying destorying a seed is the equivalent of cutting down a tree, which is obviously not the case. For that matter, anyone who considers abortion to be murder because the fetus will eventually become a human MUST agree that anytime a woman has her period she is killing a baby, because she is loosing her egg. Again, that is just not the case. ARGUEMENT Point 1) Some 250 years ago, our Fore Fathers came upon this land with dreams of Liberty, and Freedom from government oppression. Those ideals have remained a staple of American culture all of these years. Unfortunately, people like my opponent are stepping into the spotlight with different notions. They are attempting to seize these ideas of "Liberty" and "Freedom" and utterly destroy them, claiming women, during THEIR time of pregnancy, CANNOT refuse to give up the seed that is inside of THEM, or else these women aren't moral! Let me ask you, Pro Lifers, how can you call yourselves moral when you are telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies during their time of pregnancy! It's Fascism, if you ask me, or a significant majority of Americans. We need to go back to what made this country the great nation that it was, and we can only do that through allowing people the freedom to choose. Point 2) Tell me Con: what if a woman is raped? According to the United States Department of Justice, that is something that happens over 190,000 times a year. Do you think that all of these women should have to go through the most painful natural process in life? And after 10 hours of this gut-wrenching pain, they should receive a baby they don't even want? No! No sensible person agrees with this. It is not fair, and in situations like rape, when birth control is not an option, abortion is the only option! It is a fast, moral, relatively cheap method to prevent yourself from having to carry, and it is nothing more than that. Thank you, and more arguments will be posted next round.

Politics

Abortion-is-morally-wrong./1/

Well I thank the opposition for such a speedy reply, but I am seriously questioning some of the provided rebuttals. And just putting a little [9] (with no visible sources) after completely ridiculous facts does not make them correct. COUNTER REBUTTALS #1 My Opponent: "The fetus has a very high possibility of becoming a human, so would you kill it before it has the chance to?" You, sir, failed to see this one little point in my argument: "anyone who considers abortion to be murder because the fetus will eventually become a human MUST agree that anytime a woman has her period she is killing a baby, because she is loosing her egg." So tell me Con, is a woman killing a baby before it has a chance to live whenever she has her period and looses an egg? Well, you must think so if you think "we are killing fetuses before them have a chance to live." #2 "My opponent's argument is that women have the right to choose. However, does the future-human get to choose? Think about it, if you had the choice to get killed and not get a chance to live or live and become a human, what would you choose? Normal people would want to live! It's a bit hypocritical that Pro-Choice people want women to be able to choose, while denying the choice of life." The reason we are not giving fetuses a choice is because they would be incapable of choosing if we happened to ask them. For that matter, they are incapable of feeling pain, thinking, digestion, or self awareness. Not only that, but before 20 weeks, they are practically in a sedation period. Needless to say, they are not human beings. And saying that they shouldn't be removed because they "would be humans" is like saying that having a period is killing a baby, because your egg "would be a human." #3 "Of the 200,000 women who were forcibly raped, one-third were either too old or too young to get pregnant. [9] so right of the bat scratch 1/3. Women are capable of being fertilized only 3 days (perhaps 5) out of a 30-day month. [9] So right there take of more because chances are you will not be raped in that 3 day period. Only half of assailants penetrate her body and/or deposit sperm in her vagina [9] take off some there. Fifteen percent of men are sterile [9] so some rapists do not have sperm, lower that number Fifteen percent of non-surgically sterilized women are naturally sterile [9] The number of possibly women pregnant from rape is below 5,000 from the original 200,000 The average couple takes 5-9 months to get pregnant. [9] SO according to the source the original 200,000 lowers to 450. Most do not become pregnant." Where, may I ask, are you getting these "facts?" "Of the 200,000 women who were forcibly raped, one-third were either too old or too young to get pregnant." Who the heck told you that? <URL>... . There are the real facts. "Women are capable of being fertilized only 3 days (perhaps 5) out of a 30-day month." While the 3-5 day ovulation period is the most common time, you can be fertilized any time of the month, even during period. See: <URL>... "Fifteen percent of men are sterile" No, no no. 15% of COUPLES are INFERTILE. You seriously mixed up your facts. <URL>... ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS This is a smaller point not included in my last post. POINT 1) There are many methods of birth control in today's world. You can attempt natural birth control, by only having sex during ovulation. Or condoms can be used to prevent the flow of sperm. Also, pills such as daily pills or morning after supplements can eliminate the zygote. However, what if the girl ovulates at an unexpected time? Or what if your condom breaks, like some 4% of them do? Maybe the pill doesn't work either, as the chances of failure are always there? Abortion is a last resort for many people. A common "misconception" (no pun intended!) is that pro-choice people love abortion. Abortion is not a great thing, but in situations like teen pregnancies, it can be necessary. Thank you. I look forward to closing arguments.

LiberalJoe

Well I thank the opposition for such a speedy reply, but I am seriously questioning some of the provided rebuttals. And just putting a little [9] (with no visible sources) after completely ridiculous facts does not make them correct. COUNTER REBUTTALS #1 My Opponent: "The fetus has a very high possibility of becoming a human, so would you kill it before it has the chance to?" You, sir, failed to see this one little point in my argument: "anyone who considers abortion to be murder because the fetus will eventually become a human MUST agree that anytime a woman has her period she is killing a baby, because she is loosing her egg." So tell me Con, is a woman killing a baby before it has a chance to live whenever she has her period and looses an egg? Well, you must think so if you think "we are killing fetuses before them have a chance to live." #2 "My opponent's argument is that women have the right to choose. However, does the future-human get to choose? Think about it, if you had the choice to get killed and not get a chance to live or live and become a human, what would you choose? Normal people would want to live! It's a bit hypocritical that Pro-Choice people want women to be able to choose, while denying the choice of life." The reason we are not giving fetuses a choice is because they would be incapable of choosing if we happened to ask them. For that matter, they are incapable of feeling pain, thinking, digestion, or self awareness. Not only that, but before 20 weeks, they are practically in a sedation period. Needless to say, they are not human beings. And saying that they shouldn't be removed because they "would be humans" is like saying that having a period is killing a baby, because your egg "would be a human." #3 "Of the 200,000 women who were forcibly raped, one-third were either too old or too young to get pregnant. [9] so right of the bat scratch 1/3. Women are capable of being fertilized only 3 days (perhaps 5) out of a 30-day month. [9] So right there take of more because chances are you will not be raped in that 3 day period. Only half of assailants penetrate her body and/or deposit sperm in her vagina [9] take off some there. Fifteen percent of men are sterile [9] so some rapists do not have sperm, lower that number Fifteen percent of non-surgically sterilized women are naturally sterile [9] The number of possibly women pregnant from rape is below 5,000 from the original 200,000 The average couple takes 5-9 months to get pregnant. [9] SO according to the source the original 200,000 lowers to 450. Most do not become pregnant." Where, may I ask, are you getting these "facts?" "Of the 200,000 women who were forcibly raped, one-third were either too old or too young to get pregnant." Who the heck told you that? http://www.rainn.org... . There are the real facts. "Women are capable of being fertilized only 3 days (perhaps 5) out of a 30-day month." While the 3-5 day ovulation period is the most common time, you can be fertilized any time of the month, even during period. See: http://www.positive.org... "Fifteen percent of men are sterile" No, no no. 15% of COUPLES are INFERTILE. You seriously mixed up your facts. http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com... ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS This is a smaller point not included in my last post. POINT 1) There are many methods of birth control in today's world. You can attempt natural birth control, by only having sex during ovulation. Or condoms can be used to prevent the flow of sperm. Also, pills such as daily pills or morning after supplements can eliminate the zygote. However, what if the girl ovulates at an unexpected time? Or what if your condom breaks, like some 4% of them do? Maybe the pill doesn't work either, as the chances of failure are always there? Abortion is a last resort for many people. A common "misconception" (no pun intended!) is that pro-choice people love abortion. Abortion is not a great thing, but in situations like teen pregnancies, it can be necessary. Thank you. I look forward to closing arguments.

Politics

Abortion-is-morally-wrong./1/

Thank you for that very... eh, interesting response. Counter-Rebuttals " So tell me Con, is a woman killing a baby before it has a chance to live whenever she has her period and looses an egg? Well, you must think so if you think "we are killing fetuses before them have a chance to live." Please use proper English next time so I can understand you . Well, that seemed pretty understandable to me. Every time a woman has a period, she looses an egg. So, does that qualify as "murder" in your mind? "The reason we are not giving fetuses a choice is because they would be incapable of choosing if we happened to ask them." But who would choose to die? Nobody would want to be aborted as a fetus. You missed the point! No one would want to die, The reason I said that is because if a fetus is aborted, then it never will be a human, therefore it was never and will never be able to make a choice rationally! So your argument basically makes no sense! "For that matter, they are incapable of feeling pain, thinking, digestion, or self awareness." A fetus can feel pain at 8 weeks. At 8 weeks, it has all the musles and organs needed to feel pain. Scientists even did studies that proved fetuses can feel pain. Souces at the bottom. No, a fetus can not feel pain until 20 weeks! I looked at one of YOUR sources, and here's what it said. "A new Nebraska law bans abortions after 20 weeks, based on the idea that pain begins then." That's right! YOUR source said that! So what, are you just making these facts up? Please, I would really like to know! "Where, may I ask, are you getting these "facts?"" I will post them at the bottom of this round. Hmm... I didn't happen to see your fact about "fifteen percent of men are sterile" in any of those sources! Nor did I see your fact "Only half of assailants penetrate her body and/or deposit sperm in her vagina" anywhere! So again, we see you simply making this stuff up! " There are many methods of birth control in today's world. You can attempt natural birth control, by only having sex during ovulation. Or condoms can be used to prevent the flow of sperm. Also, pills such as daily pills or morning after supplements can eliminate the zygote. However, what if the girl ovulates at an unexpected time? Or what if your condom breaks, like some 4% of them do? Maybe the pill doesn't work either, as the chances of failure are always there? Abortion is a last resort for many people. A common "misconception" (no pun intended!) is that pro-choice people love abortion. Abortion is not a great thing, but in situations like teen pregnancies, it can be necessary." Again, a fetus is biologically a member of the human species, therefore you cannot morally kill an innocent fetus. There are cases when birth control fails, but they will just have to deal with it. Besides, it was their idea to have sex in the first place. No, no, no! A fetus is not biologically human. The fetus has a heart, skin, muscles, cartilage, a "brain," minor organs, and several other small parts similar to humans. But hey, so do dogs! So are dogs "biologically human?" No! Also, Definition of a parasite: parasite ( ) n. Biology . An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of. Does the fetus grow, feed, and have shelter in the mother? Yes! Does it contribute to the mother's survival? No! So a fetus, technically speaking, is 100% parasite. Is it murder when you remove an unwanted parasite from your body? Of course not! And it is not the user's fault when birth control fails. They should not "just have to deal with it," because if the fetus does become a human, it will probably have a poor life in the hands of inexperienced kids who may not even get to college in order to care for the child! Rebuttals New point- A fetus can feel pain A fetus can feel pain at 8 weeks, and abortion causes alot of pain. Well, it was YOUR SOURCE ( <URL>... ...) that said it takes 20, maybe up to 29 weeks! So you basically proved yourself wrong, and attempted to fudge false information! That should get you disqualified right there, my friend. Conclusion Thank you, folks, for listening to this heated debate for the past week or so. To wrap things up, -Abortion is not murder. The definition of murder clearly states that murder is "of another human being," and according to nearly every source below (as well as my opponent's sources), a fetus is not by any means human. -When you really take a good look at it, abortion is nothing more than a choice between a woman and her doctor. It is not the government's choice, not her parent's choice, and certainly not your choice, Con. -Rape is something that happens a lot in today's society, and unfortunately, many of these victims become pregnant (contrary to the made up statistics of my opponent). So abortion, while not always happy, must happen if the woman does not want to continue to carry some random dude's seed. -Birth control does not always work, but that is not the user's fault. The parents (and the baby) should not be punished for something they can't stop! -My opponent uses made up info for his case! Thank you. Vote Con

LiberalJoe

Thank you for that very... eh, interesting response. Counter-Rebuttals " So tell me Con, is a woman killing a baby before it has a chance to live whenever she has her period and looses an egg? Well, you must think so if you think "we are killing fetuses before them have a chance to live." Please use proper English next time so I can understand you . Well, that seemed pretty understandable to me. Every time a woman has a period, she looses an egg. So, does that qualify as "murder" in your mind? "The reason we are not giving fetuses a choice is because they would be incapable of choosing if we happened to ask them." But who would choose to die? Nobody would want to be aborted as a fetus. You missed the point! No one would want to die, The reason I said that is because if a fetus is aborted, then it never will be a human, therefore it was never and will never be able to make a choice rationally! So your argument basically makes no sense! "For that matter, they are incapable of feeling pain, thinking, digestion, or self awareness." A fetus can feel pain at 8 weeks. At 8 weeks, it has all the musles and organs needed to feel pain. Scientists even did studies that proved fetuses can feel pain. Souces at the bottom. No, a fetus can not feel pain until 20 weeks! I looked at one of YOUR sources, and here's what it said. "A new Nebraska law bans abortions after 20 weeks, based on the idea that pain begins then." That's right! YOUR source said that! So what, are you just making these facts up? Please, I would really like to know! "Where, may I ask, are you getting these "facts?"" I will post them at the bottom of this round. Hmm... I didn't happen to see your fact about "fifteen percent of men are sterile" in any of those sources! Nor did I see your fact "Only half of assailants penetrate her body and/or deposit sperm in her vagina" anywhere! So again, we see you simply making this stuff up! " There are many methods of birth control in today's world. You can attempt natural birth control, by only having sex during ovulation. Or condoms can be used to prevent the flow of sperm. Also, pills such as daily pills or morning after supplements can eliminate the zygote. However, what if the girl ovulates at an unexpected time? Or what if your condom breaks, like some 4% of them do? Maybe the pill doesn't work either, as the chances of failure are always there? Abortion is a last resort for many people. A common "misconception" (no pun intended!) is that pro-choice people love abortion. Abortion is not a great thing, but in situations like teen pregnancies, it can be necessary." Again, a fetus is biologically a member of the human species, therefore you cannot morally kill an innocent fetus. There are cases when birth control fails, but they will just have to deal with it. Besides, it was their idea to have sex in the first place. No, no, no! A fetus is not biologically human. The fetus has a heart, skin, muscles, cartilage, a "brain," minor organs, and several other small parts similar to humans. But hey, so do dogs! So are dogs "biologically human?" No! Also, Definition of a parasite: parasite ( ) n. Biology . An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of. Does the fetus grow, feed, and have shelter in the mother? Yes! Does it contribute to the mother's survival? No! So a fetus, technically speaking, is 100% parasite. Is it murder when you remove an unwanted parasite from your body? Of course not! And it is not the user's fault when birth control fails. They should not "just have to deal with it," because if the fetus does become a human, it will probably have a poor life in the hands of inexperienced kids who may not even get to college in order to care for the child! Rebuttals New point- A fetus can feel pain A fetus can feel pain at 8 weeks, and abortion causes alot of pain. Well, it was YOUR SOURCE ( http://news.discovery.com... ...) that said it takes 20, maybe up to 29 weeks! So you basically proved yourself wrong, and attempted to fudge false information! That should get you disqualified right there, my friend. Conclusion Thank you, folks, for listening to this heated debate for the past week or so. To wrap things up, -Abortion is not murder. The definition of murder clearly states that murder is "of another human being," and according to nearly every source below (as well as my opponent's sources), a fetus is not by any means human. -When you really take a good look at it, abortion is nothing more than a choice between a woman and her doctor. It is not the government's choice, not her parent's choice, and certainly not your choice, Con. -Rape is something that happens a lot in today's society, and unfortunately, many of these victims become pregnant (contrary to the made up statistics of my opponent). So abortion, while not always happy, must happen if the woman does not want to continue to carry some random dude's seed. -Birth control does not always work, but that is not the user's fault. The parents (and the baby) should not be punished for something they can't stop! -My opponent uses made up info for his case! Thank you. Vote Con

Politics

Abortion-is-morally-wrong./1/

I'd be happy to debate with you, Jadeus.

Impartial

I'd be happy to debate with you, Jadeus.

Religion

Abortion-is-morally-wrong/7/

Classing an unborn foetus as a human being is a common argument from the anti-abortion movement. I have always found it to be somewhat emotionally driven but then that is understandable. You asked "at what point will the fetus be full developed?" If there are no complications during pregnancy and labour, a human being will be born regardless of what stage in the pregnancy you refer to. I therefore ask you, what is the significance of a foetus being developed or not? Because it resembles a person? Forgive me for being so crude but every time a fertile man has an orgasm and doesn"t impregnate a woman, is he being immoral? His semen contains millions of living beings with the potential of creating at least one human being. If you approach this objectively, there is no difference between a fertilised egg in a healthy woman and a foetus at 8 weeks because time is constant, the outcome is still the same, a baby is born. Equally, is it immoral for a woman not to have as many children as she can in her lifetime, denying her eggs the ability to harbour new life? Is that like killing a child? No, it clearly isn"t. There is no social norm in civilised society that makes women optimise the number of children they can have. It's totally different to murder. Let me suggest you consider the role of contraception in this debate. On millions, if not billions of occasions, contraception has successfully prevented children from being born. It is used in developed and secular countries because of it"s practical, social and moral benefits. Just as abortion is. Using anti-abortion logic, a condom is potentially a death sentence for an unborn child. That"s how moral concerns over abortion come across. You also asked "even though it is not yet a human being, does that give the woman the right to kill it just because she doesn't want it." From a moral standpoint again, women"s rights are vital for civilised society and I value them greatly, as I"m sure you do too. This includes the right to have an abortion before a certain number of weeks. Frankly, I think giving women this choice must be prioritised over the wishes of people such as yourself. Just as people have the choice to use contraception and are encouraged to do so. I would hesitate to compare orphans to dogs so I won"t say any more on that. As for disability, one could say that society has a moral obligation to allow parents to make the choice to abort. Many developing countries already practice that to some degree. However the morality of the following decision is open to judgement separately. It is utterly absurd, the idea that rape victims must give birth to their rapist"s children, on moral grounds. What a sickening thought. That alone is enough to quash the argument that abortion is immoral. I"m fortunate enough to live in a country that doesn"t force such an injustice upon these women. I"m fascinated to know what you think about my response.

Impartial

Classing an unborn foetus as a human being is a common argument from the anti-abortion movement. I have always found it to be somewhat emotionally driven but then that is understandable. You asked "at what point will the fetus be full developed?" If there are no complications during pregnancy and labour, a human being will be born regardless of what stage in the pregnancy you refer to. I therefore ask you, what is the significance of a foetus being developed or not? Because it resembles a person? Forgive me for being so crude but every time a fertile man has an orgasm and doesn"t impregnate a woman, is he being immoral? His semen contains millions of living beings with the potential of creating at least one human being. If you approach this objectively, there is no difference between a fertilised egg in a healthy woman and a foetus at 8 weeks because time is constant, the outcome is still the same, a baby is born. Equally, is it immoral for a woman not to have as many children as she can in her lifetime, denying her eggs the ability to harbour new life? Is that like killing a child? No, it clearly isn"t. There is no social norm in civilised society that makes women optimise the number of children they can have. It's totally different to murder. Let me suggest you consider the role of contraception in this debate. On millions, if not billions of occasions, contraception has successfully prevented children from being born. It is used in developed and secular countries because of it"s practical, social and moral benefits. Just as abortion is. Using anti-abortion logic, a condom is potentially a death sentence for an unborn child. That"s how moral concerns over abortion come across. You also asked "even though it is not yet a human being, does that give the woman the right to kill it just because she doesn't want it." From a moral standpoint again, women"s rights are vital for civilised society and I value them greatly, as I"m sure you do too. This includes the right to have an abortion before a certain number of weeks. Frankly, I think giving women this choice must be prioritised over the wishes of people such as yourself. Just as people have the choice to use contraception and are encouraged to do so. I would hesitate to compare orphans to dogs so I won"t say any more on that. As for disability, one could say that society has a moral obligation to allow parents to make the choice to abort. Many developing countries already practice that to some degree. However the morality of the following decision is open to judgement separately. It is utterly absurd, the idea that rape victims must give birth to their rapist"s children, on moral grounds. What a sickening thought. That alone is enough to quash the argument that abortion is immoral. I"m fortunate enough to live in a country that doesn"t force such an injustice upon these women. I"m fascinated to know what you think about my response.

Religion

Abortion-is-morally-wrong/7/

You"re very welcome. There is no proof either way, it is entirely subjective, as are both our positions on the question of whether a fertilised egg or a foetus are human beings. I think the psychological impact an ultrasound scan has on someone when they see the resemblance of a foetus to a baby is why it is controversial in some countries. This is why I refer to your argument as emotionally driven because you see the similarity to a baby and therefore latch onto the idea that it"s a baby. As I"ve said, it"s an opinion so I don"t expect to be able to persuade you otherwise. In response to your criticism of the example I gave. It could be argued that a healthy foetus has just as much "potential" of becoming a human being as a healthy fertilised egg. Just as healthy semen has the potential of fertilising an egg. I"m well aware of how reproduction works. I"d urge you to take more of an objective approach. In the UK, abortions are legal up to 24 weeks. This is because we are pro choice. It gives a woman and her partner enough time to make the right decision for them and their potential family. Asking when a foetus becomes a baby, will always invoke an emotional response. The all important "potential" that you speak of is removed by contraception. Yet you will not say whether or not it is immoral. If the potential of sperm or indeed an egg, to make a human being, isn"t valid, why is the potential of a fertilised egg or foetus valid. The debate isn"t about that though, it"s about giving women the right to choose. 24 weeks is more than long enough to make the very difficult decision whether or not to have an abortion. When you look at it like this, choice wins every time in a civilised society. As a woman, I would have thought you"d agree. Sure, rights have their limitations. Why should a woman, who may have had an accidental pregnancy due to a broken condom, be forced to have the baby? Put yourself in her shoes. How would you feel if you and your partner didn"t have the means to provide for it? A baby would be born and the whole family would suffer because of it. A baby isn"t a commodity that should be born because its mother was forced into it. I think every baby should be born into a family at the right time and under the best possible circumstances for that family. Not because a condom broke or someone got raped. This is very important. I was shocked to read what you said about disability but soon realised you hadn"t understood the following sentence. Maybe I should have articulated my point better so I apologise for that. I"ll clarify. Parents must have the choice to have an abortion before a certain deadline. Choosing to abort a foetus because it has a big nose, or one leg or no eyesight, is a separate moral issue. One that I did not comment on as I hope you appreciate now. In developing countries, contraception and abortion can help improve infant mortality rates. I"d invite you question the morality of that. It takes two to tango as they say. The child in that example would be both the rapist"s and the victim"s, of course. I wonder what the child would think, to know that they have been born into such a family, or lack thereof. Not to mention how the mother feels about that. I think to condemn them to such an eventuality is positively wicked, don"t you? The pro choice position actually considers the welfare of children because it takes into the consideration the ability of a family to bring them up when they intend to, therefore ensuring the best possible upbringing. I give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you care about the wellbeing of children. I"d therefore be interested to understand why you still have reservations about giving a family the choice to bring up a child when they are ready, so they can do so to the best of their ability, unless you"ve changed your mind.

Impartial

You"re very welcome. There is no proof either way, it is entirely subjective, as are both our positions on the question of whether a fertilised egg or a foetus are human beings. I think the psychological impact an ultrasound scan has on someone when they see the resemblance of a foetus to a baby is why it is controversial in some countries. This is why I refer to your argument as emotionally driven because you see the similarity to a baby and therefore latch onto the idea that it"s a baby. As I"ve said, it"s an opinion so I don"t expect to be able to persuade you otherwise. In response to your criticism of the example I gave. It could be argued that a healthy foetus has just as much "potential" of becoming a human being as a healthy fertilised egg. Just as healthy semen has the potential of fertilising an egg. I"m well aware of how reproduction works. I"d urge you to take more of an objective approach. In the UK, abortions are legal up to 24 weeks. This is because we are pro choice. It gives a woman and her partner enough time to make the right decision for them and their potential family. Asking when a foetus becomes a baby, will always invoke an emotional response. The all important "potential" that you speak of is removed by contraception. Yet you will not say whether or not it is immoral. If the potential of sperm or indeed an egg, to make a human being, isn"t valid, why is the potential of a fertilised egg or foetus valid. The debate isn"t about that though, it"s about giving women the right to choose. 24 weeks is more than long enough to make the very difficult decision whether or not to have an abortion. When you look at it like this, choice wins every time in a civilised society. As a woman, I would have thought you"d agree. Sure, rights have their limitations. Why should a woman, who may have had an accidental pregnancy due to a broken condom, be forced to have the baby? Put yourself in her shoes. How would you feel if you and your partner didn"t have the means to provide for it? A baby would be born and the whole family would suffer because of it. A baby isn"t a commodity that should be born because its mother was forced into it. I think every baby should be born into a family at the right time and under the best possible circumstances for that family. Not because a condom broke or someone got raped. This is very important. I was shocked to read what you said about disability but soon realised you hadn"t understood the following sentence. Maybe I should have articulated my point better so I apologise for that. I"ll clarify. Parents must have the choice to have an abortion before a certain deadline. Choosing to abort a foetus because it has a big nose, or one leg or no eyesight, is a separate moral issue. One that I did not comment on as I hope you appreciate now. In developing countries, contraception and abortion can help improve infant mortality rates. I"d invite you question the morality of that. It takes two to tango as they say. The child in that example would be both the rapist"s and the victim"s, of course. I wonder what the child would think, to know that they have been born into such a family, or lack thereof. Not to mention how the mother feels about that. I think to condemn them to such an eventuality is positively wicked, don"t you? The pro choice position actually considers the welfare of children because it takes into the consideration the ability of a family to bring them up when they intend to, therefore ensuring the best possible upbringing. I give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you care about the wellbeing of children. I"d therefore be interested to understand why you still have reservations about giving a family the choice to bring up a child when they are ready, so they can do so to the best of their ability, unless you"ve changed your mind.

Religion

Abortion-is-morally-wrong/7/

*Cues epic music*

CAPLlock

*Cues epic music*

Politics

Abortion-is-societally-beneficial./1/

" murder, it can still be societally beneficia l." How so? Resources being wasted? Killing off all disabled people would save resources. Is that right? "health care. Good citizens work, produce more than they consume, and do not commit crimes." A GOOD citizen who cares about his/her country should help the poor. The fetus will still be taken care of to the point where there are safe home. Kids who grow up in foster care are more likely to become addicted to and deal drugs (and harm society), be uneducated or undereducated (and not contribute to society because they can not or will not work a job), and commit violent crimes (and disrupt society or worse). Kids who are adopted do, generally, fare better than kids in foster care -but there are simply not enough parents who wish to adopt to care for every unwanted child I cannot take this. I need numbers. Besides theres people who do drugs and crime who were born in better times. I would love to live in a world where all kids who were unwanted were adopted and grew up to be good, productive citizens -but such a world is impractical. Because of the disproportionate number of children who need to be adopted (even in a system where abortion is legal) a world where all children had to be adopted would cripple the already weak infrastructure of the overburdened Department of Social Services. In most cases, some do well. The point of my round is that some problems you brought up can be solved by other extremes. Like killing all the druggies. Or killing disabled people. The answer? No. Killing Fetuses? No.

CAPLlock

" murder, it can still be societally beneficia l." How so? Resources being wasted? Killing off all disabled people would save resources. Is that right? "health care. Good citizens work, produce more than they consume, and do not commit crimes." A GOOD citizen who cares about his/her country should help the poor. The fetus will still be taken care of to the point where there are safe home. Kids who grow up in foster care are more likely to become addicted to and deal drugs (and harm society), be uneducated or undereducated (and not contribute to society because they can not or will not work a job), and commit violent crimes (and disrupt society or worse). Kids who are adopted do, generally, fare better than kids in foster care -but there are simply not enough parents who wish to adopt to care for every unwanted child I cannot take this. I need numbers. Besides theres people who do drugs and crime who were born in better times. I would love to live in a world where all kids who were unwanted were adopted and grew up to be good, productive citizens -but such a world is impractical. Because of the disproportionate number of children who need to be adopted (even in a system where abortion is legal) a world where all children had to be adopted would cripple the already weak infrastructure of the overburdened Department of Social Services. In most cases, some do well. The point of my round is that some problems you brought up can be solved by other extremes. Like killing all the druggies. Or killing disabled people. The answer? No. Killing Fetuses? No.

Politics

Abortion-is-societally-beneficial./1/

You know I just got bored with this debate so

CAPLlock

You know I just got bored with this debate so

Politics

Abortion-is-societally-beneficial./1/

First round will be for acceptance. I thank you. You thank me. Everybody's a happy family. Round 2 will be for opening arguments. I say a whole lot of stuff to support one side. You say a whole lot of stuff to support the side I'm not supporting. Debate commences. Round 3 will be for refutation and case reconstruction. I tell you what is wrong with your case. You tell me what is wrong with my case. We debate. Clash happens (ideally). Round 4 will be for closing arguments. Some ground rules: 1) I am more a rhetoric guy than a source guy. Your sources don't impress me. Your thoughts do. Sources are a means to an end in argument, not the end themselves. Use them as such. In this debate I will use some sources, and you can too but don't overly rely on other people's thoughts. 2) If you use evidence, don't use it as a contention, point, sub-point, etc. Use it to support what you like. 3) This is going to be more a philosophical debate rather than an empirical one. I just like that style more; and it's a great way to avoid a source-war. Some topic-specific ground rules: 1) Present original arguments as best you can. Don't cite what you heard someone else say. 2) No profanity, slurs, derogatory terminology, etc. Let's keep it professional.

YYW

First round will be for acceptance. I thank you. You thank me. Everybody's a happy family. Round 2 will be for opening arguments. I say a whole lot of stuff to support one side. You say a whole lot of stuff to support the side I'm not supporting. Debate commences. Round 3 will be for refutation and case reconstruction. I tell you what is wrong with your case. You tell me what is wrong with my case. We debate. Clash happens (ideally). Round 4 will be for closing arguments. Some ground rules: 1) I am more a rhetoric guy than a source guy. Your sources don't impress me. Your thoughts do. Sources are a means to an end in argument, not the end themselves. Use them as such. In this debate I will use some sources, and you can too but don't overly rely on other people's thoughts. 2) If you use evidence, don't use it as a contention, point, sub-point, etc. Use it to support what you like. 3) This is going to be more a philosophical debate rather than an empirical one. I just like that style more; and it's a great way to avoid a source-war. Some topic-specific ground rules: 1) Present original arguments as best you can. Don't cite what you heard someone else say. 2) No profanity, slurs, derogatory terminology, etc. Let's keep it professional.

Politics

Abortion-is-societally-beneficial./1/

Abortion is societally beneficial. The resolution requires the pro to establish that abortion yields benefits to society. This is not a debate over rights of the fetus (if fetuses have rights), nor is it a debate over wether abortion is murder. Even if abortion is murder, it can still be societally beneficial. This is similarly not a debate about morality. Something does not have to be morally sound to yield benefits to society as a whole. As such, no arguments of that nature may be entertained. To prove that something is beneficial it must simply cause more good than it causes harm. I accept that there may be some negative aspects of abortion; I am only obliged to prove that society benefits greater from abortion than the alternative -the consequences of not having abortion. Women who get abortions are more likely to be unprepared to be parents. Parenting is no easy task. Kids who are ignored, neglected, or raised in bad home environments are more likely to grow up in foster care or the welfare system and not only consume a disproportionately high volume of limited societal resources, but grow up to harm society in a variety of ways -ranging from engagement in criminal syndicalism to leeching welfare and governmentally provided health care. Good citizens work, produce more than they consume, and do not commit crimes. Kids who grow up in foster care are more likely to become addicted to and deal drugs (and harm society), be uneducated or undereducated (and not contribute to society because they can not or will not work a job), and commit violent crimes (and disrupt society or worse). Kids who are adopted do, generally, fare better than kids in foster care -but there are simply not enough parents who wish to adopt to care for every unwanted child. Freakonomics (Levitt, Dubner) makes a candidly pragmatic observation to this end. I would love to live in a world where all kids who were unwanted were adopted and grew up to be good, productive citizens -but such a world is impractical. Because of the disproportionate number of children who need to be adopted (even in a system where abortion is legal) a world where all children had to be adopted would cripple the already weak infrastructure of the overburdened Department of Social Services. However, this is not to say that every unwanted child should be aborted. The Department of Social Services does the best they can, but they are constrained by the limitations of bureaucracy, politics, and policy that (though intended to ensure procedural adoptions) generally only hinders the process and precludes parents who wish to adopt from actually adopting -or at least adopting at the rate that would maximize the utility of adoptive parents as a societal resource. If the object then is to maximize societal utility, flooding the adoptive system with kids who won't grow up to benefit society or at least are more likely to harm society makes no sense whatsoever.

YYW

Abortion is societally beneficial. The resolution requires the pro to establish that abortion yields benefits to society. This is not a debate over rights of the fetus (if fetuses have rights), nor is it a debate over wether abortion is murder. Even if abortion is murder, it can still be societally beneficial. This is similarly not a debate about morality. Something does not have to be morally sound to yield benefits to society as a whole. As such, no arguments of that nature may be entertained. To prove that something is beneficial it must simply cause more good than it causes harm. I accept that there may be some negative aspects of abortion; I am only obliged to prove that society benefits greater from abortion than the alternative -the consequences of not having abortion. Women who get abortions are more likely to be unprepared to be parents. Parenting is no easy task. Kids who are ignored, neglected, or raised in bad home environments are more likely to grow up in foster care or the welfare system and not only consume a disproportionately high volume of limited societal resources, but grow up to harm society in a variety of ways -ranging from engagement in criminal syndicalism to leeching welfare and governmentally provided health care. Good citizens work, produce more than they consume, and do not commit crimes. Kids who grow up in foster care are more likely to become addicted to and deal drugs (and harm society), be uneducated or undereducated (and not contribute to society because they can not or will not work a job), and commit violent crimes (and disrupt society or worse). Kids who are adopted do, generally, fare better than kids in foster care -but there are simply not enough parents who wish to adopt to care for every unwanted child. Freakonomics (Levitt, Dubner) makes a candidly pragmatic observation to this end. I would love to live in a world where all kids who were unwanted were adopted and grew up to be good, productive citizens -but such a world is impractical. Because of the disproportionate number of children who need to be adopted (even in a system where abortion is legal) a world where all children had to be adopted would cripple the already weak infrastructure of the overburdened Department of Social Services. However, this is not to say that every unwanted child should be aborted. The Department of Social Services does the best they can, but they are constrained by the limitations of bureaucracy, politics, and policy that (though intended to ensure procedural adoptions) generally only hinders the process and precludes parents who wish to adopt from actually adopting -or at least adopting at the rate that would maximize the utility of adoptive parents as a societal resource. If the object then is to maximize societal utility, flooding the adoptive system with kids who won't grow up to benefit society or at least are more likely to harm society makes no sense whatsoever.

Politics

Abortion-is-societally-beneficial./1/

We aren't here to talk about killing off disabled people. Moreover, I am not saying that abortion is acceptable or societally beneficial in every case to everyone -only that it is beneficial to SOCIETY as a WHOLE. I didn't want to get into a source war, but you demanded numbers. Let's talk about "good citizens" though. "One of the strongest predictors of criminal activity, and the externalities that result, is family background." (1) Where childhood family background is not conducive to a structured environment criminal activity is more likely to result. Kids who are adopted are more likely to commit crimes of all types than kids who are not adopted (1). The chances of kids even getting adopted isn't even favorable. What happens when they age out of the system? They can't find work. They can't go to college. The overwhelming majority doesn't enlist in the military. (2) Where does that leave them? Homeless; and harming society. Even those children that are adopted face a litany of trouble, ranging from increased criminal activity to sociopathic tendencies. That is not to say that every kid that is adopted is going to turn sour, but the research is irrefutable (3). As far as societal benefits across the board are concerned though, I cite John Donohue of Yale University and Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago. (4) "We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly 18 years after abortion legalization. The 5 states that allowed abortion in 1970 experienced declines earlier than the rest of the nation, which legalized in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. States with high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s experienced greater crime reductions in the 1990s. In high abortion states, only arrests of those born after abortion legalization fall relative to low abortion states. Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime." (1) <URL>... (2) <URL>... (3) <URL>... (4) <URL>... John J. Donohue III Stanford Law School; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Steven D. Levitt University of Chicago; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); American Bar Foundation

YYW

We aren't here to talk about killing off disabled people. Moreover, I am not saying that abortion is acceptable or societally beneficial in every case to everyone -only that it is beneficial to SOCIETY as a WHOLE. I didn't want to get into a source war, but you demanded numbers. Let's talk about "good citizens" though. "One of the strongest predictors of criminal activity, and the externalities that result, is family background." (1) Where childhood family background is not conducive to a structured environment criminal activity is more likely to result. Kids who are adopted are more likely to commit crimes of all types than kids who are not adopted (1). The chances of kids even getting adopted isn't even favorable. What happens when they age out of the system? They can't find work. They can't go to college. The overwhelming majority doesn't enlist in the military. (2) Where does that leave them? Homeless; and harming society. Even those children that are adopted face a litany of trouble, ranging from increased criminal activity to sociopathic tendencies. That is not to say that every kid that is adopted is going to turn sour, but the research is irrefutable (3). As far as societal benefits across the board are concerned though, I cite John Donohue of Yale University and Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago. (4) "We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly 18 years after abortion legalization. The 5 states that allowed abortion in 1970 experienced declines earlier than the rest of the nation, which legalized in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. States with high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s experienced greater crime reductions in the 1990s. In high abortion states, only arrests of those born after abortion legalization fall relative to low abortion states. Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime." (1) http://www.mit.edu... (2) http://www.npr.org... (3) http://www.amfor.net... (4) http://papers.ssrn.com... John J. Donohue III Stanford Law School; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Steven D. Levitt University of Chicago; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); American Bar Foundation

Politics

Abortion-is-societally-beneficial./1/

It appears that my dear opponent, Capllock is no longer with us. Tragic, really. Perhaps he is off to benefit society, and is helping perform abortions... or picketing an abortion clinic to engage in more active social protest than engaging in an online debate with someone who is entirely apathetic to the matter. I shall take this time then to cover the topic a bit more comprehensively. The question of reproductive rights has been a central issue of virtually every presidential election since the 1970s. The first major appearance of the argument of reproductive rights came with the case of Grizwold v. Connecticut which legalized usage of birth control. Roe v. Wade soon followed with the outright legalization of abortion, the adoption of the trimester framework, and the hell-storm that ensued. Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey came subsequently in 1992 and abandoned the trimester framework, replacing it with the question of viability; which is about 22 weeks (Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey). Politicians have manipulated the issue of abortion since it's legalization in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe. Feminists have paraded the issue as one of women's rights, and exclusively women's rights without taking into account the role of the male (without whom the woman would not have been impregnated to begin with, short of immaculate conception which hasn't happened in a little over two millennia). But all hyperbole aside the only aspects in this country that are relevant to any reasonable discussion of abortion in the United States is the law, which has been consistently been defined by the Supreme Court upholding a mother's right to do away with her big mistake. Every time I hear an annoying child crying in a movie, or crying in a restaurant I am more convicted that abortion is the way to go -especially considering that the parent's lacked the foresight to use a condom. Thankfully, most people that just shouldn't be reproducing aren't having kids anyway (because they are too repulsive to the opposite sex to even be considered as a potential playmate), but in those instances where some people just get too frisky and can't think five minutes (if they even last that long) into their future, there is but one solution. Many have and still do considered abortion murder; when in reality that debate is really about as relevant as a debate over the proper way to pronounce the word "tomato." You say tomato; I say abort! Roe v. Wade is here to stay, despite the best efforts of Reagan and Bush the Second. The Supreme Court's decision in Grizwold created a "right to privacy" which was derived from the first amendment's right to free association clause, the third amendment's protection from the quartering of soldiers, the fourth amendment's protection of unreasonable searches and seizures, the fifth amendment's self-incrimination clause, the retention of "other rights" by the ninth amendment, and the incorporation of these rights under the due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment (Grizwold v. Connecticut). Within a few short years, Roe was heard which declared firstly that the Texas statute which banned all abortions was unconstitutional because the right to privacy protects a woman's right to have an abortion. Secondly, the holding from Roe established that in the first trimester of a woman's pregnancy that she had the strongest interest in having an abortion, but by the third trimester the state had a more dominant interest in protecting the life of the child (Roe v. Wade). The question however that determines the legitimacy of abortion itself is simply, from a legal standpoint: when does the fetus/child/whatever you wish to call it get constitutional rights? If the woman's interest was dominant in the first trimester, and the state (fetus's) interest was dominant in the third semester, what happens in the second? Roe left this question largely unanswered and it caused a tremendous deal of controversy until 1992, when Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey was heard abandoning the ambiguousness shat out in Roe, and replacing it with a concrete deadline. The 22 week deadline (or lifeline, if you will) is the time at which during a normal pregnancy a fetus is viable -that is, it could live on it's own or with the assistance of modern science independent of the mother's womb. Regardless of pro-life rhetoric, Sandra Day O'Conner's opinion is more important than any vitriolic nonsense a pro-lifer would have to say on the matter. It is difficult to consider a world without abortion. If it weren't safe and legal it would still be a less-than-rare occurrence, just instead of in a doctors office -it would be far more likely to happen in a back alley. However, in the United States, despite the efforts of Republicans and Blue-Dog Democrats abortion is still legal, and always will be. It just hasn't merited federal funding -yet.

YYW

It appears that my dear opponent, Capllock is no longer with us. Tragic, really. Perhaps he is off to benefit society, and is helping perform abortions... or picketing an abortion clinic to engage in more active social protest than engaging in an online debate with someone who is entirely apathetic to the matter. I shall take this time then to cover the topic a bit more comprehensively. The question of reproductive rights has been a central issue of virtually every presidential election since the 1970s. The first major appearance of the argument of reproductive rights came with the case of Grizwold v. Connecticut which legalized usage of birth control. Roe v. Wade soon followed with the outright legalization of abortion, the adoption of the trimester framework, and the hell-storm that ensued. Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey came subsequently in 1992 and abandoned the trimester framework, replacing it with the question of viability; which is about 22 weeks (Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey). Politicians have manipulated the issue of abortion since it's legalization in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe. Feminists have paraded the issue as one of women's rights, and exclusively women's rights without taking into account the role of the male (without whom the woman would not have been impregnated to begin with, short of immaculate conception which hasn't happened in a little over two millennia). But all hyperbole aside the only aspects in this country that are relevant to any reasonable discussion of abortion in the United States is the law, which has been consistently been defined by the Supreme Court upholding a mother's right to do away with her big mistake. Every time I hear an annoying child crying in a movie, or crying in a restaurant I am more convicted that abortion is the way to go -especially considering that the parent's lacked the foresight to use a condom. Thankfully, most people that just shouldn't be reproducing aren't having kids anyway (because they are too repulsive to the opposite sex to even be considered as a potential playmate), but in those instances where some people just get too frisky and can't think five minutes (if they even last that long) into their future, there is but one solution. Many have and still do considered abortion murder; when in reality that debate is really about as relevant as a debate over the proper way to pronounce the word "tomato." You say tomato; I say abort! Roe v. Wade is here to stay, despite the best efforts of Reagan and Bush the Second. The Supreme Court's decision in Grizwold created a "right to privacy" which was derived from the first amendment's right to free association clause, the third amendment's protection from the quartering of soldiers, the fourth amendment's protection of unreasonable searches and seizures, the fifth amendment's self-incrimination clause, the retention of "other rights" by the ninth amendment, and the incorporation of these rights under the due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment (Grizwold v. Connecticut). Within a few short years, Roe was heard which declared firstly that the Texas statute which banned all abortions was unconstitutional because the right to privacy protects a woman's right to have an abortion. Secondly, the holding from Roe established that in the first trimester of a woman's pregnancy that she had the strongest interest in having an abortion, but by the third trimester the state had a more dominant interest in protecting the life of the child (Roe v. Wade). The question however that determines the legitimacy of abortion itself is simply, from a legal standpoint: when does the fetus/child/whatever you wish to call it get constitutional rights? If the woman's interest was dominant in the first trimester, and the state (fetus's) interest was dominant in the third semester, what happens in the second? Roe left this question largely unanswered and it caused a tremendous deal of controversy until 1992, when Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey was heard abandoning the ambiguousness shat out in Roe, and replacing it with a concrete deadline. The 22 week deadline (or lifeline, if you will) is the time at which during a normal pregnancy a fetus is viable -that is, it could live on it's own or with the assistance of modern science independent of the mother's womb. Regardless of pro-life rhetoric, Sandra Day O'Conner's opinion is more important than any vitriolic nonsense a pro-lifer would have to say on the matter. It is difficult to consider a world without abortion. If it weren't safe and legal it would still be a less-than-rare occurrence, just instead of in a doctors office -it would be far more likely to happen in a back alley. However, in the United States, despite the efforts of Republicans and Blue-Dog Democrats abortion is still legal, and always will be. It just hasn't merited federal funding -yet.

Politics

Abortion-is-societally-beneficial./1/

Hello :) I just wanted to take up the position that you were debating against, since I think my side has a somewhat better defence than was given. I think that most participants in the debate can agree that people ought not be wantonly killed. Thus, the question that seems most fundamental to the debate is "when does personhood begin"? After all, it is only personhood that matters - not "life" (As there are a great many things that are alive that most people have little qualms about destroying, since those things are not persons). You attempt to address this by introducing several arguments: 1. Potential ought to be equated with actualisation of that potential 2. Conception, being the point of origination for all humans, ought to be regarded as sacred. The problem with both of these arguments stems from the assumption that the potential for a thing to develop automatically means that such a thing ought to be given the rights of its fully-developed self. We can demonstrate the folly in this thinking in several ways: A) We can regress further and further back to demonstrate the absurdity of the "potentiality" argument. Given the right conditions, it is fair to say that a zygote will develop into a human. By your argument, we ought to then afford this zygote with all the rights of a fully-formed human. But is it not the case that, given the correct conditions, a sperm will develop into a human? The conditions are obviously different, but if it is given the proper tools (in the case of a sperm, an egg is required; in the case of a zygote, various nutrients are required) then it too will develop into a human. In fact, the sperm and the egg can be said to be the "origins of humanity"; they contain the genetic information that is essential to the development of an actual human. Without them, no zygote could ever develop, and thus no person could ever develop. We've defined "personhood" now to mean "potential for becoming a human", which both a sperm and an egg clearly meet, since they both the first and necessary steps for the creation of a human being. What are the implications of this view? One is that most women are quite murderous - every time they choose not to have a child when they are capable, since an egg is a person, we can say that they are murdering that person. Men, however, are guilty of a great sin, for millions upon millions of sperm are typically lost every single day; men, we can say, are commiting a veritable genocide against humanity! Ought we, then, set up an international tribunal (such as the ones held in Nuremberg) in order to bring this gender to justice? Obviously this line of thinking is absolutely absurd. But why is it absurd? If you are to be believed, then without the sperm (the "acorn"), we'll never develop into the oak tree and thus the sperm is a person that must be protected. The logic seems appealing enough when we're dealing with zygotes, but very few are willing to take it to its necessary conclusion, so why is this? This is because we recognise that moral personhood does not simply begin at life. Suppose there is a student and his professor. In order to get a 100% on some specific assignment that will determine the mark for the whole course, the professor states that all a student must do is read the poem "Mary Had a Little Lamb". Suppose further that this student decides to refuse to read that poem, and thus the student receives a 0% in the course. The student may attempt to go up to his professor and say "But you know that I can read - I clearly had the potential for completing this assignment! Is that not the same as actually completing it?". Very few people would fault the professor is he found this argument uncompelling One final example: Suppose that I have before me some tomatoes, zucchini, frozen meat, cheese, noodles, and various other ingredients. Suppose further that I have been tasked with cooking the meal at a prestigious dinner. The guests show up, but there is no meal to be had. Will I be able to argue that all of the ingredients have the *potential* to become lasagna and thus they should consider the meal served? Of course not. The ingredients may someday become lasagna, if given the right conditions (namely, my skill and interference), but until that point they are merely ingredients on a table - they are definitely not lasagna, and should not be treated as such. Potential is just that - potential. I have the potential of one day becoming the President of the United States. Does this mean we should simply consider me to be the President? Obviously not. You ask the question of what the difference is between us and our potential. That difference is reality: If we accept the notion that a thing must not only be alive but must be a person in order to receive full moral rights (a reasonable notion - we do not afford cows or bacteria the same moral rights that we give to a human), then we have established a criterion for those moral rights. Thus, the ONLY test that is relevant when determining whether a thing has those rights is whether they meet the criterion - it is NOT whether they might, someday in the future, meet that criterion. We need a definition of personhood to go further. I do not have enough space to give a detailed definition, so let us provisionally use this definition (which you may challenge later): A person is that entity (note that it is not restricted to homo sapiens) which possesses such a significant capability for analysis of information that it has become self-aware, has formed a personal identity, is capable of thinking in normative terms, is capable of making informed choices, and is capable of significant abstract thought. Some might criticise this definition as excluding the mentally deficient or small children, but this comes from an underestimation of the mental capacities of these groups of people and thus the definition does not run into that problem. Thus, when we look at the zygote, we must ask ourselves if it meets the criteria for personhood. Is it self-aware? No! The zygote is not capable of such high-level mental thought. Does it have a personal identity (Is it thinking "I'm me!" while in the womb?). Certainly not. Can it think in normative terms - can it classify things into "good" and "bad"? Since it cannot think in any significant way, we must answer "no". Can it make informed choices? It cannot be informed and it cannot make choices, so no, it is not capable of this. Is it capable of significant abstract thought? Once again, no. Will it someday develop into a thing that meets these requirements? Sure. When it does, then we can afford it with moral rights, and if we want to create an entity that is a person then we ought to protect this zygote notwithstanding its lack of personhood. But it is not a person RIGHT NOW, and thus we cannot afford it with the rights of a person RIGHT NOW, since it does not meet our criteria for giving it moral rights RIGHT NOW. This is also why we would never extend such protections to a sperm. Is a sperm self aware? Does a sperm have personal identity? Can it think in normative terms? Make informed choices? Capable of significant abstract thought? The answer to all of these is "no". Will it someday develop into a thing that meets these requirements? Sure. When it does, then we can afford it with moral rights. We can debate whether various stages of development meet the requirements for personhood or not, but ultimately it seems clear that personhood does not begin at conception. You may still make an argument based on the idea that the zygote is owned by the whole of society and thus if any one person objects then abortion cannot be allowed (though this would be a bizarre argument to make), but if my analysis is correct then you cannot continue to negate allowing abortion in the abstract on the basis of the "right to life" of the zygote. I look forward to your response!

Zasch

Hello :) I just wanted to take up the position that you were debating against, since I think my side has a somewhat better defence than was given. I think that most participants in the debate can agree that people ought not be wantonly killed. Thus, the question that seems most fundamental to the debate is "when does personhood begin"? After all, it is only personhood that matters - not "life" (As there are a great many things that are alive that most people have little qualms about destroying, since those things are not persons). You attempt to address this by introducing several arguments: 1. Potential ought to be equated with actualisation of that potential 2. Conception, being the point of origination for all humans, ought to be regarded as sacred. The problem with both of these arguments stems from the assumption that the potential for a thing to develop automatically means that such a thing ought to be given the rights of its fully-developed self. We can demonstrate the folly in this thinking in several ways: A) We can regress further and further back to demonstrate the absurdity of the "potentiality" argument. Given the right conditions, it is fair to say that a zygote will develop into a human. By your argument, we ought to then afford this zygote with all the rights of a fully-formed human. But is it not the case that, given the correct conditions, a sperm will develop into a human? The conditions are obviously different, but if it is given the proper tools (in the case of a sperm, an egg is required; in the case of a zygote, various nutrients are required) then it too will develop into a human. In fact, the sperm and the egg can be said to be the "origins of humanity"; they contain the genetic information that is essential to the development of an actual human. Without them, no zygote could ever develop, and thus no person could ever develop. We've defined "personhood" now to mean "potential for becoming a human", which both a sperm and an egg clearly meet, since they both the first and necessary steps for the creation of a human being. What are the implications of this view? One is that most women are quite murderous - every time they choose not to have a child when they are capable, since an egg is a person, we can say that they are murdering that person. Men, however, are guilty of a great sin, for millions upon millions of sperm are typically lost every single day; men, we can say, are commiting a veritable genocide against humanity! Ought we, then, set up an international tribunal (such as the ones held in Nuremberg) in order to bring this gender to justice? Obviously this line of thinking is absolutely absurd. But why is it absurd? If you are to be believed, then without the sperm (the "acorn"), we'll never develop into the oak tree and thus the sperm is a person that must be protected. The logic seems appealing enough when we're dealing with zygotes, but very few are willing to take it to its necessary conclusion, so why is this? This is because we recognise that moral personhood does not simply begin at life. Suppose there is a student and his professor. In order to get a 100% on some specific assignment that will determine the mark for the whole course, the professor states that all a student must do is read the poem "Mary Had a Little Lamb". Suppose further that this student decides to refuse to read that poem, and thus the student receives a 0% in the course. The student may attempt to go up to his professor and say "But you know that I can read - I clearly had the potential for completing this assignment! Is that not the same as actually completing it?". Very few people would fault the professor is he found this argument uncompelling One final example: Suppose that I have before me some tomatoes, zucchini, frozen meat, cheese, noodles, and various other ingredients. Suppose further that I have been tasked with cooking the meal at a prestigious dinner. The guests show up, but there is no meal to be had. Will I be able to argue that all of the ingredients have the *potential* to become lasagna and thus they should consider the meal served? Of course not. The ingredients may someday become lasagna, if given the right conditions (namely, my skill and interference), but until that point they are merely ingredients on a table - they are definitely not lasagna, and should not be treated as such. Potential is just that - potential. I have the potential of one day becoming the President of the United States. Does this mean we should simply consider me to be the President? Obviously not. You ask the question of what the difference is between us and our potential. That difference is reality: If we accept the notion that a thing must not only be alive but must be a person in order to receive full moral rights (a reasonable notion - we do not afford cows or bacteria the same moral rights that we give to a human), then we have established a criterion for those moral rights. Thus, the ONLY test that is relevant when determining whether a thing has those rights is whether they meet the criterion - it is NOT whether they might, someday in the future, meet that criterion. We need a definition of personhood to go further. I do not have enough space to give a detailed definition, so let us provisionally use this definition (which you may challenge later): A person is that entity (note that it is not restricted to homo sapiens) which possesses such a significant capability for analysis of information that it has become self-aware, has formed a personal identity, is capable of thinking in normative terms, is capable of making informed choices, and is capable of significant abstract thought. Some might criticise this definition as excluding the mentally deficient or small children, but this comes from an underestimation of the mental capacities of these groups of people and thus the definition does not run into that problem. Thus, when we look at the zygote, we must ask ourselves if it meets the criteria for personhood. Is it self-aware? No! The zygote is not capable of such high-level mental thought. Does it have a personal identity (Is it thinking "I'm me!" while in the womb?). Certainly not. Can it think in normative terms - can it classify things into "good" and "bad"? Since it cannot think in any significant way, we must answer "no". Can it make informed choices? It cannot be informed and it cannot make choices, so no, it is not capable of this. Is it capable of significant abstract thought? Once again, no. Will it someday develop into a thing that meets these requirements? Sure. When it does, then we can afford it with moral rights, and if we want to create an entity that is a person then we ought to protect this zygote notwithstanding its lack of personhood. But it is not a person RIGHT NOW, and thus we cannot afford it with the rights of a person RIGHT NOW, since it does not meet our criteria for giving it moral rights RIGHT NOW. This is also why we would never extend such protections to a sperm. Is a sperm self aware? Does a sperm have personal identity? Can it think in normative terms? Make informed choices? Capable of significant abstract thought? The answer to all of these is "no". Will it someday develop into a thing that meets these requirements? Sure. When it does, then we can afford it with moral rights. We can debate whether various stages of development meet the requirements for personhood or not, but ultimately it seems clear that personhood does not begin at conception. You may still make an argument based on the idea that the zygote is owned by the whole of society and thus if any one person objects then abortion cannot be allowed (though this would be a bizarre argument to make), but if my analysis is correct then you cannot continue to negate allowing abortion in the abstract on the basis of the "right to life" of the zygote. I look forward to your response!

Politics

Abortion-ought-to-be-legal-in-the-United-States./1/

Thank you for responding. Unfortunately, I find that many of your responses seem to apply two different standards of logic when dealing with the same concepts. Allow me to clarify. Before I do that, though, I should note that my original response was well over the limit (by about 7,000 characters), so I'm having to truncate a lot of points. If it seems like I didn't respond to something or that I didn't develop my logic fully, please bring the point up again in your rebuttal, since I may have done so but merely removed it for space. Also, please forgive me if I sound a bit robotic or disjointed. I'll put what I've cut in [Snip: Summary] form when I replace something :) Suppose a woman were to become pregnant, but were to also fall into a coma. Suppose further that this woman were in the middle of the desert, and thus there were no other humans around to care for her. Assess the probability that the human inside would continue to develop until birth assuming that all variables remained the same. [Snip: A zygote has to be actively supported inside the womb, it is not that the zygote will "default" to being born unless interfered, but it will default to dying unless interference gives is nutrients, etc.] [Snip: Distinction between action/nonaction irrelevant anyway.] >>>From what is implied by the definition of sentient, it would seem that something that is sentient is alive. I would find it hard for one to argument that an entity can be sentient and not alive<<< I apologise, but I do not seem to have communicated my point properly. The point is that "life" is not the criterion that we use - personhood is. This is a very important distinction that I will address in a moment. >>>Well, since life is protected under U.S. law <<< Assuming that the Equal Protection clause is not the law you are citing, I would ask that you cite the law that protects "life" in this manner. In fact, I can think of plenty of instances where life is routeinly killed for pleasure, sometimes with the blessing of society. [Snip: Life isn't protected in general. Bacteria is life, but we murder it quite frequently and gleefully.] [Snip: Sentient life isn't protected in general. Most of us eat meat.] To be sure, there is a segment of the population that believes that all sentient life ought to be protected. The refutation of this view will be addressed later as I restate why I support abortion, but as a matter of American law it would seem that neither "life" nor "sentient life" is protected to nearly the extent that you believe. >>>Debating that certain life is not protected is in violation of the spirit of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.<<< As it stands, the wording of the Equal Protection clause would appear to support my point: "No state shall deny to any **person** within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Note that it does NOT say any lifeform: it protects only PERSONS. The 14th amendment that you have cited sets a bar for legal protection in the United States: not the requirement of life, but the requirement of PERSONHOOD. This explicitly recognises that there is a distinction between life and personhood. Thus, your attempts to conflate life and personhood together fail by your own citation. >>>, it seems that the protection of Life is the protection of one living out development.<<< [Snip: When a man is murdered, we mourn his loss of liberty, not merely that his 'potential to die' was interrupted. His liberty comes from the fact that he is a PERSON, not merely that he is alive.] You would put forth that the zygote has the potential of developing into a person, and thus it ought to be considered a person. While you yourself negate this argument when you agree that potential does not equal actual, allow me to once again refute it: We can demonstrate that this "potential" argument is absurd if we simply take it one step further. Sperm, given the right conditions, will also eventually develop into humans. However, we would never punish a man for masturbating or for simply choosing to abstain from sexual activity because we recognise that a sperm is not a person. In response to this, you claim that inaction results in the termination of that potential, whereas an active action must be taken in order to terminate the potential of personhood in a zygote. I should note that this does not address the logical point of whether potential ought to be conflated with actual (and, once again, you agreed with me that it ought not be conflated, which makes this little bit irrelevant), but the statement itself is false: If a mother herself does not take an active interest in providing for her growing child, the child itself will die. Indeed, in the hypothetical where the mother does nothing at all (and, thus, is in a state of perfect inaction), the child itself dies fairly shortly afterwards, indicating that active action is needed in order to *keep* the child, and a form of abortion is the result of *inaction*. [Snip: Just as a mother can abort actively or inactively, the student can fail actively or inactively] However, I need not even do this, because you have not demonstrated how the action/nonaction distinction affects anything whatsoever. And, once again, you already agreed that potential is not actual: Thus, your whole case is negated on the fact that you affirm the idea that a zygote's POTENTIAL to become a person does not, in fact, make it equal to a person. Thus, given its non-equality, that would also imply that there is a non-equality in the rights afforded. [Snip: Animals are sentient, but not protected. Your profile says you aren't a vegetarian. Thus, your position is inconsistent.] However, supposing you were a vegetarian, you may claim consistency. Am I defeated on this point? No! Ultimately, any moral determination is going to be a wholly subjective matter. I can claim "Writing on paper is equal to genocide" without being incorrect, per se, if I believe the statement to be true. When we debate about morality, we debate on two fronts: 1. What is "reasonable" to the both of us given our shared values? 2. Is there any part of your moral system that is inconsistent (that is, it contradicts itself)? On the second front, I have already demonstrated that the way you assign rights (such as the right to life) is inconsistent. Now, let me restate why I have also demonstrated that I meet the first requirement. [Snip: People still eat meat because cows, despite their considerable intelligence, are not sapient.] Clearly neither "life" nor "sentience" are the requirement for being considered a person: sapience is. People give too little credit to human intelligence, for even the small infant or the severely mentally disabled person is stil capable of great abstractions such as high-level metacognition. Compared to most individuals they may be lacking, but they are still persons. The vast majority of life, even sentient life, does not posess this ability to any significant extent (homo sapeins are, obviously, a notable exception). This, ultimately, is what we ought to base the right to life on, because humans are defined not in their biology or their sex organs or anything like that, but rather by their greater ability for experiencing the world. [Snip: A human in a hypothetical supercomputer is still human. Our personhood is what defines us, not our biology.] Thus, ultimately your argument fails to convince me as you have failed to adequately defend the idea that the potential for a thing equals the actual for that thing, and as well you have failed to defend the idea that personhood is contingent upon *sentience*, not sapience or some other criteria. I appreciate how respectful and courteous you have been in this debate, and I want to commend you for bringing up good points. I look forward to your response! :)

Zasch

Thank you for responding. Unfortunately, I find that many of your responses seem to apply two different standards of logic when dealing with the same concepts. Allow me to clarify. Before I do that, though, I should note that my original response was well over the limit (by about 7,000 characters), so I'm having to truncate a lot of points. If it seems like I didn't respond to something or that I didn't develop my logic fully, please bring the point up again in your rebuttal, since I may have done so but merely removed it for space. Also, please forgive me if I sound a bit robotic or disjointed. I'll put what I've cut in [Snip: Summary] form when I replace something :) Suppose a woman were to become pregnant, but were to also fall into a coma. Suppose further that this woman were in the middle of the desert, and thus there were no other humans around to care for her. Assess the probability that the human inside would continue to develop until birth assuming that all variables remained the same. [Snip: A zygote has to be actively supported inside the womb, it is not that the zygote will "default" to being born unless interfered, but it will default to dying unless interference gives is nutrients, etc.] [Snip: Distinction between action/nonaction irrelevant anyway.] >>>From what is implied by the definition of sentient, it would seem that something that is sentient is alive. I would find it hard for one to argument that an entity can be sentient and not alive<<< I apologise, but I do not seem to have communicated my point properly. The point is that "life" is not the criterion that we use - personhood is. This is a very important distinction that I will address in a moment. >>>Well, since life is protected under U.S. law <<< Assuming that the Equal Protection clause is not the law you are citing, I would ask that you cite the law that protects "life" in this manner. In fact, I can think of plenty of instances where life is routeinly killed for pleasure, sometimes with the blessing of society. [Snip: Life isn't protected in general. Bacteria is life, but we murder it quite frequently and gleefully.] [Snip: Sentient life isn't protected in general. Most of us eat meat.] To be sure, there is a segment of the population that believes that all sentient life ought to be protected. The refutation of this view will be addressed later as I restate why I support abortion, but as a matter of American law it would seem that neither "life" nor "sentient life" is protected to nearly the extent that you believe. >>>Debating that certain life is not protected is in violation of the spirit of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.<<< As it stands, the wording of the Equal Protection clause would appear to support my point: "No state shall deny to any **person** within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Note that it does NOT say any lifeform: it protects only PERSONS. The 14th amendment that you have cited sets a bar for legal protection in the United States: not the requirement of life, but the requirement of PERSONHOOD. This explicitly recognises that there is a distinction between life and personhood. Thus, your attempts to conflate life and personhood together fail by your own citation. >>>, it seems that the protection of Life is the protection of one living out development.<<< [Snip: When a man is murdered, we mourn his loss of liberty, not merely that his 'potential to die' was interrupted. His liberty comes from the fact that he is a PERSON, not merely that he is alive.] You would put forth that the zygote has the potential of developing into a person, and thus it ought to be considered a person. While you yourself negate this argument when you agree that potential does not equal actual, allow me to once again refute it: We can demonstrate that this "potential" argument is absurd if we simply take it one step further. Sperm, given the right conditions, will also eventually develop into humans. However, we would never punish a man for masturbating or for simply choosing to abstain from sexual activity because we recognise that a sperm is not a person. In response to this, you claim that inaction results in the termination of that potential, whereas an active action must be taken in order to terminate the potential of personhood in a zygote. I should note that this does not address the logical point of whether potential ought to be conflated with actual (and, once again, you agreed with me that it ought not be conflated, which makes this little bit irrelevant), but the statement itself is false: If a mother herself does not take an active interest in providing for her growing child, the child itself will die. Indeed, in the hypothetical where the mother does nothing at all (and, thus, is in a state of perfect inaction), the child itself dies fairly shortly afterwards, indicating that active action is needed in order to *keep* the child, and a form of abortion is the result of *inaction*. [Snip: Just as a mother can abort actively or inactively, the student can fail actively or inactively] However, I need not even do this, because you have not demonstrated how the action/nonaction distinction affects anything whatsoever. And, once again, you already agreed that potential is not actual: Thus, your whole case is negated on the fact that you affirm the idea that a zygote's POTENTIAL to become a person does not, in fact, make it equal to a person. Thus, given its non-equality, that would also imply that there is a non-equality in the rights afforded. [Snip: Animals are sentient, but not protected. Your profile says you aren't a vegetarian. Thus, your position is inconsistent.] However, supposing you were a vegetarian, you may claim consistency. Am I defeated on this point? No! Ultimately, any moral determination is going to be a wholly subjective matter. I can claim "Writing on paper is equal to genocide" without being incorrect, per se, if I believe the statement to be true. When we debate about morality, we debate on two fronts: 1. What is "reasonable" to the both of us given our shared values? 2. Is there any part of your moral system that is inconsistent (that is, it contradicts itself)? On the second front, I have already demonstrated that the way you assign rights (such as the right to life) is inconsistent. Now, let me restate why I have also demonstrated that I meet the first requirement. [Snip: People still eat meat because cows, despite their considerable intelligence, are not sapient.] Clearly neither "life" nor "sentience" are the requirement for being considered a person: sapience is. People give too little credit to human intelligence, for even the small infant or the severely mentally disabled person is stil capable of great abstractions such as high-level metacognition. Compared to most individuals they may be lacking, but they are still persons. The vast majority of life, even sentient life, does not posess this ability to any significant extent (homo sapeins are, obviously, a notable exception). This, ultimately, is what we ought to base the right to life on, because humans are defined not in their biology or their sex organs or anything like that, but rather by their greater ability for experiencing the world. [Snip: A human in a hypothetical supercomputer is still human. Our personhood is what defines us, not our biology.] Thus, ultimately your argument fails to convince me as you have failed to adequately defend the idea that the potential for a thing equals the actual for that thing, and as well you have failed to defend the idea that personhood is contingent upon *sentience*, not sapience or some other criteria. I appreciate how respectful and courteous you have been in this debate, and I want to commend you for bringing up good points. I look forward to your response! :)

Politics

Abortion-ought-to-be-legal-in-the-United-States./1/

I do apologise - circumstances in my life are taking time away from my ability to engage in online discussions. However, I've really enjoyed debating with you, since you seem to be capable of making good points. I'll try to give a response, but I'm pressed for time and thus it may not be up to standards! Also, once again, I have to snip :( >A more clear statement would be a time line with A at the beginning and B at the end.< Indeed, but you must then provide reasoning as to why the beginning ought to be conflated with the end when it comes to moral rights. >which would make the 14th Amendment support me because there is no inequality of human-life under U.S. jurisdiction.< The Supreme Court of the United States, however, has stated that nonviable fetuses are not protected under the 14th Amendment. Hence, as a matter of law, you are incorrect. As a matter of philosophy, you still have yet to provide a defence for why we ought to reject the standard of sapience in favour of sentience. >A zygote does retain personhood< [Snip: By no reasonable standard of personhood does a zygote qualify. It can't think.] >When I defined action, I called it abortion and only in the context for which abortion could happen and in the time frame of the procedure for which an abortion would take place.< [Snip: This definition is abusive. "Action" means "state or process of doing or acting". You are redefining it to suit your argument when this common definition works well enough. By redefining it, your argument becomes circular: You demonstrate that abortion is wrong merely by asserting that such a "positive action" is wrong, when you've defined it as "abortion", and thus "abortion is wrong because abortion is wrong".] >That action is called negligence.< "Negligence", the absence of action, can be defined as an action if you like, but then all of your attacks against my examples fall. If we allow for non-action to be defined as an action so long as will it put into the equation, then the non-action in my examples qualifies to illustrate my points. >The way you have argued, the human-mind should be able to function without the need for any observable biological or chemical features-- to which I disagree.< [Snip: No. That a thing depends on another thing doesn't mean the two are conflated. I depend upon the food I eat for survival, but we cannot say that the fruit bowl I just ate is me.] >So the notion that biology does not defined personhood is botched logic.< It does not define personhood. Suppose we encounter an alien species as intelligent, capable, and dynamic as we are. They also, obviously, happen to be non-homo sapiens. Do we then have the right to treat them as property? No, because personhood is *not* defined by biology. Biology is necessary in developing personhood, but it is a distinct thing from that personhood. [Snip: If I take a road to New York City, we do not say that the road itself is New York City, but merely a path. In this case, the road is biology and New York City is personhood.] [Snip: You are conflating ideas again.] It is not enough to merely demonstrate that personhood follows the development of these biological systems, either. You must demonstrate that the two ideas are, logically, the exact same: these systems immediately result in personhood. >--I have refuted his examples of the desert, vegetarianism, etc.< You have not. In fact, you admitted your inconsistency when it comes to vegetarianism, and I have already shown why your definitions are somewhat abusive and result in your argument becoming circular. >But the right to develop into these is a protected right.< [Snip: As a matter of law, you are wrong. Morally speaking, you have simply asserted your position, rather than defended it.] Furthermore, you still do not address the regression argument: Why should the right of a sperm to develop into a human be valued any less than that of a zygote? >--I refuted the notion that I claim 'action' to be defined as only ONE thing. It clearly depends on the context.< [Snip: Your definition of action is abusive and highly nonstandard. It changes depending on the argument, and has no consistency.] >--I have now given personhood to the Zygote, which is important because Zasch's argument was grounded in the fact that there was no personhood.< Unfortunately, personhood is not something to just be "given" by fiat - that would be an abuse of definitions. I brought up the idea of personhood as encompassing several traits, and you did not dispute upon that idea in the slightest. [Snip: You offer personhood has including dead people. This is absurd, because dead people can't think or do anything.] But you offer no defence for even this bizarre definition of personhood. All you say is that: 1. Biological systems give rise to personhood, and therefore biological systems define personhood. 2. A zygote is sentient and alive, and thus a person. Argument 1, once again, is refuted by the fact that a path one takes to a thing does not define that thing. Biological systems are not the definition of personhood because personhood can exist without those biological systems (for instance, through the use of technological systems). You repeatedly claim that you are not conflating the beginning with the end, but your arguments betray the reality: You ARE conflating the zygote with the person. You ARE conflating the undeveloped brain with the developed brain. You are saying that, morally speaking, the potential for one to develop into the other means that the former *IS*, morally speaking, equivalent to the other. Biological systems are a preqreuisite to personhood in humans, but neither do they guarantee personhood nor do they logically imply personhood. The road is not the same as the destination. The second argument is one that I defeated long ago, and you did not address. Life is not a good standard for personhood because then we reach a situation where a man affectd by bacteria cannot take medications because that kills life. Sentience too is not a reasonable standard, for you yourself affirm the idea of eating animals and yet they are senitent - the argument may be amusing, but its logic is no less powerful. You have not addressed this at all, and thus your second argument fails. With both of these arguments out of the way, we must then accept the only reasonable standard of personhood that there is: sapience. If a thing posesses sapience, regardless of whether that thing is terrestrial or extraterrestrial or nonbiological, that thing is a person! When we no longer possess sapience, such as when we die, we cease to be "people". Since you are unable to either defend against my attacks on your method of assigning moral rights (as they lead to absurd and contradictory conclusions), nor are you able to effectively attack my concept of personhood (that is, why a sapience-based standard is unreasonable), then your entire case falls apart: The zygote is NOT a person by any reasonable definition, and thus the zygote is not entitled to the rights afforded to people. Whether the zygote or the sperm or the tomato will develop into one thing or another is irrelevant, because as you have repeatedly stated we cannot, morally speaking, conflate the two. If the requirement is X, and a thing doesn't have X, it doesn't matter whether the thing may or may not have X in the future...they still do not meet the requirement (the requirement, in this case, being personhood). Therefore, with zygotes now being recognised as non-persons (both in a legal and moral sense), abortion ought to be allowed. I'd like to thank my opponent for this very entertaining and respectful debate. Hopefully, in the future, we can have more such discussions! :)

Zasch

I do apologise - circumstances in my life are taking time away from my ability to engage in online discussions. However, I've really enjoyed debating with you, since you seem to be capable of making good points. I'll try to give a response, but I'm pressed for time and thus it may not be up to standards! Also, once again, I have to snip :( >A more clear statement would be a time line with A at the beginning and B at the end.< Indeed, but you must then provide reasoning as to why the beginning ought to be conflated with the end when it comes to moral rights. >which would make the 14th Amendment support me because there is no inequality of human-life under U.S. jurisdiction.< The Supreme Court of the United States, however, has stated that nonviable fetuses are not protected under the 14th Amendment. Hence, as a matter of law, you are incorrect. As a matter of philosophy, you still have yet to provide a defence for why we ought to reject the standard of sapience in favour of sentience. >A zygote does retain personhood< [Snip: By no reasonable standard of personhood does a zygote qualify. It can't think.] >When I defined action, I called it abortion and only in the context for which abortion could happen and in the time frame of the procedure for which an abortion would take place.< [Snip: This definition is abusive. "Action" means "state or process of doing or acting". You are redefining it to suit your argument when this common definition works well enough. By redefining it, your argument becomes circular: You demonstrate that abortion is wrong merely by asserting that such a "positive action" is wrong, when you've defined it as "abortion", and thus "abortion is wrong because abortion is wrong".] >That action is called negligence.< "Negligence", the absence of action, can be defined as an action if you like, but then all of your attacks against my examples fall. If we allow for non-action to be defined as an action so long as will it put into the equation, then the non-action in my examples qualifies to illustrate my points. >The way you have argued, the human-mind should be able to function without the need for any observable biological or chemical features-- to which I disagree.< [Snip: No. That a thing depends on another thing doesn't mean the two are conflated. I depend upon the food I eat for survival, but we cannot say that the fruit bowl I just ate is me.] >So the notion that biology does not defined personhood is botched logic.< It does not define personhood. Suppose we encounter an alien species as intelligent, capable, and dynamic as we are. They also, obviously, happen to be non-homo sapiens. Do we then have the right to treat them as property? No, because personhood is *not* defined by biology. Biology is necessary in developing personhood, but it is a distinct thing from that personhood. [Snip: If I take a road to New York City, we do not say that the road itself is New York City, but merely a path. In this case, the road is biology and New York City is personhood.] [Snip: You are conflating ideas again.] It is not enough to merely demonstrate that personhood follows the development of these biological systems, either. You must demonstrate that the two ideas are, logically, the exact same: these systems immediately result in personhood. >--I have refuted his examples of the desert, vegetarianism, etc.< You have not. In fact, you admitted your inconsistency when it comes to vegetarianism, and I have already shown why your definitions are somewhat abusive and result in your argument becoming circular. >But the right to develop into these is a protected right.< [Snip: As a matter of law, you are wrong. Morally speaking, you have simply asserted your position, rather than defended it.] Furthermore, you still do not address the regression argument: Why should the right of a sperm to develop into a human be valued any less than that of a zygote? >--I refuted the notion that I claim 'action' to be defined as only ONE thing. It clearly depends on the context.< [Snip: Your definition of action is abusive and highly nonstandard. It changes depending on the argument, and has no consistency.] >--I have now given personhood to the Zygote, which is important because Zasch's argument was grounded in the fact that there was no personhood.< Unfortunately, personhood is not something to just be "given" by fiat - that would be an abuse of definitions. I brought up the idea of personhood as encompassing several traits, and you did not dispute upon that idea in the slightest. [Snip: You offer personhood has including dead people. This is absurd, because dead people can't think or do anything.] But you offer no defence for even this bizarre definition of personhood. All you say is that: 1. Biological systems give rise to personhood, and therefore biological systems define personhood. 2. A zygote is sentient and alive, and thus a person. Argument 1, once again, is refuted by the fact that a path one takes to a thing does not define that thing. Biological systems are not the definition of personhood because personhood can exist without those biological systems (for instance, through the use of technological systems). You repeatedly claim that you are not conflating the beginning with the end, but your arguments betray the reality: You ARE conflating the zygote with the person. You ARE conflating the undeveloped brain with the developed brain. You are saying that, morally speaking, the potential for one to develop into the other means that the former *IS*, morally speaking, equivalent to the other. Biological systems are a preqreuisite to personhood in humans, but neither do they guarantee personhood nor do they logically imply personhood. The road is not the same as the destination. The second argument is one that I defeated long ago, and you did not address. Life is not a good standard for personhood because then we reach a situation where a man affectd by bacteria cannot take medications because that kills life. Sentience too is not a reasonable standard, for you yourself affirm the idea of eating animals and yet they are senitent - the argument may be amusing, but its logic is no less powerful. You have not addressed this at all, and thus your second argument fails. With both of these arguments out of the way, we must then accept the only reasonable standard of personhood that there is: sapience. If a thing posesses sapience, regardless of whether that thing is terrestrial or extraterrestrial or nonbiological, that thing is a person! When we no longer possess sapience, such as when we die, we cease to be "people". Since you are unable to either defend against my attacks on your method of assigning moral rights (as they lead to absurd and contradictory conclusions), nor are you able to effectively attack my concept of personhood (that is, why a sapience-based standard is unreasonable), then your entire case falls apart: The zygote is NOT a person by any reasonable definition, and thus the zygote is not entitled to the rights afforded to people. Whether the zygote or the sperm or the tomato will develop into one thing or another is irrelevant, because as you have repeatedly stated we cannot, morally speaking, conflate the two. If the requirement is X, and a thing doesn't have X, it doesn't matter whether the thing may or may not have X in the future...they still do not meet the requirement (the requirement, in this case, being personhood). Therefore, with zygotes now being recognised as non-persons (both in a legal and moral sense), abortion ought to be allowed. I'd like to thank my opponent for this very entertaining and respectful debate. Hopefully, in the future, we can have more such discussions! :)

Politics

Abortion-ought-to-be-legal-in-the-United-States./1/

First, I just want to say that I accept this debate with the fear that people will that give it the respect it deserves as a debate. People can have preconceived notions about a subject, but the winner of any debate is not the one who argues the popular side. I am in no way saying that Zasch will be worse debater than I, and in fact, I am really happy to see that he put real thought in to his opening statement. But the last time I debated this subject, I obviously debated the subject better ( <URL>... ), but still only took only 63% of the votes. Second, the other thing I want to put out there is the same idea I put out in the latter part of my opening argument in my first debate. I believe and debate this side out of compassion and desire for consistency, not social or religious pressure. Now let's debate! Before I get to refuting what you said I will summarize my opening argument because this debate is basically a retort to that. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There are two arguments I usually hear from the Pro-Choice section of society. The first is that life does not begin at conception. The second is that it is a women's body and government does not belong there. I have thought the two positions over for a long time, but I have never been able to come to terms with them. In fact, I truly believe them both to be wrong." --baker27b (hehe, I've always wanted to quote myself) My reason for the former being wrong is that of the "potential" argument Zasch mentioned. I see the Acorn being the Oak and on a time line I see A = B because A can become B. Also, without A, B is nothing so A should be regarded as a fundamental part of the line to B and B. Because of its role it should be regarded as sacred. There is more to this, but remember this is only a summary. My reason for the latter being wrong is the second argument is often made without the former argument within it. If it is life (I know that is debatable, but just assume it for now), than the latter debate should be absolutely void standalone. I heart goes out to the mother, but my compassion for life and the consistency of the law say that convenience does not trump life. Now to what you said. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "We can regress further and further back to demonstrate the absurdity of the 'potentiality' argument...In fact, the sperm and the egg can be said to be the 'origins of humanity'" --Zasch You here refute the notion that potential is not actuality and I agree but want to dismiss any implication or misinterpretation that I was saying that in that context. The Zygote only forms and develops under the right conditions. Contraceptives can be implemented before Zygote formation. That is not an abortion by any definition. "...[T]he professor states that all a student must do is read the poem "Mary Had a Little Lamb". Suppose further that this student decides to refuse to read that poem, and thus the student receives a 0% in the course. The student may attempt to go up to his professor and say 'But you know that I can read - I clearly had the potential for completing this assignment! Is that not the same as actually completing it?'" --Zasch This is a bad parallel of my argument. Note that the student fails through non-action. The context of my argument states that potential is achieved through non-action (the action is abortion). And everyone must understand that I say A = B (shorthand) in a defined context, so to call me "absurd" by focusing on my clause without focusing on my logic is wrong. The cooking and POTUS arguments are the same and wrong for the same reasons. It takes actions to reach the potentials he has described. It takes actions (abortion) to TERMINATE the development and potential of the zygote. There is actually more to the latter that I will discuss later. "Is it self-aware? No! The zygote is not capable of such high-level mental thought." -- Zasch You described self-awareness as equating to life or possibly the ability to grant rights. I understand the drive behind that argument, but I disagree. "Self-awareness is the explicit understanding that one exists." -- <URL>... But there is this thing called sentience. "Sentience refers to utilization of sensory organs or organelles, the ability to feel or perceive subjectively, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness." -- <URL>... (By the way I double-checked the references for those definitions since it is Wikipedia and those definitions are correct). From what is implied by the definition of sentient, it would seem that something that is sentient is alive. I would find it hard for one to argument that an entity can be sentient and not alive-- but the debate is young. Okay, why is that important? Well, since life is protected under U.S. law that leaves Zasch's argument of self-awareness wrong. Debating that certain life is not protected is in violation of the spirit of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. I am not saying the 14th Amendment directly voids abortion, but directly voids inequality which leads to refutation of Zasch points with other points incorporated. That is where I disagree with Zasch-- but I do have a few more points to iterate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- When it comes to Life as implied through our governing principals, it seems that the protection of Life is the protection of one living out development. Ultimately, we all die, so that is the direction development takes. When natures impedes this development, it is tragic. When another human, by any means and without consent of the person who has not himself committed a crime, impedes this development, it is a crime. It is reasonable to say that a young child naturally develops in adult and then concludes with death. It is reasonable to say that a zygote develops into an embryo and then develops into what we recognize commonly as a baby. Babies inside the womb are then birthed and go on to live a life full of rights. I want to note that late-term abortions have been banned because they are actively defined as disgusting and a blatant termination of what is life. Yet, applying the definition of protected life to this situation of abortion, abortion then becomes wrong because we are taking away that babies ability for development. We give it the right to Life in the context that once you've reached a certain trimester or place on a time line, you are "too-human" to kill. This logic seems inconsistent and I think we all what consistency in our laws. That was probably poorly explained, but I am kind of tired of typing...but let me summarize real quick. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --I could summarize my points, but since you have already read them, I won't. --Your logic behind the potential equals actuality was refuted due to the fact that you did not make your examples within the same context of my argument. --Your logic behind being "Self-Aware" was refuted by the notion that entities can be Sentient alone and alive. I appreciate you challenging me, I hope there are no typos, and I await your response. Good luck!

baker27b

First, I just want to say that I accept this debate with the fear that people will that give it the respect it deserves as a debate. People can have preconceived notions about a subject, but the winner of any debate is not the one who argues the popular side. I am in no way saying that Zasch will be worse debater than I, and in fact, I am really happy to see that he put real thought in to his opening statement. But the last time I debated this subject, I obviously debated the subject better ( http://www.debate.org... ), but still only took only 63% of the votes. Second, the other thing I want to put out there is the same idea I put out in the latter part of my opening argument in my first debate. I believe and debate this side out of compassion and desire for consistency, not social or religious pressure. Now let's debate! Before I get to refuting what you said I will summarize my opening argument because this debate is basically a retort to that. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There are two arguments I usually hear from the Pro-Choice section of society. The first is that life does not begin at conception. The second is that it is a women's body and government does not belong there. I have thought the two positions over for a long time, but I have never been able to come to terms with them. In fact, I truly believe them both to be wrong." --baker27b (hehe, I've always wanted to quote myself) My reason for the former being wrong is that of the "potential" argument Zasch mentioned. I see the Acorn being the Oak and on a time line I see A = B because A can become B. Also, without A, B is nothing so A should be regarded as a fundamental part of the line to B and B. Because of its role it should be regarded as sacred. There is more to this, but remember this is only a summary. My reason for the latter being wrong is the second argument is often made without the former argument within it. If it is life (I know that is debatable, but just assume it for now), than the latter debate should be absolutely void standalone. I heart goes out to the mother, but my compassion for life and the consistency of the law say that convenience does not trump life. Now to what you said. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "We can regress further and further back to demonstrate the absurdity of the 'potentiality' argument...In fact, the sperm and the egg can be said to be the 'origins of humanity'" --Zasch You here refute the notion that potential is not actuality and I agree but want to dismiss any implication or misinterpretation that I was saying that in that context. The Zygote only forms and develops under the right conditions. Contraceptives can be implemented before Zygote formation. That is not an abortion by any definition. "...[T]he professor states that all a student must do is read the poem "Mary Had a Little Lamb". Suppose further that this student decides to refuse to read that poem, and thus the student receives a 0% in the course. The student may attempt to go up to his professor and say 'But you know that I can read - I clearly had the potential for completing this assignment! Is that not the same as actually completing it?'" --Zasch This is a bad parallel of my argument. Note that the student fails through non-action. The context of my argument states that potential is achieved through non-action (the action is abortion). And everyone must understand that I say A = B (shorthand) in a defined context, so to call me "absurd" by focusing on my clause without focusing on my logic is wrong. The cooking and POTUS arguments are the same and wrong for the same reasons. It takes actions to reach the potentials he has described. It takes actions (abortion) to TERMINATE the development and potential of the zygote. There is actually more to the latter that I will discuss later. "Is it self-aware? No! The zygote is not capable of such high-level mental thought." -- Zasch You described self-awareness as equating to life or possibly the ability to grant rights. I understand the drive behind that argument, but I disagree. "Self-awareness is the explicit understanding that one exists." -- http://en.wikipedia.org... But there is this thing called sentience. "Sentience refers to utilization of sensory organs or organelles, the ability to feel or perceive subjectively, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness." -- http://en.wikipedia.org... (By the way I double-checked the references for those definitions since it is Wikipedia and those definitions are correct). From what is implied by the definition of sentient, it would seem that something that is sentient is alive. I would find it hard for one to argument that an entity can be sentient and not alive-- but the debate is young. Okay, why is that important? Well, since life is protected under U.S. law that leaves Zasch's argument of self-awareness wrong. Debating that certain life is not protected is in violation of the spirit of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. I am not saying the 14th Amendment directly voids abortion, but directly voids inequality which leads to refutation of Zasch points with other points incorporated. That is where I disagree with Zasch-- but I do have a few more points to iterate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- When it comes to Life as implied through our governing principals, it seems that the protection of Life is the protection of one living out development. Ultimately, we all die, so that is the direction development takes. When natures impedes this development, it is tragic. When another human, by any means and without consent of the person who has not himself committed a crime, impedes this development, it is a crime. It is reasonable to say that a young child naturally develops in adult and then concludes with death. It is reasonable to say that a zygote develops into an embryo and then develops into what we recognize commonly as a baby. Babies inside the womb are then birthed and go on to live a life full of rights. I want to note that late-term abortions have been banned because they are actively defined as disgusting and a blatant termination of what is life. Yet, applying the definition of protected life to this situation of abortion, abortion then becomes wrong because we are taking away that babies ability for development. We give it the right to Life in the context that once you've reached a certain trimester or place on a time line, you are "too-human" to kill. This logic seems inconsistent and I think we all what consistency in our laws. That was probably poorly explained, but I am kind of tired of typing...but let me summarize real quick. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --I could summarize my points, but since you have already read them, I won't. --Your logic behind the potential equals actuality was refuted due to the fact that you did not make your examples within the same context of my argument. --Your logic behind being "Self-Aware" was refuted by the notion that entities can be Sentient alone and alive. I appreciate you challenging me, I hope there are no typos, and I await your response. Good luck!

Politics

Abortion-ought-to-be-legal-in-the-United-States./1/

Okay-- let's see what 5 hours of sleep can afford me in debate... I really liked your rebuttal, you came out strong and made some good points. You claimed that in some areas I misunderstood your definition of Life/Personhood in regards to sentience, etc. But to that I would have to say you misunderstood some of what I said. I too ran out of room and left some holes in my argument, which you have dutifully pointed out. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You say that throughout my argument I have double-standards. This confusion was probably caused by me saying A = B where it clearly doesn't. Yeah...that was my short-hand argument. A more clear statement would be a time line with A at the beginning and B at the end. But I do want to make note that in our world the same standard does not apply itself in every context. This is mostly about what I said about Action and Non-Action. "Suppose further that this woman were in the middle of the desert, and thus there were no other humans around to care for her." --Zasch Okay, yes that is non-action (whereas the action is defined as care). But when I was defining action, I was calling it abortion. That is where I was trying to draw the line and in different contexts action and non-action will be perceived as different things. Why that is important to me-- if nature takes human-life, it is a tragedy, but if human takes human-life by active choice, it is unlawful and unethical. I think that should clear up my explanation. "'No state shall deny to any **person** within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws'. Note that it does NOT say any lifeform: it protects only PERSONS." --Zasch When you take what I said verbatim without any interpretation, the 14th Amendment does support you...I guess. But when I was talking about life, I thought it was apparent that I was talking about human-life, which would make the 14th Amendment support me because there is no inequality of human-life under U.S. jurisdiction. And as to not misinterpret inequality...I do mean a persons right to live-- I don't want to leave the door open for other debates. "When a man is murdered, we mourn his loss of liberty, not merely that his 'potential to die'... His liberty comes from the fact that he is a PERSON, not merely that he is alive." --Zasch When I was talking about development, I was not saying the former of your quote, but merely providing logic for personhood (which is your main-point). I completely agree with the latter, and I never explicitly stated that (I reiterate this for clarity). Conception to death is the route all human-life takes. Between that is going from stage to stage until we hit death. That is a very reasonable statement that I doubt you will disagree with. U.S. law protects us so that process is not ended by another human's action as to where that human-life does not consent or U.S. law has not already determined that human-life void (i.e. Death Penalty [though I do whole-heartedly disagree with the Death Penalty]). "You would put forth that the zygote has the potential of developing into a person, and thus it ought to be considered a person. ... We can demonstrate that this "potential" argument is absurd if we simply take it one step further. Sperm, given the right conditions, will also eventually develop into humans." In my first week and a half of classes I have read the Canterbury Tales, Beowulf, and Arthurian Legend. That is English alone and time and thought and ability to sleep are drifting away. I explained that poorly, a time line would have done better. The fact I said potential really meant the ability for A to go to B on a time line. A zygote does retain personhood (unless the women is experimenting with some other species). But I do not call a Zygote a baby, just as I don't call a child an adult. These are stages of development on the time line of life. And because that life is human (unless that Zygote is in Catherine the Great and has horse DNA), it is entitled to protection under U.S. jurisdiction. At least, when considering all human-life equal in that context. "If a mother herself does not take an active interest in providing for her growing child, the child itself will die. Indeed, in the hypothetical where the mother does nothing at all (and, thus, is in a state of perfect inaction), the child itself dies fairly shortly afterwards, indicating that active action is needed in order to *keep* the child, and a form of abortion is the result of *inaction*." --Zasch Again, you are redefining what I have called action. When I defined action, I called it abortion and only in the context for which abortion could happen and in the time frame of the procedure for which an abortion would take place. But I love the point you bring up, I was expecting it. Since that child is human-life and endowed with rights, he is protected under U.S. jurisdiction. The mother actually does commit an action here and would be punished. That action is called negligence. But of course, remember that this action is defined as negligence is this context (because aborting a small child is kind of hard to do :-)). "Animals are sentient, but not protected. Your profile says you aren't a vegetarian. Thus, your position is inconsistent." --Zasch That was pretty funny. But I will agree with you in saying that I am consistent when it is human-life that needs protecting. Your final point is very interesting and I am guessing the most important for your rebuttal. "Clearly neither 'life' nor 'sentience' are the requirement for being considered a person: sapience is." --Zasch "Sapience, usually defined as wisdom since it is the ability of an organism or entity to act with judgment." -- <URL>... Taken as said, a dead person is clearly not a person because death hinders the ability to exercise wisdom. But I do not believe that. Why? I will get to that. "A human in a hypothetical supercomputer is still human. Our personhood is what defines us, not our biology" --Zasch He is saying that the mind of a human in a supercomputer despite the lack of the human-body is still a human. Nice imagery, but flawed logic. How does the human get its sapience. Is it magic? Or is this ability to exercise wisdom the result of biology and chemistry. The way you have argued, the human-mind should be able to function without the need for any observable biological or chemical features-- to which I disagree. Even with sapience described as a feature alone needs to come from somewhere. My full-grown human-body is the result of development as dictated by chemistry and biology...my sapience is too. So the notion that biology does not defined personhood is botched logic. A Zygote clearly has SENTIENCE and it is ALIVE. Looking at it from a biological point-of-view, you see a HUMAN-ZYGOTE. I have made clear the PERSONHOOD the zygote retains and under the logic of Zasch, he is entitled to protection under U.S. jurisdiction. I will repeat: "'No state shall deny to any **person** within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws'. Note that it does NOT say any lifeform: it protects only PERSONS." --Zasch ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --I have refuted his examples of the desert, vegetarianism, etc. --I made more clear my potential argument with a time line. I do not call a Zygote a baby, just like I don't call a child an adult. But the right to develop into these is a protected right. --I refuted the notion that I claim 'action' to be defined as only ONE thing. It clearly depends on the context. --I have now given personhood to the Zygote, which is important because Zasch's argument was grounded in the fact that there was no personhood. This is a really good debate. I eagerly wait for your response. I pray there are no typos.

baker27b

Okay-- let's see what 5 hours of sleep can afford me in debate... I really liked your rebuttal, you came out strong and made some good points. You claimed that in some areas I misunderstood your definition of Life/Personhood in regards to sentience, etc. But to that I would have to say you misunderstood some of what I said. I too ran out of room and left some holes in my argument, which you have dutifully pointed out. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You say that throughout my argument I have double-standards. This confusion was probably caused by me saying A = B where it clearly doesn't. Yeah...that was my short-hand argument. A more clear statement would be a time line with A at the beginning and B at the end. But I do want to make note that in our world the same standard does not apply itself in every context. This is mostly about what I said about Action and Non-Action. "Suppose further that this woman were in the middle of the desert, and thus there were no other humans around to care for her." --Zasch Okay, yes that is non-action (whereas the action is defined as care). But when I was defining action, I was calling it abortion. That is where I was trying to draw the line and in different contexts action and non-action will be perceived as different things. Why that is important to me-- if nature takes human-life, it is a tragedy, but if human takes human-life by active choice, it is unlawful and unethical. I think that should clear up my explanation. "'No state shall deny to any **person** within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws'. Note that it does NOT say any lifeform: it protects only PERSONS." --Zasch When you take what I said verbatim without any interpretation, the 14th Amendment does support you...I guess. But when I was talking about life, I thought it was apparent that I was talking about human-life, which would make the 14th Amendment support me because there is no inequality of human-life under U.S. jurisdiction. And as to not misinterpret inequality...I do mean a persons right to live-- I don't want to leave the door open for other debates. "When a man is murdered, we mourn his loss of liberty, not merely that his 'potential to die'... His liberty comes from the fact that he is a PERSON, not merely that he is alive." --Zasch When I was talking about development, I was not saying the former of your quote, but merely providing logic for personhood (which is your main-point). I completely agree with the latter, and I never explicitly stated that (I reiterate this for clarity). Conception to death is the route all human-life takes. Between that is going from stage to stage until we hit death. That is a very reasonable statement that I doubt you will disagree with. U.S. law protects us so that process is not ended by another human's action as to where that human-life does not consent or U.S. law has not already determined that human-life void (i.e. Death Penalty [though I do whole-heartedly disagree with the Death Penalty]). "You would put forth that the zygote has the potential of developing into a person, and thus it ought to be considered a person. ... We can demonstrate that this "potential" argument is absurd if we simply take it one step further. Sperm, given the right conditions, will also eventually develop into humans." In my first week and a half of classes I have read the Canterbury Tales, Beowulf, and Arthurian Legend. That is English alone and time and thought and ability to sleep are drifting away. I explained that poorly, a time line would have done better. The fact I said potential really meant the ability for A to go to B on a time line. A zygote does retain personhood (unless the women is experimenting with some other species). But I do not call a Zygote a baby, just as I don't call a child an adult. These are stages of development on the time line of life. And because that life is human (unless that Zygote is in Catherine the Great and has horse DNA), it is entitled to protection under U.S. jurisdiction. At least, when considering all human-life equal in that context. "If a mother herself does not take an active interest in providing for her growing child, the child itself will die. Indeed, in the hypothetical where the mother does nothing at all (and, thus, is in a state of perfect inaction), the child itself dies fairly shortly afterwards, indicating that active action is needed in order to *keep* the child, and a form of abortion is the result of *inaction*." --Zasch Again, you are redefining what I have called action. When I defined action, I called it abortion and only in the context for which abortion could happen and in the time frame of the procedure for which an abortion would take place. But I love the point you bring up, I was expecting it. Since that child is human-life and endowed with rights, he is protected under U.S. jurisdiction. The mother actually does commit an action here and would be punished. That action is called negligence. But of course, remember that this action is defined as negligence is this context (because aborting a small child is kind of hard to do :-)). "Animals are sentient, but not protected. Your profile says you aren't a vegetarian. Thus, your position is inconsistent." --Zasch That was pretty funny. But I will agree with you in saying that I am consistent when it is human-life that needs protecting. Your final point is very interesting and I am guessing the most important for your rebuttal. "Clearly neither 'life' nor 'sentience' are the requirement for being considered a person: sapience is." --Zasch "Sapience, usually defined as wisdom since it is the ability of an organism or entity to act with judgment." -- http://en.wikipedia.org... Taken as said, a dead person is clearly not a person because death hinders the ability to exercise wisdom. But I do not believe that. Why? I will get to that. "A human in a hypothetical supercomputer is still human. Our personhood is what defines us, not our biology" --Zasch He is saying that the mind of a human in a supercomputer despite the lack of the human-body is still a human. Nice imagery, but flawed logic. How does the human get its sapience. Is it magic? Or is this ability to exercise wisdom the result of biology and chemistry. The way you have argued, the human-mind should be able to function without the need for any observable biological or chemical features-- to which I disagree. Even with sapience described as a feature alone needs to come from somewhere. My full-grown human-body is the result of development as dictated by chemistry and biology...my sapience is too. So the notion that biology does not defined personhood is botched logic. A Zygote clearly has SENTIENCE and it is ALIVE. Looking at it from a biological point-of-view, you see a HUMAN-ZYGOTE. I have made clear the PERSONHOOD the zygote retains and under the logic of Zasch, he is entitled to protection under U.S. jurisdiction. I will repeat: "'No state shall deny to any **person** within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws'. Note that it does NOT say any lifeform: it protects only PERSONS." --Zasch ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --I have refuted his examples of the desert, vegetarianism, etc. --I made more clear my potential argument with a time line. I do not call a Zygote a baby, just like I don't call a child an adult. But the right to develop into these is a protected right. --I refuted the notion that I claim 'action' to be defined as only ONE thing. It clearly depends on the context. --I have now given personhood to the Zygote, which is important because Zasch's argument was grounded in the fact that there was no personhood. This is a really good debate. I eagerly wait for your response. I pray there are no typos.

Politics

Abortion-ought-to-be-legal-in-the-United-States./1/

I am beginning to think we have got to the point in the debate where the broken record is going to start repeating. But this is fine because we are in the final round. Much of what I saw in Zasch's closing argument was just a reiteration of what was in the second round, but this time the language was altered so that it could be implied that it was refuting what I said in my rebuttal. So here we go: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Indeed, but you must then provide reasoning as to why the beginning ought to be conflated with the end when it comes to moral rights." - Zasch This is direct reference to my timeline. My timeline is imagery. It is mapping out where our species develops (a.k.a. lives out their lives). When it comes to applying morals there it is very simple. Another human-being cannot unethically interrupt that timeline. That is a very obvious statement. How the system is set up right now, abortion can happen lawfully. I am arguing that because it is inconsistent and unethical (the reason being that timeline argument). There is no enthical manner to stop a baby, child, adolescent, adult, or elder from living out the rest of their lives (unless one expresses desire or forfeits his or her own life through lawful means like the Death Penalty). Hence, I am arguing against the status quo. "The Supreme Court of the United States, however, has stated that nonviable fetuses are not protected under the 14th Amendment. Hence, as a matter of law, you are incorrect." -Zasch So what Zasch has pointed out is the status quo. But because we all know our history, we know that entities of government can be inconsistent with the implicit and explicit nature of the constitution. Just because the Chief Legislator takes away habeas corpus does not make it right. Even the Supreme Court has made mistakes (the ruling on Plessy v Ferguson is obviously wrong). So now does Zasch disagree with the notion of protecting human-life? Does he believe in equity of law? He absolutely does. And we both agree that it is living human-beings under U.S. jurisdiction that are endowed with the rights of the U.S. Constitution (ignoring that weird Vegetarian argument he threw in there). But we both view that human-beings part differently. But I will get to that later because I want to refute one more thing. "[Your] definition is abusive. 'Action' means 'state or process of doing or acting'. You are redefining it to suit your argument when this common definition works well enough. By redefining it, your argument becomes circular" -Zasch When Zasch refutes the ability to redefine action it makes me scratch my head because we do it all the time. When I am playing basketball, the action can be dribble. When I am at the dinner table, the action can be eat. When I am at a restaurant the action can be eat. When I am at the scene of a crime, the action can be murder. I said this before, but I will say it again: when defining an action, it depends on the situation whether you can retain that definition or not. The situations need to retain some similarity and equating the situation of an abortion to cooking dinner lacks logic. In the end, that might all be irrelevant because both Zasch and I agree that this boils down to a personhood debate. Once one has been endowed personhood under U.S. jurisdiction, that is it, he is protected. The essential part them becomes, when is personhood attained. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is where the base of the debate is, and probably where one should decide who won. I argue that life and personhood begin at conception, whereas Zasch argues life may begin at conception, but personhood begins with sapience. First, I would just like to put out there, a Zygote is in fact alive. It has the irrefutable quality of sentience. If you can argue that something is sentient and not alive, you then have the ability to warp the fabric of logic itself. But is it a person? "[Biology] does not define personhood. Suppose we encounter an alien species as intelligent, capable, and dynamic as we are... Do we then have the right to treat them as property? No, because personhood is *not* defined by biology. Biology is necessary in developing personhood, but it is a distinct thing from that personhood." -Zasch Personhood: the state of being a person --Dictionary.com Person: a human being, whether a man, woman or child --Dictionary.com I see the defintion of personhood in the light of having the characteristics of a person. I see a person as defined as a human-being. The website dictionary.com agrees with me. It is human-beings that are governed within the context of the law, not anything that just happens to exhibit intelligence. So this argument falls outside of the context of our argument. You can argue whether dolphins or dogs should be treated as property, but we are talking about the endowed rights of human-beings. So how does development (all the way to the end of life) distinguish between the Zygote inside a woman and any other species? By its biology. By its chemistry. By undeniable logic, it is Human-Zygote. Utlizing the definitions above the Zygote has personhood. And now that we have established personhood, it is logical to say it is a person that endowed the rights of the U.S. Constitution (which include lawful, ethical protection of life). "No state shall deny to any **person** within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -Zasch I am sorry I had to shorten my final argument. I typed it really fast because I have Russian homework due in a few moments. Good debate!

baker27b

I am beginning to think we have got to the point in the debate where the broken record is going to start repeating. But this is fine because we are in the final round. Much of what I saw in Zasch's closing argument was just a reiteration of what was in the second round, but this time the language was altered so that it could be implied that it was refuting what I said in my rebuttal. So here we go: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Indeed, but you must then provide reasoning as to why the beginning ought to be conflated with the end when it comes to moral rights." – Zasch This is direct reference to my timeline. My timeline is imagery. It is mapping out where our species develops (a.k.a. lives out their lives). When it comes to applying morals there it is very simple. Another human-being cannot unethically interrupt that timeline. That is a very obvious statement. How the system is set up right now, abortion can happen lawfully. I am arguing that because it is inconsistent and unethical (the reason being that timeline argument). There is no enthical manner to stop a baby, child, adolescent, adult, or elder from living out the rest of their lives (unless one expresses desire or forfeits his or her own life through lawful means like the Death Penalty). Hence, I am arguing against the status quo. "The Supreme Court of the United States, however, has stated that nonviable fetuses are not protected under the 14th Amendment. Hence, as a matter of law, you are incorrect." –Zasch So what Zasch has pointed out is the status quo. But because we all know our history, we know that entities of government can be inconsistent with the implicit and explicit nature of the constitution. Just because the Chief Legislator takes away habeas corpus does not make it right. Even the Supreme Court has made mistakes (the ruling on Plessy v Ferguson is obviously wrong). So now does Zasch disagree with the notion of protecting human-life? Does he believe in equity of law? He absolutely does. And we both agree that it is living human-beings under U.S. jurisdiction that are endowed with the rights of the U.S. Constitution (ignoring that weird Vegetarian argument he threw in there). But we both view that human-beings part differently. But I will get to that later because I want to refute one more thing.  "[Your] definition is abusive. ‘Action' means ‘state or process of doing or acting'. You are redefining it to suit your argument when this common definition works well enough. By redefining it, your argument becomes circular" –Zasch When Zasch refutes the ability to redefine action it makes me scratch my head because we do it all the time. When I am playing basketball, the action can be dribble. When I am at the dinner table, the action can be eat. When I am at a restaurant the action can be eat. When I am at the scene of a crime, the action can be murder. I said this before, but I will say it again: when defining an action, it depends on the situation whether you can retain that definition or not. The situations need to retain some similarity and equating the situation of an abortion to cooking dinner lacks logic. In the end, that might all be irrelevant because both Zasch and I agree that this boils down to a personhood debate. Once one has been endowed personhood under U.S. jurisdiction, that is it, he is protected. The essential part them becomes, when is personhood attained. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is where the base of the debate is, and probably where one should decide who won. I argue that life and personhood begin at conception, whereas Zasch argues life may begin at conception, but personhood begins with sapience. First, I would just like to put out there, a Zygote is in fact alive. It has the irrefutable quality of sentience. If you can argue that something is sentient and not alive, you then have the ability to warp the fabric of logic itself. But is it a person? "[Biology] does not define personhood. Suppose we encounter an alien species as intelligent, capable, and dynamic as we are... Do we then have the right to treat them as property? No, because personhood is *not* defined by biology. Biology is necessary in developing personhood, but it is a distinct thing from that personhood." –Zasch Personhood: the state of being a person --Dictionary.com Person: a human being, whether a man, woman or child --Dictionary.com I see the defintion of personhood in the light of having the characteristics of a person. I see a person as defined as a human-being. The website dictionary.com agrees with me. It is human-beings that are governed within the context of the law, not anything that just happens to exhibit intelligence. So this argument falls outside of the context of our argument. You can argue whether dolphins or dogs should be treated as property, but we are talking about the endowed rights of human-beings. So how does development (all the way to the end of life) distinguish between the Zygote inside a woman and any other species? By its biology. By its chemistry. By undeniable logic, it is Human-Zygote. Utlizing the definitions above the Zygote has personhood. And now that we have established personhood, it is logical to say it is a person that endowed the rights of the U.S. Constitution (which include lawful, ethical protection of life). "No state shall deny to any **person** within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." –Zasch I am sorry I had to shorten my final argument. I typed it really fast because I have Russian homework due in a few moments. Good debate!

Politics

Abortion-ought-to-be-legal-in-the-United-States./1/

I challenge my opponent to discuss about the validity of abortion. I strongly feel women should have the right to abort the fetus. Why? I tell that in my later arguments. Round 1- Acceptance Round 2- Arguments Round 3 - Rebuttal Round 4 - Conclusion

ChandanB

I challenge my opponent to discuss about the validity of abortion. I strongly feel women should have the right to abort the fetus. Why? I tell that in my later arguments. Round 1- Acceptance Round 2- Arguments Round 3 - Rebuttal Round 4 - Conclusion

Science

Abortion-should-be-allowed./1/

Let me first put up what is abortion- Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by the removal or forcing out from the womb of a fetus or embryo before it is able to survive on its own. #ARGUMENTS Argument 1- Saves the life of the woman if her life is in danger - There are many cases where due to medical complexities, the fetus becomes reason of danger for the woman. In such cases, it should be made legal for the woman to abort the fetus no matter how weeks old the fetus be. The life of the child saved will likely be destroyed without a mother,but the mother? She can give birth to another child and carry on a good life. <URL>... This is what denying abortion can do. Nothing but ignorance and apathy Argument 2- Ability to abort a basic civil and women right-(i) The fetus undergoing cell differentiation and cell maturation obtains all its raw materials from the to be mother (except for the sperm cell) Therefore it is logical to accept to take decisions on the fetus solely by the mother. If she is the only one nurturing it,then on she must have the rights to terminate it,nobody else. (ii) During any kind of rape- In such cases it is obvious that the woman would want to terminate the pregnancy. Such cases very much demand the need for abortion,without which both the life of the child and the mother will be spoiled. (iii) In cases of teen pregnancy. The reason behind it is simple- (a) The teen mother is neither physically nor mentally matured enough to nurture a fetus or a child in the future for that matter. (b) Since the teen mother herself is a child,her priorities are much different than a matured woman. Her age is to gain education and learn about the world and not nurture babies. Also since they a children themselves,they dont posses enough knowledge on parenting,thus spoiling the life of the mother and the child. I will put forward more arguments in the next round.

ChandanB

Let me first put up what is abortion- Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by the removal or forcing out from the womb of a fetus or embryo before it is able to survive on its own. #ARGUMENTS Argument 1- Saves the life of the woman if her life is in danger - There are many cases where due to medical complexities, the fetus becomes reason of danger for the woman. In such cases, it should be made legal for the woman to abort the fetus no matter how weeks old the fetus be. The life of the child saved will likely be destroyed without a mother,but the mother? She can give birth to another child and carry on a good life. http://en.wikipedia.org... This is what denying abortion can do. Nothing but ignorance and apathy Argument 2- Ability to abort a basic civil and women right-(i) The fetus undergoing cell differentiation and cell maturation obtains all its raw materials from the to be mother (except for the sperm cell) Therefore it is logical to accept to take decisions on the fetus solely by the mother. If she is the only one nurturing it,then on she must have the rights to terminate it,nobody else. (ii) During any kind of rape- In such cases it is obvious that the woman would want to terminate the pregnancy. Such cases very much demand the need for abortion,without which both the life of the child and the mother will be spoiled. (iii) In cases of teen pregnancy. The reason behind it is simple- (a) The teen mother is neither physically nor mentally matured enough to nurture a fetus or a child in the future for that matter. (b) Since the teen mother herself is a child,her priorities are much different than a matured woman. Her age is to gain education and learn about the world and not nurture babies. Also since they a children themselves,they dont posses enough knowledge on parenting,thus spoiling the life of the mother and the child. I will put forward more arguments in the next round.

Science

Abortion-should-be-allowed./1/

REBUTTAL ROUND Claim 1 - The doctor isn't the one nurturing the fetus, then on he/she must have no rights to terminate it. Fact- In any kind of of medical cases,no doctor has right to take descision on behalf of patient. It is the patient only who takes their own descisions. Claim 2 - Such cases very much demand no need for abortion unless the mother's life is in danger, with abortion being legal the life of the human fetus is over and the mother will remain saddened by her rape. Assumption- There isnt any kind of medical treatment available that deals with recovery from the menatal sacr on the women. Fact/Rebuttal- There exists therapies where the rape survivors are made to undergo therapy which ultimately leads to reinstatement of her self confidence and belief. <URL>... Claim 3 - If the teen mother isn't mentally matured enough to nurture a child in the future, a safe haven or adoption agency is an option. Assumption - Care taken by adoption agency.orphanage is equal to care taken by parents. A child put up for adoption will be adopted in no time. Fact/Rebuttal - My opponent here thinks if the child is unwanted by the mother,then it can be sent to an orphanage from where they would be adopted by someone else. What he doesnt mention is the fact there are already many children who have filled up the orphanages and there arent enough parents who want to take up children. Also a child cannot be well nurtured as well in orphanage as she/he would by parents. <URL>... ;(Read pages 4,5,6)

ChandanB

REBUTTAL ROUND Claim 1 - The doctor isn't the one nurturing the fetus, then on he/she must have no rights to terminate it. Fact- In any kind of of medical cases,no doctor has right to take descision on behalf of patient. It is the patient only who takes their own descisions. Claim 2 - Such cases very much demand no need for abortion unless the mother's life is in danger, with abortion being legal the life of the human fetus is over and the mother will remain saddened by her rape. Assumption- There isnt any kind of medical treatment available that deals with recovery from the menatal sacr on the women. Fact/Rebuttal- There exists therapies where the rape survivors are made to undergo therapy which ultimately leads to reinstatement of her self confidence and belief. http://www.healthyplace.com... Claim 3 - If the teen mother isn't mentally matured enough to nurture a child in the future, a safe haven or adoption agency is an option. Assumption - Care taken by adoption agency.orphanage is equal to care taken by parents. A child put up for adoption will be adopted in no time. Fact/Rebuttal - My opponent here thinks if the child is unwanted by the mother,then it can be sent to an orphanage from where they would be adopted by someone else. What he doesnt mention is the fact there are already many children who have filled up the orphanages and there arent enough parents who want to take up children. Also a child cannot be well nurtured as well in orphanage as she/he would by parents. http://ceped.org... ;(Read pages 4,5,6)

Science

Abortion-should-be-allowed./1/

1.The doctor is hired by the patient to work for him/her. A doctor never takes a decision. It is the patient takes the decision and the doctor merely follows it,which in this case is the pregnant woman. 2.My opponent fails to show any report where it states that therapy doesnt work on all indivisuals.Its important to note that all people are different and therapy works in different rates. Also by saying that therapy doesnt work on all patients,what point he is trying to exert is not understood. 3.It seems he has misunderstood my third point. I exerted that care taken in orphanages is NOT equal to care taken by parents.In case nobody opened the link I gave, The research suggests that children growing up in orphanages are not better or equal to children with parents in terms of physical,mental or emotional parameters. 4. Self contradictory fact/rebuttal put up by opponent. If the parent is unable to take care of the child due to financial reasons ,it is definitely better that the child is aborted. If sent to orphanage,the child may receive the monetary help but remains emotionally stunted. IT MUST BE NOTED AT THIS POINT THAT ANTI ABORTION STANCE CARES ABOUT A ZYGOTE AND A MASS OF PROPERLY UNDIFFERENTIATED CELLS BUT SHOWS NO CARE WHATSOEVER FOR THE CHILD AFTER IT IS BORN AND ACTUALLY GAINS SELF CONSCIOUSNESS AND INTELLIGENCE. 5. <URL>... Clearly my opponent makes no effort to open the link a this case is a real life life incident that had taken place in Ireland and was all over the news. Still for achieving the point for credible source... <URL>... 6.Judges note that upto this point opponent agrees that the point put up by me is true IN MOST CASES. Exceptions do exist. Is the % of' exception' greater than 50% or a considerable digit? If yes, how much? Reports?? 7. Again exceptions do exist. Also there is no guarantee whatsoever that the mother WILL achieve maturity after the child is born. 8.It must be noted that my wants teenage mothers to join in absolutely unnecessary activity such as pregnancy classes at time where her sole objective should be to focus on studies and make career. Also the hardwork needed to take care of a child will definitely hamper and divert the mother's focus on education. At this point I suddenly remembered that I forgot to put a very important argument in previous rounds. Here it goes- It must be noted that around 90+ % of abortion takes place in 1st trimester that is within 12 weeks. <URL>... Here, the activity of an unborn fetus is explained in layman language. It is clear from the activities that the fetus is nowhere near of having human like characteristics till week 12. Also it doesnt show complete human like activity till before week 20. Therefore under special needs of the mother,abortion should be allowed till week 12-13 if not 20. (Opponent is requested to rebuttal this argument in round 5 and then conclude) PS- IN ROUND 5,I WILL BE PUTTING UP ALL MY ARGUMENTS IN SHORT POINTS WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION.

ChandanB

1.The doctor is hired by the patient to work for him/her. A doctor never takes a decision. It is the patient takes the decision and the doctor merely follows it,which in this case is the pregnant woman. 2.My opponent fails to show any report where it states that therapy doesnt work on all indivisuals.Its important to note that all people are different and therapy works in different rates. Also by saying that therapy doesnt work on all patients,what point he is trying to exert is not understood. 3.It seems he has misunderstood my third point. I exerted that care taken in orphanages is NOT equal to care taken by parents.In case nobody opened the link I gave, The research suggests that children growing up in orphanages are not better or equal to children with parents in terms of physical,mental or emotional parameters. 4. Self contradictory fact/rebuttal put up by opponent. If the parent is unable to take care of the child due to financial reasons ,it is definitely better that the child is aborted. If sent to orphanage,the child may receive the monetary help but remains emotionally stunted. IT MUST BE NOTED AT THIS POINT THAT ANTI ABORTION STANCE CARES ABOUT A ZYGOTE AND A MASS OF PROPERLY UNDIFFERENTIATED CELLS BUT SHOWS NO CARE WHATSOEVER FOR THE CHILD AFTER IT IS BORN AND ACTUALLY GAINS SELF CONSCIOUSNESS AND INTELLIGENCE. 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... Clearly my opponent makes no effort to open the link a this case is a real life life incident that had taken place in Ireland and was all over the news. Still for achieving the point for credible source... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... 6.Judges note that upto this point opponent agrees that the point put up by me is true IN MOST CASES. Exceptions do exist. Is the % of' exception' greater than 50% or a considerable digit? If yes, how much? Reports?? 7. Again exceptions do exist. Also there is no guarantee whatsoever that the mother WILL achieve maturity after the child is born. 8.It must be noted that my wants teenage mothers to join in absolutely unnecessary activity such as pregnancy classes at time where her sole objective should be to focus on studies and make career. Also the hardwork needed to take care of a child will definitely hamper and divert the mother's focus on education. At this point I suddenly remembered that I forgot to put a very important argument in previous rounds. Here it goes- It must be noted that around 90+ % of abortion takes place in 1st trimester that is within 12 weeks. http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au... Here, the activity of an unborn fetus is explained in layman language. It is clear from the activities that the fetus is nowhere near of having human like characteristics till week 12. Also it doesnt show complete human like activity till before week 20. Therefore under special needs of the mother,abortion should be allowed till week 12-13 if not 20. (Opponent is requested to rebuttal this argument in round 5 and then conclude) PS- IN ROUND 5,I WILL BE PUTTING UP ALL MY ARGUMENTS IN SHORT POINTS WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION.

Science

Abortion-should-be-allowed./1/

I accept the debate. Thank you for arranging it. I think abortion should be legal because if an embryo was killed it wouldn't feel pain unless it was in the third trimester of pregnancy and it is illegal in the third trimester. Secondly an embryo's brain hasn't developed enough to make decisions so it can't decide whether it wants to be killed or not. Thirdly an average chicken is smarter than unborn babies since newly born chicks can keep track of numbers up to five and they have basic understanding of physics which is proved when showed two pictures was shown to chicks and they were interested more in the one that obeyed the laws of physics. Chicks could also understand that an objects gone out of sight still exists while it takes an year for a baby after it's born to grasp that. So should we not eat chicken eggs since that technically counts as chicken abortion. Now to rebuttals : You said that since an embryo has human DNA it makes it human. Well guess what we share 50% of our DNA with bananas and 98% with apes so does that make them human, no it doesn't. You also said that an embryo is an individual. It isn't because it depends on the the woman's body for oxygen and it is attached to the woman's body. An embryo needs a woman. One of your other arguments said it shouldn't be left between woman and doctor. Well I think it should because it is the woman's body and she has control over it so she should decide what happens to it(which is also why the government can't stop the woman from drinking alcohol when she is pregnant) I am looking forward to the rest of the debate. Good luck.

debatojenvo

I accept the debate. Thank you for arranging it. I think abortion should be legal because if an embryo was killed it wouldn't feel pain unless it was in the third trimester of pregnancy and it is illegal in the third trimester. Secondly an embryo's brain hasn't developed enough to make decisions so it can't decide whether it wants to be killed or not. Thirdly an average chicken is smarter than unborn babies since newly born chicks can keep track of numbers up to five and they have basic understanding of physics which is proved when showed two pictures was shown to chicks and they were interested more in the one that obeyed the laws of physics. Chicks could also understand that an objects gone out of sight still exists while it takes an year for a baby after it's born to grasp that. So should we not eat chicken eggs since that technically counts as chicken abortion. Now to rebuttals : You said that since an embryo has human DNA it makes it human. Well guess what we share 50% of our DNA with bananas and 98% with apes so does that make them human, no it doesn't. You also said that an embryo is an individual. It isn't because it depends on the the woman's body for oxygen and it is attached to the woman's body. An embryo needs a woman. One of your other arguments said it shouldn't be left between woman and doctor. Well I think it should because it is the woman's body and she has control over it so she should decide what happens to it(which is also why the government can't stop the woman from drinking alcohol when she is pregnant) I am looking forward to the rest of the debate. Good luck.

Politics

Abortion-should-be-illegal/56/

You have persuaded me. Nice. Now I think abortion should be illegal. Anything else you want to debate on?

debatojenvo

You have persuaded me. Nice. Now I think abortion should be illegal. Anything else you want to debate on?

Politics

Abortion-should-be-illegal/56/

Ironically I am in another debate arguing abortion is a rational perspective early in the pregnancy dpending on your beliefs. Here I am going to qualify all you say still. If you believe it's not a baby early early on, then sure that's a rational view. But, I would still outlaw it. If you're for killing a baby five seconds before it gets out of the mother but not when it's out, what's the difference? will you admit you're willing to allow killing to suit the mother's not want of a bother? why can't someone go on and kill anyone who is a bother to them? they can't, because that infringes another's life. the mother chose to have sex, she has to pay the consequences. she didn't choose to get pregnant, but she assumed the risk. how do you say she doesn't assume the risk? if i caused a car accident, and the other person was suddenly attahed to my body until it could be surgically removed a few months later, any reasonable person would say the person who caused the crash has no right to termineate the other person. often i say it's reasonable to have differing beliefs, but here I do not believe it'd be reasonable to say otherwise. it's analogous fully to the baby, in my opinion, and not reasonable to say otherwise. with that said, you have an argument if you don't think it's a person. we'd probably quibble about when it's reasonable to say it is or isn't a person. but, you have a right to say when you think it is or is not just as much as I do. and you'd have a rational argument if it's based on the personness of the baby, up to a point of course. wihtout that argument, you have no basis to say abortion should be legal.

dairygirl4u2c

Ironically I am in another debate arguing abortion is a rational perspective early in the pregnancy dpending on your beliefs. Here I am going to qualify all you say still. If you believe it's not a baby early early on, then sure that's a rational view. But, I would still outlaw it. If you're for killing a baby five seconds before it gets out of the mother but not when it's out, what's the difference? will you admit you're willing to allow killing to suit the mother's not want of a bother? why can't someone go on and kill anyone who is a bother to them? they can't, because that infringes another's life. the mother chose to have sex, she has to pay the consequences. she didn't choose to get pregnant, but she assumed the risk. how do you say she doesn't assume the risk? if i caused a car accident, and the other person was suddenly attahed to my body until it could be surgically removed a few months later, any reasonable person would say the person who caused the crash has no right to termineate the other person. often i say it's reasonable to have differing beliefs, but here I do not believe it'd be reasonable to say otherwise. it's analogous fully to the baby, in my opinion, and not reasonable to say otherwise. with that said, you have an argument if you don't think it's a person. we'd probably quibble about when it's reasonable to say it is or isn't a person. but, you have a right to say when you think it is or is not just as much as I do. and you'd have a rational argument if it's based on the personness of the baby, up to a point of course. wihtout that argument, you have no basis to say abortion should be legal.

Politics

Abortion-should-be-legal./1/

I agree privacy should be implied into the constitution. All the amendments you cite imply it. I would also add, the conservatives like to go on and on about how soverign immunity, that states generally cannot be sued technically, is implied in teh constitution, because of the states rights stuff like the tenth amendment... so if that can be done, surely privacy can be implied too, to be fair. You cite Court authority, and following stare decisis or precedent, you would be correct that it's technically the law of the land. But, much like brown versus the board of education overturned segretation type laws, these current cases can be overturned as well. you are not resting your argument on a techincal basis that the cases cannot be overturned? so, i assume you think it's good policy that it be that way. i say it's a policy argument, because there's competing legal theories. one is privacy, the other is protecting human life. surely, you do not have the privacy to kill a person who is born? techincally, they are born, i admit, and not expressly included in the constitution, the unborn. but, are you being a technicalist such that the framers didn't intend to protect a baby five minutes before the baby is born? get real if that's the case. there's a burden you're putting on people to change the constitution, whatever the court decides. who should the burden be on? are you giong to be a technicalist and say the burden should be on the framers because they didn't clarify babies are included too? it seems natural they'd include the baby at later points at least. it's at least a reasonable person standarnd to read into it given that the baby is clearly a person later on. now, i suppose given that it's a policy argument, the states could decide like the first one or two semesters since it's arbitrary anyway. we can't avoid arbitrariness afterall, because the standards roe made are themselves arbitrary. this all simply illustrates are laws are man made, and the practical consequences of them bore full face when implmenting and interpreting them. so, policy is a sound way to proceed. anyway, ultimately, if you disagree, you're drawing an arbitrary line at the birth canal, just as much as i'm being arbitrary saying a point the baby is a person. if not anything else, the issue should be given to the states. the states have dealt with it up until the 1900s. some had abortion laws, others didn't. the tenth amendment relegates stuff not in the constitution to the states. i say, don't be a techinalist with the presumption for death.

dairygirl4u2c

I agree privacy should be implied into the constitution. All the amendments you cite imply it. I would also add, the conservatives like to go on and on about how soverign immunity, that states generally cannot be sued technically, is implied in teh constitution, because of the states rights stuff like the tenth amendment... so if that can be done, surely privacy can be implied too, to be fair. You cite Court authority, and following stare decisis or precedent, you would be correct that it's technically the law of the land. But, much like brown versus the board of education overturned segretation type laws, these current cases can be overturned as well. you are not resting your argument on a techincal basis that the cases cannot be overturned? so, i assume you think it's good policy that it be that way. i say it's a policy argument, because there's competing legal theories. one is privacy, the other is protecting human life. surely, you do not have the privacy to kill a person who is born? techincally, they are born, i admit, and not expressly included in the constitution, the unborn. but, are you being a technicalist such that the framers didn't intend to protect a baby five minutes before the baby is born? get real if that's the case. there's a burden you're putting on people to change the constitution, whatever the court decides. who should the burden be on? are you giong to be a technicalist and say the burden should be on the framers because they didn't clarify babies are included too? it seems natural they'd include the baby at later points at least. it's at least a reasonable person standarnd to read into it given that the baby is clearly a person later on. now, i suppose given that it's a policy argument, the states could decide like the first one or two semesters since it's arbitrary anyway. we can't avoid arbitrariness afterall, because the standards roe made are themselves arbitrary. this all simply illustrates are laws are man made, and the practical consequences of them bore full face when implmenting and interpreting them. so, policy is a sound way to proceed. anyway, ultimately, if you disagree, you're drawing an arbitrary line at the birth canal, just as much as i'm being arbitrary saying a point the baby is a person. if not anything else, the issue should be given to the states. the states have dealt with it up until the 1900s. some had abortion laws, others didn't. the tenth amendment relegates stuff not in the constitution to the states. i say, don't be a techinalist with the presumption for death.

Politics

Abortion-should-be-legal./1/

Then my assumption was wrong, and you simply insist on not changing their decision. By your reasoning, segregation laws and other types of race cases etc would not be overturned. But I'm pretty sure you'd not be advocating all that. it seems you're ignoring the principle of preserving life, which is explicitly in the Constitution, and at any rate could be implied just as much as but probably even more than the right to privacy. While you say you're not pushing for this because of your morality, I see no other reason than for you to think privacy should outweigh life with a presumption of death based on your own inclinations, (my guess is augmented by your rhetoric of laws and the woman's body stuff). If I'm wrong and you simply insist on not changing course, you have not explained why other cases can change, or admit you want to remain ever the same no matter what the Court decides.

dairygirl4u2c

Then my assumption was wrong, and you simply insist on not changing their decision. By your reasoning, segregation laws and other types of race cases etc would not be overturned. But I'm pretty sure you'd not be advocating all that. it seems you're ignoring the principle of preserving life, which is explicitly in the Constitution, and at any rate could be implied just as much as but probably even more than the right to privacy. While you say you're not pushing for this because of your morality, I see no other reason than for you to think privacy should outweigh life with a presumption of death based on your own inclinations, (my guess is augmented by your rhetoric of laws and the woman's body stuff). If I'm wrong and you simply insist on not changing course, you have not explained why other cases can change, or admit you want to remain ever the same no matter what the Court decides.

Politics

Abortion-should-be-legal./1/

Many people agree that abortion should be legal under some circumstances (i.e. if the girl is raped). Others argue that abortion should be legal for minors, only if they are able to obtain consent from their parent or legal guardian. But does the government have the right to control what a girl does to her own body? Does the government have jurisdiction over any person's own body and what happens to it? I do not believe it does. By controlling the circumstances under which a woman can have an abortion the government is essentially controlling the rest of her life for her. The descion to get an abortion can effect her education, her chance to be employed, and even her relationship with other people in her life. I do not believe that a government body (especially one that is overwhelmingly masculine) has any right to decide a woman's life for her.

radiogirlz7

Many people agree that abortion should be legal under some circumstances (i.e. if the girl is raped). Others argue that abortion should be legal for minors, only if they are able to obtain consent from their parent or legal guardian. But does the government have the right to control what a girl does to her own body? Does the government have jurisdiction over any person's own body and what happens to it? I do not believe it does. By controlling the circumstances under which a woman can have an abortion the government is essentially controlling the rest of her life for her. The descion to get an abortion can effect her education, her chance to be employed, and even her relationship with other people in her life. I do not believe that a government body (especially one that is overwhelmingly masculine) has any right to decide a woman's life for her.

Politics

Abortion-should-be-legal./1/

The fetus is not a person, and I hold the life of the mother higher than that of the fetus. But my argument is not whether or not abortion is morally right or wrong, because I agree that depends on your beliefs. However, I believe it should be legal because of the right of privacy in the constitution. The Supreme court case of Griswold v. Connecticut decided that there is an implied right to privacy in the constitution. The right to privacy is a penumbra. Amendments 1, 3,4, 5, 9, and 14 all imply a right to privacy. The 1st amendment guarantees privacy to have your own beliefs, the 3rd guarantees privacy in your own home, the 4th guarantees the privacy of your own person, the 5th guarantees the right to life and property, the 9th says that rights not given in the constitution are guaranteed to the people. The Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade established that a woman has a right to the privacy of her own body. The Supreme Court case of Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth guaranteed that this right to privacy extended to minors.

radiogirlz7

The fetus is not a person, and I hold the life of the mother higher than that of the fetus. But my argument is not whether or not abortion is morally right or wrong, because I agree that depends on your beliefs. However, I believe it should be legal because of the right of privacy in the constitution. The Supreme court case of Griswold v. Connecticut decided that there is an implied right to privacy in the constitution. The right to privacy is a penumbra. Amendments 1, 3,4, 5, 9, and 14 all imply a right to privacy. The 1st amendment guarantees privacy to have your own beliefs, the 3rd guarantees privacy in your own home, the 4th guarantees the privacy of your own person, the 5th guarantees the right to life and property, the 9th says that rights not given in the constitution are guaranteed to the people. The Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade established that a woman has a right to the privacy of her own body. The Supreme Court case of Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth guaranteed that this right to privacy extended to minors.

Politics

Abortion-should-be-legal./1/

It is true that Supreme Court Cases can be overturned, but does that mean that we should ignore their decisions? If so, then why do we have a Supreme Court? Like I have said before, I am not arguing whether or not abortion is morally right or wrong, I simply believe that the constitution does not give our government the authority to regulate a woman's body due to the right to privacy.

radiogirlz7

It is true that Supreme Court Cases can be overturned, but does that mean that we should ignore their decisions? If so, then why do we have a Supreme Court? Like I have said before, I am not arguing whether or not abortion is morally right or wrong, I simply believe that the constitution does not give our government the authority to regulate a woman's body due to the right to privacy.

Politics

Abortion-should-be-legal./1/

Like most Americans, I am conflicted on the issue of abortion. But like most of the loudest voices in this debate (on both sides), you present the issue as if it were black and white: Pro-life or pro-choice, with no room in the middle for nuance. The reality is that the vast majority of Americans are somewhere in the middle. Very few are for making abortion illegal in every single case, and even fewer are for allowing abortion up to the last second before natural birth. But these are the two extremes you present in your argument. To the extent that I am "pro-life," I am so on the basis of Natural Rights. At some point, the living thing inside a woman's womb becomes a human being. I do not believe this to be at conception, and I cannot define exactly when that point is. But it is fairly clear to me that it is not one instant before birth. My daughter was born six weeks premature. If she had not been premature, would it have been legitimate to abort her two weeks later? Would it be legitimate for a woman to delay labor via drugs and have her baby aborted past the time it was actually due? And finally, most late-term abortions amount to clear infanticide, as the baby is actually living outside of the womb before it is killed. Must I accept this in order to be "pro-choice" in your eyes? Must I oppose a first-trimester abortion of a rape or incest victim in order to be "pro-life"? You make the argument that "pro-life" people should be for legal abortion, since legal abortion leads to fewer abortions and deaths of mothers having abortions. I question these data. Most of the countries where abortion is illegal are poorer and have other problems -- it is thus hard to isolate the effect of abortion laws on abortion rates. But, for the sake of argument, let's say you are right: Would this then also justify any other crime? What if the legalization of murdering one person a year was demonstrated to reduce the total number of violent crimes -- could it be justified? You are using utilitarian ethics, whereas many non-religious and some religious abortion opponents use Natural Rights ethics. Utilitarianism allows for any abrogation of rights if it can be seen as being "in the common good," whereas Natural Rights allow for no such abrogations. There is nothing hypocritical about being a Natural Rights-based opponent of abortion.

clsmooth

Like most Americans, I am conflicted on the issue of abortion. But like most of the loudest voices in this debate (on both sides), you present the issue as if it were black and white: Pro-life or pro-choice, with no room in the middle for nuance. The reality is that the vast majority of Americans are somewhere in the middle. Very few are for making abortion illegal in every single case, and even fewer are for allowing abortion up to the last second before natural birth. But these are the two extremes you present in your argument. To the extent that I am "pro-life," I am so on the basis of Natural Rights. At some point, the living thing inside a woman's womb becomes a human being. I do not believe this to be at conception, and I cannot define exactly when that point is. But it is fairly clear to me that it is not one instant before birth. My daughter was born six weeks premature. If she had not been premature, would it have been legitimate to abort her two weeks later? Would it be legitimate for a woman to delay labor via drugs and have her baby aborted past the time it was actually due? And finally, most late-term abortions amount to clear infanticide, as the baby is actually living outside of the womb before it is killed. Must I accept this in order to be "pro-choice" in your eyes? Must I oppose a first-trimester abortion of a rape or incest victim in order to be "pro-life"? You make the argument that "pro-life" people should be for legal abortion, since legal abortion leads to fewer abortions and deaths of mothers having abortions. I question these data. Most of the countries where abortion is illegal are poorer and have other problems -- it is thus hard to isolate the effect of abortion laws on abortion rates. But, for the sake of argument, let's say you are right: Would this then also justify any other crime? What if the legalization of murdering one person a year was demonstrated to reduce the total number of violent crimes -- could it be justified? You are using utilitarian ethics, whereas many non-religious and some religious abortion opponents use Natural Rights ethics. Utilitarianism allows for any abrogation of rights if it can be seen as being "in the common good," whereas Natural Rights allow for no such abrogations. There is nothing hypocritical about being a Natural Rights-based opponent of abortion.

Health

Abortion-should-be-legalized./1/

In your Round 1 argument, you made no qualifications for when abortion should be legal -- thus implying that it should always be legal. There are radical pro-choicers who would call you a woman hater or a "reactionary," etc. There are those whose motto is "free abortion on demand and without apology!" So just as you charitably want to include me in the "pro-choice" camp (only based on my professing that I think abortion one second after conception is not murder), they too would count you on the "pro-life" side of the ledger. This just proves that this issue is very delicate and sticky. The main thrust of your Round 1 argument was that pro-lifers who are against legal abortion are hypocritical, based on your assertion (with evidence) that countries that do not allow legal abortion have more abortion-related deaths than countries that do allow legal abortion. In Round 1, I argued a non-hypocritical Natural Rights-based reasoning for making abortion (in some or all cases) illegal. You don't challenge my argument, thus, I can only assume that you agree that not all arguments against legal abortion are necessarily hypocritical. Going further, I must state that I'm not sure where I stand on abortion. There is a lot of gray area. I am definitely for choice a moment after conception and definitely against it a moment before birth. All the time in between is tough for me to say, but I do think the nature of the act that led to pregnancy -- i.e. consensual sex vs. rap -- is relevant, and here's why: No matter what precautions an individual takes prior to (heterosexual) sex, he/she must acknowledge the possibility -- however remote -- of pregnancy. It is "unfair," of course, that the woman bears the greater responsibility in this matter, but it is a fact of biology. Point being, if she consents to sex, she is admitting the possibility that she may become pregnant, and if she does, she will have become so willingly. However, if she is raped, she did not consent, and thus cannot (at least in my eyes) be made to "take responsibility" for the result. You make a good point that (most) women who have abortions do not consider the act "murder," and thus, there is no "intent." However, if the state were to legalize infanticide -- as many states have throughout time -- would this make the act of killing one's own child (outside the womb -- maybe a year or two later) not murder? You know more about neurology than me, and certainly more than most legislators (who know very little about anything). Based on my own (limited) knowledge, I can't say when a fetus becomes an individual with rights. You seem to have better insight into this matter, but I'm guessing that there are plenty of rational people who would disagree with you. Point being: A one-size-fits-all solution is not for the best, in my opinion. Here is a mindbender. I do not support the federal anti-partial birth abortion ban (while you do). I do not believe abortion is any issue for the federal government, and that's why I'm also against Roe v. Wade. If the states were to decide abortion's legality, then there would be some states that got it right and others that got it wrong. This is preferable to ALL states getting it wrong -- which pro-lifers would say is the case now, but the tables could just as easily be turned under a centralist regime. SUMMATION: All pro-life arguments need not be hypocritical. One who believes in Natural Rights could be against legal abortion even if the illegality led to net negative consequences. And one can believe in Natural Rights and life at conception without being a hypocrite. Even if you believe (as I do), that life does not begin at conception, it is not hypocritical to think that it does.

clsmooth

In your Round 1 argument, you made no qualifications for when abortion should be legal -- thus implying that it should always be legal. There are radical pro-choicers who would call you a woman hater or a "reactionary," etc. There are those whose motto is "free abortion on demand and without apology!" So just as you charitably want to include me in the "pro-choice" camp (only based on my professing that I think abortion one second after conception is not murder), they too would count you on the "pro-life" side of the ledger. This just proves that this issue is very delicate and sticky. The main thrust of your Round 1 argument was that pro-lifers who are against legal abortion are hypocritical, based on your assertion (with evidence) that countries that do not allow legal abortion have more abortion-related deaths than countries that do allow legal abortion. In Round 1, I argued a non-hypocritical Natural Rights-based reasoning for making abortion (in some or all cases) illegal. You don't challenge my argument, thus, I can only assume that you agree that not all arguments against legal abortion are necessarily hypocritical. Going further, I must state that I'm not sure where I stand on abortion. There is a lot of gray area. I am definitely for choice a moment after conception and definitely against it a moment before birth. All the time in between is tough for me to say, but I do think the nature of the act that led to pregnancy -- i.e. consensual sex vs. rap -- is relevant, and here's why: No matter what precautions an individual takes prior to (heterosexual) sex, he/she must acknowledge the possibility -- however remote -- of pregnancy. It is "unfair," of course, that the woman bears the greater responsibility in this matter, but it is a fact of biology. Point being, if she consents to sex, she is admitting the possibility that she may become pregnant, and if she does, she will have become so willingly. However, if she is raped, she did not consent, and thus cannot (at least in my eyes) be made to "take responsibility" for the result. You make a good point that (most) women who have abortions do not consider the act "murder," and thus, there is no "intent." However, if the state were to legalize infanticide -- as many states have throughout time -- would this make the act of killing one's own child (outside the womb -- maybe a year or two later) not murder? You know more about neurology than me, and certainly more than most legislators (who know very little about anything). Based on my own (limited) knowledge, I can't say when a fetus becomes an individual with rights. You seem to have better insight into this matter, but I'm guessing that there are plenty of rational people who would disagree with you. Point being: A one-size-fits-all solution is not for the best, in my opinion. Here is a mindbender. I do not support the federal anti-partial birth abortion ban (while you do). I do not believe abortion is any issue for the federal government, and that's why I'm also against Roe v. Wade. If the states were to decide abortion's legality, then there would be some states that got it right and others that got it wrong. This is preferable to ALL states getting it wrong -- which pro-lifers would say is the case now, but the tables could just as easily be turned under a centralist regime. SUMMATION: All pro-life arguments need not be hypocritical. One who believes in Natural Rights could be against legal abortion even if the illegality led to net negative consequences. And one can believe in Natural Rights and life at conception without being a hypocrite. Even if you believe (as I do), that life does not begin at conception, it is not hypocritical to think that it does.

Health

Abortion-should-be-legalized./1/

I agree that there is ambiguity, and you agree that there is ambiguity. But the very nature of "ambiguity" means that there are some people to whom there is no ambiguity. To the pro-life absolutist, it matters not that others view the issue with ambiguity -- a baby is a 100% person on par with the mother. The fact that you allow ambiguity means you acknowledge this extreme (and the opposite extreme), however "flawed" you (or I) might perceive it to be. Yes, the majority of radical pro-lifers may be hypocrites. But that should not smear the non-hypocritical ones by association. Dr. Ron Paul, for example, is not hypocritical. He is pro-life on Natural Rights grounds, and against Roe on constitutional grounds. He is also against the death penalty and war, and he would make adoption much, much easier via free-market reforms. Your thesis was that all pro-lifers are hypocrites, and I think I've defeated that thesis. This is one of the most meaningful debates I've been in, and I've learned a lot (and will learn more as I investigate your neurology leads), but I hope you have learned this fact, as well. Again, why the absolutism? Why are there only two options? There is a third option: Abortion is legal in some cases and not in others. Furthermore, there's no reason there needs to be one national law (this is constitutionally illegitimate, and bad policy on top of that). I never argued for the death penalty for anyone, much less women who have abortions. But again, what you think MAY be life, others (think they) KNOW to be life. To them, they are not dealing with the "possibility" of a "maybe" life, but a full-fledged life. This is the same of someone having a 1% chance of dying the first time they do cocaine, but to the person it happens to, they are 100% dead. As for rape vs. consent: You make a good point. However, if one thinks of abortion as killing a human being, then one could still be influenced to allow that killing given the circumstances (rape). Maybe this makes them not "pro-life" by your definition, but I think someone who is steadfastly pro-life except in the case of rape or incest typically considers themselves pro-life. My counter-argument to your assertion of when life beings is not simply "there are people who disagree." It's the fact, that you admit, that the determination is ambiguous. You are correct that I admit I know less about neurology than you (I know virtually nothing), and maybe I could be convinced of your point if (when) I learn more. But the question of when life begins is not one that science can answer, definitively. And the question of when that life has equal rights to an indisputable human outside the womb is yet another matter, that certainly is not scientific in nature. Again, the thrust of your argument was that pro-lifers are hypocritical. I think I refuted that argument early on, and we then moved on to other matters. Abortion is a tricky issue, which even you admit. That's why its legality should be decided by the most local level of government possible, certainly not the Supreme Court inventing penumbra that wouldn't even apply to state governments under the Original Intent anyway.

clsmooth

I agree that there is ambiguity, and you agree that there is ambiguity. But the very nature of "ambiguity" means that there are some people to whom there is no ambiguity. To the pro-life absolutist, it matters not that others view the issue with ambiguity -- a baby is a 100% person on par with the mother. The fact that you allow ambiguity means you acknowledge this extreme (and the opposite extreme), however "flawed" you (or I) might perceive it to be. Yes, the majority of radical pro-lifers may be hypocrites. But that should not smear the non-hypocritical ones by association. Dr. Ron Paul, for example, is not hypocritical. He is pro-life on Natural Rights grounds, and against Roe on constitutional grounds. He is also against the death penalty and war, and he would make adoption much, much easier via free-market reforms. Your thesis was that all pro-lifers are hypocrites, and I think I've defeated that thesis. This is one of the most meaningful debates I've been in, and I've learned a lot (and will learn more as I investigate your neurology leads), but I hope you have learned this fact, as well. Again, why the absolutism? Why are there only two options? There is a third option: Abortion is legal in some cases and not in others. Furthermore, there's no reason there needs to be one national law (this is constitutionally illegitimate, and bad policy on top of that). I never argued for the death penalty for anyone, much less women who have abortions. But again, what you think MAY be life, others (think they) KNOW to be life. To them, they are not dealing with the "possibility" of a "maybe" life, but a full-fledged life. This is the same of someone having a 1% chance of dying the first time they do cocaine, but to the person it happens to, they are 100% dead. As for rape vs. consent: You make a good point. However, if one thinks of abortion as killing a human being, then one could still be influenced to allow that killing given the circumstances (rape). Maybe this makes them not "pro-life" by your definition, but I think someone who is steadfastly pro-life except in the case of rape or incest typically considers themselves pro-life. My counter-argument to your assertion of when life beings is not simply "there are people who disagree." It's the fact, that you admit, that the determination is ambiguous. You are correct that I admit I know less about neurology than you (I know virtually nothing), and maybe I could be convinced of your point if (when) I learn more. But the question of when life begins is not one that science can answer, definitively. And the question of when that life has equal rights to an indisputable human outside the womb is yet another matter, that certainly is not scientific in nature. Again, the thrust of your argument was that pro-lifers are hypocritical. I think I refuted that argument early on, and we then moved on to other matters. Abortion is a tricky issue, which even you admit. That's why its legality should be decided by the most local level of government possible, certainly not the Supreme Court inventing penumbra that wouldn't even apply to state governments under the Original Intent anyway.

Health

Abortion-should-be-legalized./1/

Abortion should be legal, definitely. Ask a pro-lifer what their position represents - what is being a pro-lifer? They'll usually give you a definition of something along the lines of someone who believes that a fetus is a life, and the sanctity of life should not be compromised by legalizing a form of murder. Ask them further if they would take measures against death occurring. Would they, if they had the power, pass a legislation that would save more lives than not? If adhering to their position as pro-lifers, they should. At this point, the terms pro-lifer and pro-choicer would become synonymous, because any pro-lifer who is not a hypocrite, and wants to save lives as opposed to inflicting punishment will want to legalize abortion. A study came out recently showing that rates of abortion occur in countries where abortion is legal and where it is not. (Source: <URL>... ) Despite the ruling of the land, women are not deterred in ending their pregnancy when they want to. More often than not in areas where it is not legal, unsafe abortions occur and the mother is injured or killed. In places where abortion is legal, unsafe abortion is hardly a problem, and abortions usually occur legally and safely. So the citizen has their choice: legalize a process that kills one person (accepting the definition that the fetus is a life - which I would contest, but I'm using it here for the sake of argument), or ban a process, thereby killing two people for every one that could have gone. If the "pro-lifer" sticks to their moral compass that they defined earlier, they'll find that legal abortion is a necessary privilege, and banning abortion is contradictory to their philosophy, killing more people than could have been saved.

iamapelican

Abortion should be legal, definitely. Ask a pro-lifer what their position represents - what is being a pro-lifer? They'll usually give you a definition of something along the lines of someone who believes that a fetus is a life, and the sanctity of life should not be compromised by legalizing a form of murder. Ask them further if they would take measures against death occurring. Would they, if they had the power, pass a legislation that would save more lives than not? If adhering to their position as pro-lifers, they should. At this point, the terms pro-lifer and pro-choicer would become synonymous, because any pro-lifer who is not a hypocrite, and wants to save lives as opposed to inflicting punishment will want to legalize abortion. A study came out recently showing that rates of abortion occur in countries where abortion is legal and where it is not. (Source: http://www.nytimes.com... ) Despite the ruling of the land, women are not deterred in ending their pregnancy when they want to. More often than not in areas where it is not legal, unsafe abortions occur and the mother is injured or killed. In places where abortion is legal, unsafe abortion is hardly a problem, and abortions usually occur legally and safely. So the citizen has their choice: legalize a process that kills one person (accepting the definition that the fetus is a life - which I would contest, but I'm using it here for the sake of argument), or ban a process, thereby killing two people for every one that could have gone. If the "pro-lifer" sticks to their moral compass that they defined earlier, they'll find that legal abortion is a necessary privilege, and banning abortion is contradictory to their philosophy, killing more people than could have been saved.

Health

Abortion-should-be-legalized./1/

I should have clarified on my terminology. I believe that a pro-lifer is defined as one who wishes that abortion should not be legal at any point in a pregnancy. That is a relatively straight-forward viewpoint, compared to pro-choice, which I hold to encompass people who hold that abortion should be legal for at least some alloted time of a pregnancy. So the term "pro-choicer" is an ambiguous one when referenced to generally. Personally, I believe that abortion should be legal for the first and second trimesters, but not the third, so I will defend that viewpoint from here on out. Which means when coming to the case of your daughter, I would not like to have permit abortion, as at that point your daughter would be extensively neurologically developed. Most neurologists hold one of the most defining points of the beginning of life to be between 24 and 27 weeks in a pregnancy, when the child starts emitting a recognizable EEG pattern. I think that clarifies your first set of questions. Except for: "Must I oppose a first-trimester abortion of a rape or incest victim in order to be "pro-life"?" On the contrary, I think anyone who genuinely is against abortion, who believes that from the moment of conception that abortion is murder, then it is hypocritical to support abortions for rape or incest victims. If the pro-lifer truly believes that their philosophy on abortion is about life, and not responsibility, punishment, or retribution, then there is no difference. The circumstances surrounding conception would have no bearing on the life of the fetus. "Would this then also justify any other crime? What if the legalization of murdering one person a year was demonstrated to reduce the total number of violent crimes -- could it be justified?" I suppose this is where I have to establish my reasoning behind why I don't believe ending the life of a fetus is analogous to that of cold-blooded murder. You could argue that this wouldn't negate my previous argument, using utilitarian ethics to appeal to pro-lifers, but I believe there's an obvious distinction between an abortion and a definitive murder - the women do not believe they are committing an act as heinous as murder. So whereas a murderer undeniably knows he or she is committing murder, the woman could not consider the fetus as a life and be innocent in that regard. At this point, we have to establish what the state should consider life, and if the state should consider abortion murder. I mentioned earlier that I believe in abortions in the first and second trimester, and not the third. Therefore, I agree with the ban on partial-birth and late-term abortions, and I generally believe that current abortion laws in the United States should be upheld. My basis for believing this is primarily neurology and capability. In what ways does a human being differ from other animals? Why is it, by most, considered exceptionally more unethical to kill a living human being as opposed to a living, say, cow? I would assume this bias exists on two levels. Firstly, a human being is of our own species. Every species that wants to rationally continue existing has a genetic predisposition towards saving their own kind, so as not to risk extinction and to properly propagate the genes of their species. While most, even all, humans may have an inherent feeling of this bias, I don't think it fully accounts for the human race's love of itself. I think the matter mostly has to do with distinct sentience. Very little other creatures have traces of the level of sentience that humans do, and those who come close are the epitome of the phrase "so close, yet so far." Raise a cow up to the level of intelligence and development of humans. Disregarding matters of hostility that may arise, if cows had intelligence and civilizations of the stature of humans, along with language and means of communication with each other and ourselves, I'd be willing to bet murdering that creature would merit a punishment analogous to the charge of murder of a human. Of course, no such creature exists, but you can see my point that our compassion is with those of sentience, and hardly anything otherwise, save for small clusters of animal rights activists who are dwarfed by the rest of the apathetic human race. So, compassion and legalities are deduced to apply to the sentient. They do not apply to creatures such as cows, which are not as intelligent or developed as humans. So, then, should the rights of the fetus not lie within its stage of development, making it a more punishable offense the later stage in its life you abort it? Here is where you may object, to say that the fetus, as a life that will develop into a human, has potential for sentience and humanity, and the application of laws to it. This is all so, but any actions taken against the fetus prior to that point, by any standards, do not make those actions immoral or unethical. I find embryology studies compelling, as they show that development of embryos in all species are relatively the same, and all have traces of past evolution in them. <URL>... There is an interesting diagram for you - the relative developments of animal fetuses. Note the exceptional prenatal similarities. It begs the question: where does the difference lay? And we have answered that question: in sentience, and in development. So it does become more unethical to abort the further on in the stage the child is, which is why procedures such as partial birth and late term abortions have been banned. What about prior to those, though? I see no ethical dilemma in abortion, as the development of the fetus is insufficient, and the function of the body systems is greatly impaired. The cerebrum, the part of the brain that makes the most difference in distinction from animals, and in life functioning, is the last part of a fetus to develop. I am willing to trade the existence of a developing creature, indistinguishable for many stages in development in regards to what animal it is, for one capable of fully functioning, feeling pain, thinking, building, and progressing. I put more of a priority on people who already definitely exist and are sentient, such as women who are pregnant and wish an abortion. You can see the great degree of immorality I see in letting women severely injure and kill themselves, usually in a painful fashion, for aborting beings that are, on a philosophical level, debatable of being lives. Allowing the painful disfiguration and often death of a woman as amends to the abortion of a creature which hardly feels any pain, not for any other reason than it hardly is able to feel any pain as a corollary of its underdeveloped nervous system and body structure, is an tyrannical ruling analogous to taking 2 eyes for a badly functioning eye. Such a ruling is only suitable for tyrannies and only acceptable by those who decree themselves punishers.

iamapelican

I should have clarified on my terminology. I believe that a pro-lifer is defined as one who wishes that abortion should not be legal at any point in a pregnancy. That is a relatively straight-forward viewpoint, compared to pro-choice, which I hold to encompass people who hold that abortion should be legal for at least some alloted time of a pregnancy. So the term "pro-choicer" is an ambiguous one when referenced to generally. Personally, I believe that abortion should be legal for the first and second trimesters, but not the third, so I will defend that viewpoint from here on out. Which means when coming to the case of your daughter, I would not like to have permit abortion, as at that point your daughter would be extensively neurologically developed. Most neurologists hold one of the most defining points of the beginning of life to be between 24 and 27 weeks in a pregnancy, when the child starts emitting a recognizable EEG pattern. I think that clarifies your first set of questions. Except for: "Must I oppose a first-trimester abortion of a rape or incest victim in order to be "pro-life"?" On the contrary, I think anyone who genuinely is against abortion, who believes that from the moment of conception that abortion is murder, then it is hypocritical to support abortions for rape or incest victims. If the pro-lifer truly believes that their philosophy on abortion is about life, and not responsibility, punishment, or retribution, then there is no difference. The circumstances surrounding conception would have no bearing on the life of the fetus. "Would this then also justify any other crime? What if the legalization of murdering one person a year was demonstrated to reduce the total number of violent crimes -- could it be justified?" I suppose this is where I have to establish my reasoning behind why I don't believe ending the life of a fetus is analogous to that of cold-blooded murder. You could argue that this wouldn't negate my previous argument, using utilitarian ethics to appeal to pro-lifers, but I believe there's an obvious distinction between an abortion and a definitive murder - the women do not believe they are committing an act as heinous as murder. So whereas a murderer undeniably knows he or she is committing murder, the woman could not consider the fetus as a life and be innocent in that regard. At this point, we have to establish what the state should consider life, and if the state should consider abortion murder. I mentioned earlier that I believe in abortions in the first and second trimester, and not the third. Therefore, I agree with the ban on partial-birth and late-term abortions, and I generally believe that current abortion laws in the United States should be upheld. My basis for believing this is primarily neurology and capability. In what ways does a human being differ from other animals? Why is it, by most, considered exceptionally more unethical to kill a living human being as opposed to a living, say, cow? I would assume this bias exists on two levels. Firstly, a human being is of our own species. Every species that wants to rationally continue existing has a genetic predisposition towards saving their own kind, so as not to risk extinction and to properly propagate the genes of their species. While most, even all, humans may have an inherent feeling of this bias, I don't think it fully accounts for the human race's love of itself. I think the matter mostly has to do with distinct sentience. Very little other creatures have traces of the level of sentience that humans do, and those who come close are the epitome of the phrase "so close, yet so far." Raise a cow up to the level of intelligence and development of humans. Disregarding matters of hostility that may arise, if cows had intelligence and civilizations of the stature of humans, along with language and means of communication with each other and ourselves, I'd be willing to bet murdering that creature would merit a punishment analogous to the charge of murder of a human. Of course, no such creature exists, but you can see my point that our compassion is with those of sentience, and hardly anything otherwise, save for small clusters of animal rights activists who are dwarfed by the rest of the apathetic human race. So, compassion and legalities are deduced to apply to the sentient. They do not apply to creatures such as cows, which are not as intelligent or developed as humans. So, then, should the rights of the fetus not lie within its stage of development, making it a more punishable offense the later stage in its life you abort it? Here is where you may object, to say that the fetus, as a life that will develop into a human, has potential for sentience and humanity, and the application of laws to it. This is all so, but any actions taken against the fetus prior to that point, by any standards, do not make those actions immoral or unethical. I find embryology studies compelling, as they show that development of embryos in all species are relatively the same, and all have traces of past evolution in them. http://upload.wikimedia.org... There is an interesting diagram for you - the relative developments of animal fetuses. Note the exceptional prenatal similarities. It begs the question: where does the difference lay? And we have answered that question: in sentience, and in development. So it does become more unethical to abort the further on in the stage the child is, which is why procedures such as partial birth and late term abortions have been banned. What about prior to those, though? I see no ethical dilemma in abortion, as the development of the fetus is insufficient, and the function of the body systems is greatly impaired. The cerebrum, the part of the brain that makes the most difference in distinction from animals, and in life functioning, is the last part of a fetus to develop. I am willing to trade the existence of a developing creature, indistinguishable for many stages in development in regards to what animal it is, for one capable of fully functioning, feeling pain, thinking, building, and progressing. I put more of a priority on people who already definitely exist and are sentient, such as women who are pregnant and wish an abortion. You can see the great degree of immorality I see in letting women severely injure and kill themselves, usually in a painful fashion, for aborting beings that are, on a philosophical level, debatable of being lives. Allowing the painful disfiguration and often death of a woman as amends to the abortion of a creature which hardly feels any pain, not for any other reason than it hardly is able to feel any pain as a corollary of its underdeveloped nervous system and body structure, is an tyrannical ruling analogous to taking 2 eyes for a badly functioning eye. Such a ruling is only suitable for tyrannies and only acceptable by those who decree themselves punishers.

Health

Abortion-should-be-legalized./1/

I suppose I agree that not all arguments for legal abortion are hypocritical. Albeit, I still believe they are deeply flawed. In regards to applying Natural Rights ethics, I think the main flaw of the pro-lifer argument is that there is ambiguity in what defines life. There is not ambiguity in that the woman is a life. The very existence of the debate would, to myself, indicate the life of the woman should be prioritized. It would also indicate to me that as long as the debate continued, abortion should be legal as otherwise, it would definitely take lives and MAYBE advocate murder. I believe it is the place of a government to establish and uphold laws that protect its citizens, so in this case, the government (or state) has two options. 1) Legalize abortion. Women are not being killed, the unborn might be. 2) Ban abortion. Women are being killed, the unborn might be. Even accepting Natural Rights arguments, the ambiguity in what defines a life also muddles how clear it is whether or not the woman is a criminal, or whether or not she deserves to die for taking another life. I am of the opinion that we should prioritize what we definitely know as life, and so it seems comparatively more immoral to myself that we ban abortion, definitely killing people who didn't deserve it, than if we legalized abortion, possibly killing people who didn't deserve it. In regards to your paragraph highlighting the difference between consensual sex and rape, I agree with you. I believe there is a significant difference in regards to responsibility. My point was that if one is truly a pro-lifer, then the circumstances should make no difference, as the pro-lifer's argument is not that people shouldn't get abortions because of responsibility, but rather because abortions are murder. However, the child conceived is not responsible for how it was conceived, and the circumstances of conception should not compromise the value of life, if one truly believes it is a life. My point in presenting the situation of a woman not acknowledging the fetus as a life was primarily to note that there is a necessity for government and state definition on what defines a life. In your hypothetical situation of the legalization of infanticide, I would contest the state's ruling. It seems what we keep coming back to is establishing what exactly "life" is. To myself, the distinction between humans and animals is primarily in mental capacities, and thus once the fetus has a mind developed enough to emit EEG, it can be considered, legally, a human life. You do bring up the point that there are plenty of rational people, probably more knowledgeable than myself on science, who would disagree, but I believe I've already constructed and presented my argument in regards to how we should consider the fetus, and you seem to agree with me to an extent, providing no other real counter-argument than 'Well, there are people who disagree.' I hold these views regardless of how they should be legalized or implemented. If you believe it is an argument to be held at the state level, then this is my reasoning for legalizing abortion at the state level. To those who believe it is a federal matter, then this is my reasoning for legalizing abortion at the federal level. Regardless of how the system implements it, I believe abortion a necessary right.

iamapelican

I suppose I agree that not all arguments for legal abortion are hypocritical. Albeit, I still believe they are deeply flawed. In regards to applying Natural Rights ethics, I think the main flaw of the pro-lifer argument is that there is ambiguity in what defines life. There is not ambiguity in that the woman is a life. The very existence of the debate would, to myself, indicate the life of the woman should be prioritized. It would also indicate to me that as long as the debate continued, abortion should be legal as otherwise, it would definitely take lives and MAYBE advocate murder. I believe it is the place of a government to establish and uphold laws that protect its citizens, so in this case, the government (or state) has two options. 1) Legalize abortion. Women are not being killed, the unborn might be. 2) Ban abortion. Women are being killed, the unborn might be. Even accepting Natural Rights arguments, the ambiguity in what defines a life also muddles how clear it is whether or not the woman is a criminal, or whether or not she deserves to die for taking another life. I am of the opinion that we should prioritize what we definitely know as life, and so it seems comparatively more immoral to myself that we ban abortion, definitely killing people who didn't deserve it, than if we legalized abortion, possibly killing people who didn't deserve it. In regards to your paragraph highlighting the difference between consensual sex and rape, I agree with you. I believe there is a significant difference in regards to responsibility. My point was that if one is truly a pro-lifer, then the circumstances should make no difference, as the pro-lifer's argument is not that people shouldn't get abortions because of responsibility, but rather because abortions are murder. However, the child conceived is not responsible for how it was conceived, and the circumstances of conception should not compromise the value of life, if one truly believes it is a life. My point in presenting the situation of a woman not acknowledging the fetus as a life was primarily to note that there is a necessity for government and state definition on what defines a life. In your hypothetical situation of the legalization of infanticide, I would contest the state's ruling. It seems what we keep coming back to is establishing what exactly "life" is. To myself, the distinction between humans and animals is primarily in mental capacities, and thus once the fetus has a mind developed enough to emit EEG, it can be considered, legally, a human life. You do bring up the point that there are plenty of rational people, probably more knowledgeable than myself on science, who would disagree, but I believe I've already constructed and presented my argument in regards to how we should consider the fetus, and you seem to agree with me to an extent, providing no other real counter-argument than 'Well, there are people who disagree.' I hold these views regardless of how they should be legalized or implemented. If you believe it is an argument to be held at the state level, then this is my reasoning for legalizing abortion at the state level. To those who believe it is a federal matter, then this is my reasoning for legalizing abortion at the federal level. Regardless of how the system implements it, I believe abortion a necessary right.

Health

Abortion-should-be-legalized./1/

Abortion should be made illegal in the United States under all circumstances. Murder is currentlly illegal and abortion is nothing more than supervised and accompliced murder.

qtpi2008

Abortion should be made illegal in the United States under all circumstances. Murder is currentlly illegal and abortion is nothing more than supervised and accompliced murder.

Society

Abortion-should-be-made-illegal-in-the-United-States/1/

MikeGarcia, you have brought up some interesting questions about the definition of life and its context within the abortion debate. Let us first look to the arguments of Judith Jarvis Thompson, professor of philosophy at MIT, to further flesh out this debate. For all intents and purposes, I am assuming that "life" in the purely scientific context exists at the moment of conception. There are other ways to define life, which I will address later if given enough space. Thompson sets up an analogy to explain her pro-choice argument, which I shall paraphrase: imagine that you went to bed one night, and woke up in a hospital with your body hooked up to the body of a violinist. Say the violinist is famous, but the fact of the matter is that you are keeping this person alive--if he is unplugged, he will die. The doctors say that you only have to give up nine months of your life and then the violinist would be okay. Do you then forfeit your rights to do with your body what you will to protect the right to life of this violinist? He is, after all, a person, and all persons deserve a right to life. What if it were nine years, questions Thompson? What if it were your whole life? Would you elect to leave the violinist hooked up to you for the rest of your natural life? The important thing to remember is that you were kidnapped and erroneously chosen for this task of keeping the violinist alive (you woke up attached to him, after all--this is meant to be analogous to rape, as Thompson specifically supports abortion in that instance. She goes on to explain how abortion could be ethically warranted in other instances, but I will focus on rape for this round). Would you yield your right to do with your body as you wished for nine months to save this person who is a stranger to you? If you maintain that the right to life is more important than the right to one's body, then perhaps you would allow the violinist to use your body. Of course, life would have to have value in order to be perceived as more important than the right to one's body. What gives the life of a fetus value? What gives life in general value? One generally defines the value of life by the experiences of the being. What experience does a fetus have? This is where the debate tends to get muddy, as defining "life" is much more complex than simply defining the activities of cells. This, of course, brings to mind the question of the value of a mother's life. Does her life have more value than the life of a fetus? Is it equal? Imagine a scenario wherein carrying a pregnancy to term would endanger the mother's life. Either she can abort the fetus and stay alive, or carry the pregnancy to term and die in the process. Should the mother have a choice? Does the life of her fetus have more value than her own life? We can liken this to the violinist situation--the stress of supporting two bodies is placing strain on your kidneys and immune system, and you will be dead within a month, but you must continue to provide support. You have no choice. Thompson's point here is that the right to life argument is not without it's issues--i.e., it is not a black and white ordeal. Having the right to life does not necessarily mean that you have the right to use someone else's body to promote and protect said right to life. The right to life is, as she puts it, a right to not be killed unjustly. You would not be unjust in unplugging the violinist, but you'd be terribly nice if you did not. (Since you placed the burden on me as the pro-choice advocate to also be pro-abortion, if you support abortion in this instance as an option, you must also label yourself as pro-choice, as you are not condemning abortion.) You may find it trivial that I used Thompson's analogy of a violinist being plugged into one's body to sum up the issues surrounding the right to life in the abortion debate, but it is perhaps the easiest way to understand the right to choice side. Being pro-choice does not necessarily mean that I advocate all forms of abortion, which is why I have chosen to focus on abortion in the case of rape or medical necessity (as Thompson did). Your case was to outlaw ALL forms of abortion in all instances (in other words, your burden of proof, by your own phrasing, is much larger than mine. I simply have to prove that at least one form of abortion is just, whereas you have to prove that all forms of abortion are unjust). This does not allow for thoughtful consideration of the other side, which is the side of the mother. It isn't about arguing with science, because in order to claim that abortion is wrong because a fetus is a living thing, you would have to give life some value, pushing this debate into the realm of ethics. Certainly you can use science to define the terms of debate, but the debate you proposed was entirely ethical, therefore we must debate on ethical grounds. I fully understand that abortions due to rape account for a very small percentage of abortions, but shouldn't these women have access to a safe procedure that allows them to protect their rights? If you argue that they should not, then you must give reasoning as to why the mother's right to her body (and, ultimately, right to life) is of less value than the fetus' right to life. Should we hold a woman responsible to carry a baby to term if it is the offspring of a violent sexual act, or if it will endanger her life? What about the time, lost wages, and emotional issues that are tied in with carrying an unwarranted pregnancy to term? Are these less valuable than the right to life of the unborn? The cost of pregnancy is great to the mother, and there is very little that she can do to recoup the cost, especially in the case of rape. Suing for monetary damages will not fix the emotional damage that has occurred, and it is not simply and easy fix to give the unwanted child to an adoption agency. Will the value of this child's life be enough to make up for the way in which the mother's life was devalued? That is not easy to calculate. Ultimately, the right to life of a fetus does not trump the right to life/right to one's body of a mother, especially in the case of rape or pregnancy wherein the mother's life is in danger. In BOTH instances, the mother has a CHOICE--to carry the pregnancy to term, or to seek an abortion. I do not applaud or condemn the mother for the choice she makes one way or the other, I simply applaud the system that enables her to make the choice.

nicolettesue

MikeGarcia, you have brought up some interesting questions about the definition of life and its context within the abortion debate. Let us first look to the arguments of Judith Jarvis Thompson, professor of philosophy at MIT, to further flesh out this debate. For all intents and purposes, I am assuming that "life" in the purely scientific context exists at the moment of conception. There are other ways to define life, which I will address later if given enough space. Thompson sets up an analogy to explain her pro-choice argument, which I shall paraphrase: imagine that you went to bed one night, and woke up in a hospital with your body hooked up to the body of a violinist. Say the violinist is famous, but the fact of the matter is that you are keeping this person alive--if he is unplugged, he will die. The doctors say that you only have to give up nine months of your life and then the violinist would be okay. Do you then forfeit your rights to do with your body what you will to protect the right to life of this violinist? He is, after all, a person, and all persons deserve a right to life. What if it were nine years, questions Thompson? What if it were your whole life? Would you elect to leave the violinist hooked up to you for the rest of your natural life? The important thing to remember is that you were kidnapped and erroneously chosen for this task of keeping the violinist alive (you woke up attached to him, after all--this is meant to be analogous to rape, as Thompson specifically supports abortion in that instance. She goes on to explain how abortion could be ethically warranted in other instances, but I will focus on rape for this round). Would you yield your right to do with your body as you wished for nine months to save this person who is a stranger to you? If you maintain that the right to life is more important than the right to one's body, then perhaps you would allow the violinist to use your body. Of course, life would have to have value in order to be perceived as more important than the right to one's body. What gives the life of a fetus value? What gives life in general value? One generally defines the value of life by the experiences of the being. What experience does a fetus have? This is where the debate tends to get muddy, as defining "life" is much more complex than simply defining the activities of cells. This, of course, brings to mind the question of the value of a mother's life. Does her life have more value than the life of a fetus? Is it equal? Imagine a scenario wherein carrying a pregnancy to term would endanger the mother's life. Either she can abort the fetus and stay alive, or carry the pregnancy to term and die in the process. Should the mother have a choice? Does the life of her fetus have more value than her own life? We can liken this to the violinist situation--the stress of supporting two bodies is placing strain on your kidneys and immune system, and you will be dead within a month, but you must continue to provide support. You have no choice. Thompson's point here is that the right to life argument is not without it's issues--i.e., it is not a black and white ordeal. Having the right to life does not necessarily mean that you have the right to use someone else's body to promote and protect said right to life. The right to life is, as she puts it, a right to not be killed unjustly. You would not be unjust in unplugging the violinist, but you'd be terribly nice if you did not. (Since you placed the burden on me as the pro-choice advocate to also be pro-abortion, if you support abortion in this instance as an option, you must also label yourself as pro-choice, as you are not condemning abortion.) You may find it trivial that I used Thompson's analogy of a violinist being plugged into one's body to sum up the issues surrounding the right to life in the abortion debate, but it is perhaps the easiest way to understand the right to choice side. Being pro-choice does not necessarily mean that I advocate all forms of abortion, which is why I have chosen to focus on abortion in the case of rape or medical necessity (as Thompson did). Your case was to outlaw ALL forms of abortion in all instances (in other words, your burden of proof, by your own phrasing, is much larger than mine. I simply have to prove that at least one form of abortion is just, whereas you have to prove that all forms of abortion are unjust). This does not allow for thoughtful consideration of the other side, which is the side of the mother. It isn't about arguing with science, because in order to claim that abortion is wrong because a fetus is a living thing, you would have to give life some value, pushing this debate into the realm of ethics. Certainly you can use science to define the terms of debate, but the debate you proposed was entirely ethical, therefore we must debate on ethical grounds. I fully understand that abortions due to rape account for a very small percentage of abortions, but shouldn't these women have access to a safe procedure that allows them to protect their rights? If you argue that they should not, then you must give reasoning as to why the mother's right to her body (and, ultimately, right to life) is of less value than the fetus' right to life. Should we hold a woman responsible to carry a baby to term if it is the offspring of a violent sexual act, or if it will endanger her life? What about the time, lost wages, and emotional issues that are tied in with carrying an unwarranted pregnancy to term? Are these less valuable than the right to life of the unborn? The cost of pregnancy is great to the mother, and there is very little that she can do to recoup the cost, especially in the case of rape. Suing for monetary damages will not fix the emotional damage that has occurred, and it is not simply and easy fix to give the unwanted child to an adoption agency. Will the value of this child's life be enough to make up for the way in which the mother's life was devalued? That is not easy to calculate. Ultimately, the right to life of a fetus does not trump the right to life/right to one's body of a mother, especially in the case of rape or pregnancy wherein the mother's life is in danger. In BOTH instances, the mother has a CHOICE--to carry the pregnancy to term, or to seek an abortion. I do not applaud or condemn the mother for the choice she makes one way or the other, I simply applaud the system that enables her to make the choice.

Politics

Abortion-should-be-outlawed-and-being-pro-choice-is-equivalent-to-being-pro-abortion./2/

MikeGarcia, I was disappointed to see that you didn't post an argument this round. I look forward to your rebuttals in round three. There is not a lot I can say given that my opponent chose to not post a second argument (or was not available). I would like to reiterate that the burden of proof still stands: I must prove that abortion is just in just one case, whereas my opponent must prove that it is unjust in every case. Thus far, he has presented the idea that life scientifically begins at conception (a claim I did not dispute, but I did argue that simply having life does not imply that the life has value), and because life exists, it is unjust to end it. Throughout the use of analogies initially presented by Judith Jarvis Thompson, professor of philosophy at MIT, I showed that, in the case of rape or medical need, abortion is not unjust. I will continue to focus on abortion in the case of rape or medical need, as it is often the most cut-and-dry of the various reasons for seeking a termination of pregnancy. These women deserve access safe and legal procedure that will protect both the right to their bodies, but also their right to life. As president Bill Clinton once said, abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Giving up the baby for adoption is not always a viable means of dealing with the situation for these women, especially in the case of those wherein carrying the pregnancy to full term would likely kill the woman. A recent issue of Newsweek ran a story detailing the difficulties adopted children and adoptive parents can sometimes face, including kids so scarred by their biological mother's advice that they have severe emotional issues. Granted, this does not represent every adoptive experience, but it may more thoroughly highlight why other options are necessary. Without a rebuttal, it is difficult to further respond. I look forward to your argument in round 3, MikeGarcia. Best of luck to you.

nicolettesue

MikeGarcia, I was disappointed to see that you didn't post an argument this round. I look forward to your rebuttals in round three. There is not a lot I can say given that my opponent chose to not post a second argument (or was not available). I would like to reiterate that the burden of proof still stands: I must prove that abortion is just in just one case, whereas my opponent must prove that it is unjust in every case. Thus far, he has presented the idea that life scientifically begins at conception (a claim I did not dispute, but I did argue that simply having life does not imply that the life has value), and because life exists, it is unjust to end it. Throughout the use of analogies initially presented by Judith Jarvis Thompson, professor of philosophy at MIT, I showed that, in the case of rape or medical need, abortion is not unjust. I will continue to focus on abortion in the case of rape or medical need, as it is often the most cut-and-dry of the various reasons for seeking a termination of pregnancy. These women deserve access safe and legal procedure that will protect both the right to their bodies, but also their right to life. As president Bill Clinton once said, abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Giving up the baby for adoption is not always a viable means of dealing with the situation for these women, especially in the case of those wherein carrying the pregnancy to full term would likely kill the woman. A recent issue of Newsweek ran a story detailing the difficulties adopted children and adoptive parents can sometimes face, including kids so scarred by their biological mother's advice that they have severe emotional issues. Granted, this does not represent every adoptive experience, but it may more thoroughly highlight why other options are necessary. Without a rebuttal, it is difficult to further respond. I look forward to your argument in round 3, MikeGarcia. Best of luck to you.

Politics

Abortion-should-be-outlawed-and-being-pro-choice-is-equivalent-to-being-pro-abortion./2/

It is very difficult to continue this debate, as my opponent has not responded to any of my arguments. Therefore, I uphold my claims that he must prove that all forms of abortion are unjust, whereas I must only prove that one form of abortion is just. Because my opponent has not refuted the claims I made in my initial argument regarding abortion in cases of rape or medical necessity, I have satisfied my burden. In not responding to those claims (let alone refuting them), my opponent has implicitly agreed, thus violating the terms of his own burden. I was even able to stay within the constraints of his burden (i.e. that life begins at conception), but still showed the need to transcend the scientific debate and look at things from an ethical standpoint. Whether you agree with my position or not, my opponent has not spent any time refuting the opposite side. The only vote, therefore, is a negative vote.

nicolettesue

It is very difficult to continue this debate, as my opponent has not responded to any of my arguments. Therefore, I uphold my claims that he must prove that all forms of abortion are unjust, whereas I must only prove that one form of abortion is just. Because my opponent has not refuted the claims I made in my initial argument regarding abortion in cases of rape or medical necessity, I have satisfied my burden. In not responding to those claims (let alone refuting them), my opponent has implicitly agreed, thus violating the terms of his own burden. I was even able to stay within the constraints of his burden (i.e. that life begins at conception), but still showed the need to transcend the scientific debate and look at things from an ethical standpoint. Whether you agree with my position or not, my opponent has not spent any time refuting the opposite side. The only vote, therefore, is a negative vote.

Politics

Abortion-should-be-outlawed-and-being-pro-choice-is-equivalent-to-being-pro-abortion./2/

This should not be aloud, because it is just terrible. Killing one of God's creations for selfish purposes. Even if the child was created by rape, dont kill it! Give it up for adoption. If you made the mistake of getting pregnant, I think you should be the one to take care of the child sense you thought you were responsible enough to have "safe" sex out of marrage!

Commen_Knowledge_97

This should not be aloud, because it is just terrible. Killing one of God's creations for selfish purposes. Even if the child was created by rape, dont kill it! Give it up for adoption. If you made the mistake of getting pregnant, I think you should be the one to take care of the child sense you thought you were responsible enough to have "safe" sex out of marrage!

Health

Abortion-should-not-be-aloud-unless-very-harmful-to-the-mother./1/

Thanks for the debate. Your argument, that a fetus is a creation of God so we shouldn't kill it, doesn't make any sense. Let's suppose for a second that indeed, God created the living things on Earth. Well, each time you eat - even a plant -, you kill a creation of God, don't you ? God being by definition a perfect being, he knew what he did when he created us with the feeling of hunger, so either he made us evil from birth on, or he doesn't mind. Point is, God can't be anymore angry at mankind for abortion than for everything else. So, once we put aside the religious aspect of the question, let's get on the interesting part : should we morally allow or disallow abortion ? This question is putting the mother's interests against the unborn child's ones. Let's assume for a second that we forbid abortion. Either this child will be an 'orphan' (given to an orphanage) or he will be educated by parents who consider him from start more a burden than a chance. Would you really want to live a life like that ? Before you answer that question, here is an interesting statistic : 15% of the orphans commit suicide before they rage age 18. <URL>... On the other hand, you have a mother who has to bear a child she doesn't want. This will often have dramatic consequences in her life, disallowing further studies for example. Disallowing abortion puts a major hiatus on her future, and thus on the future of eventual other children. All by all, I think it can be considered that the interests of that one child who would probably live a life of misery, can't justify the denial of the right of a woman to dispose of her own body...

jiriakel

Thanks for the debate. Your argument, that a fetus is a creation of God so we shouldn't kill it, doesn't make any sense. Let's suppose for a second that indeed, God created the living things on Earth. Well, each time you eat - even a plant -, you kill a creation of God, don't you ? God being by definition a perfect being, he knew what he did when he created us with the feeling of hunger, so either he made us evil from birth on, or he doesn't mind. Point is, God can't be anymore angry at mankind for abortion than for everything else. So, once we put aside the religious aspect of the question, let's get on the interesting part : should we morally allow or disallow abortion ? This question is putting the mother's interests against the unborn child's ones. Let's assume for a second that we forbid abortion. Either this child will be an 'orphan' (given to an orphanage) or he will be educated by parents who consider him from start more a burden than a chance. Would you really want to live a life like that ? Before you answer that question, here is an interesting statistic : 15% of the orphans commit suicide before they rage age 18. http://www.orphanhopeintl.org... On the other hand, you have a mother who has to bear a child she doesn't want. This will often have dramatic consequences in her life, disallowing further studies for example. Disallowing abortion puts a major hiatus on her future, and thus on the future of eventual other children. All by all, I think it can be considered that the interests of that one child who would probably live a life of misery, can't justify the denial of the right of a woman to dispose of her own body...

Health

Abortion-should-not-be-aloud-unless-very-harmful-to-the-mother./1/

It would be ideal for women who plan on getting an abortion to do so within three months, but that's not always realistic. Raising a baby is expensive, and so is carrying one to term, so it's no surprise that many women who get abortions are poor. Getting the money together for an abortion can often take more than three months. Also, it can take a few weeks for a woman to even know that she's pregnant, so if this is the case then she would have even less time to make a decision. By the way, it's *should have, not should of.

cricket0206

It would be ideal for women who plan on getting an abortion to do so within three months, but that's not always realistic. Raising a baby is expensive, and so is carrying one to term, so it's no surprise that many women who get abortions are poor. Getting the money together for an abortion can often take more than three months. Also, it can take a few weeks for a woman to even know that she's pregnant, so if this is the case then she would have even less time to make a decision. By the way, it's *should have, not should of.

Health

Abortion-should-not-be-cut-off-after-3-monthes/1/

Okay, so no other arguments? May I also say that cutting off abortion after just three months could harm women that need abortion for medical reasons. Many of these medical reasons don't occur until after three months. Please, before you come and argue your opinion, have some more than one valid reason behind your opinion. I can think of many for mine.

cricket0206

Okay, so no other arguments? May I also say that cutting off abortion after just three months could harm women that need abortion for medical reasons. Many of these medical reasons don't occur until after three months. Please, before you come and argue your opinion, have some more than one valid reason behind your opinion. I can think of many for mine.

Health

Abortion-should-not-be-cut-off-after-3-monthes/1/

I guess winning this will be pretty easy

cricket0206

I guess winning this will be pretty easy

Health

Abortion-should-not-be-cut-off-after-3-monthes/1/

And I guess that's the end of it.

cricket0206

And I guess that's the end of it.

Health

Abortion-should-not-be-cut-off-after-3-monthes/1/

Seeing as though morals cannot be judged under the law, we must look at the fundemental flaw in making abortions completley illegal. The last time abortion was illegal, we had women sticking hangers where they don't belong, drinking drain-o, and getting abortions with dirty and infected utensils. This leads to death not only of the child, but of the mother-to-have-been. Looking at this, we can see that the cost of legal abortion is not as high as the cost of banning it. So, truly, those who are "pro-life" are really pro-death of the mother and child.

rctvanchor08

Seeing as though morals cannot be judged under the law, we must look at the fundemental flaw in making abortions completley illegal. The last time abortion was illegal, we had women sticking hangers where they don't belong, drinking drain-o, and getting abortions with dirty and infected utensils. This leads to death not only of the child, but of the mother-to-have-been. Looking at this, we can see that the cost of legal abortion is not as high as the cost of banning it. So, truly, those who are "pro-life" are really pro-death of the mother and child.

Politics

Abortion-should-stay-legal./1/

Well, since the opponent made no argument, I'd like to respond to the comment made on this post. 1) Great, its a different human being. That doesn't reduce the risk of outlawing abortions. I don't see the argument here. 2)So if so many abortions were performed in sterile environments prior to Roe v Wade, then what's the problem with keeping abortion legal? Obviously outlawing the action didn't work, so then what's the point? Furthermore, do we just ignore the other 10%? Is this argument to say that we should forget about those women? And even furthermore, how can any source be certain that it's only 9% of abortion that was performed in back alley facilities; seeing as though so many abortions go unreported when they are done illegally? This argument is fundamentally flawed and actually supports the claim I am making. 3)While there is a long list of couples waiting to adopt, there is a longer list of children waiting to be adopted. 4) Yes, if you're old enough to have sex you should pay the so-called "consequences." Yet, that is not enough reason to make the child live a life in which he/she is unwanted. Also, that is no reason for legal action against abortion. 5) Great fact. Not relevant to the topic really. 6)It matters not to me when life begins. It matters when the life of the mother is in danger and when outlawing abortion is ineffective. Obviously the risks of outlawing this choice FAR outweigh the benefits of making some people happy. I say this: if you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

rctvanchor08

Well, since the opponent made no argument, I'd like to respond to the comment made on this post. 1) Great, its a different human being. That doesn't reduce the risk of outlawing abortions. I don't see the argument here. 2)So if so many abortions were performed in sterile environments prior to Roe v Wade, then what's the problem with keeping abortion legal? Obviously outlawing the action didn't work, so then what's the point? Furthermore, do we just ignore the other 10%? Is this argument to say that we should forget about those women? And even furthermore, how can any source be certain that it's only 9% of abortion that was performed in back alley facilities; seeing as though so many abortions go unreported when they are done illegally? This argument is fundamentally flawed and actually supports the claim I am making. 3)While there is a long list of couples waiting to adopt, there is a longer list of children waiting to be adopted. 4) Yes, if you're old enough to have sex you should pay the so-called "consequences." Yet, that is not enough reason to make the child live a life in which he/she is unwanted. Also, that is no reason for legal action against abortion. 5) Great fact. Not relevant to the topic really. 6)It matters not to me when life begins. It matters when the life of the mother is in danger and when outlawing abortion is ineffective. Obviously the risks of outlawing this choice FAR outweigh the benefits of making some people happy. I say this: if you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

Politics

Abortion-should-stay-legal./1/

Thank you for the debate, Pro -- I would like to counter your points in which you state abortion is a violation of the U.S. constitution and additionally counter your assertions in regards to planned parenthood and abortion in general. C1: Legality of abortion in regards to the Constitution First off, it is important to understand that no where in the Constitution is the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This is found instead in the Declaration of Independence. More specifically, legal protections in regards to life, liberty, and property are found in the 5th amendment, where it states that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." [1] To delve into the constitutionality of abortion, we needn't look further than one of the most infamous supreme court descisions in history - Roe v Wade, in which by a 7 - 2 decision the legality and right to abortion was affirmed. The court ruled that " a right to privacy under the due process cla use of the 14th amendment e xtended to a woman's decision to have an abortion." [2] Additionally, the court stated t hat a person has a right to abortion until viability, which they defined as the abilitity to live outside the mother's womb with or without artificial aid. This is usually considered around 24 to 28 weeks of development. Most importantly, however, the court ruled that "that the word 'person' as used in the due process clause and in other provisions of the Constitution did not include the unborn, and therefore the unborn lacked federal constitutional protection." [3] Because of the fact that the Constitution does not explicitly include protection for the unborn, they cannot be considered persons under the law. This means that a woman's right to abortion does not violate the Constitution in any way. C2: Planned Parenthood There is a massive misunderstanding of what Planned Parenthood provides to its patients and what the funding it recieves from the federal government goes to. It is imperative to understand that it is illegal for the federal government to fund abortion, as explicitly outlined in the Hyde Amendment. [4] The federal government provides $528.4 million dollars a year to Planned Parenthood, none of which goes to abortion due to the Hyde Amendment. Additionally, only 3% of all of Planned Parenthood's services go towards abortion; the overwhelming majority of Planned Parenthood's services go towards extremely important issues like STDs, contraception, and cancer screening. [5] It is also important to realize that the vast majority of patients recieving care from Planned Parenthood are poor, and would have extremely limited health options if Planned Parenthood were to be defunded: "As of 2012, 79 percent of people receiving services from Planned Parenthood lived at 150 percent of the federal poverty level or lower (that comes out to around $18,500 for a single adult)" [6] To see evidence of this in action, we can look at Wisconsin, where Governor Scott Walker (R) defunded Planned Parenthood in that state. " Walker in 2011 eliminated all state funding to Planned Parenthood, which in turn closed five clinics over the next three years. The loss of those clinics meant women were referred to other facilities, in some cases a considerable distance away, in order to continue getting services." [7] The State of Indiana has cleared Planned Parenthood of any wrong doing. [8] What Planned Parenthood did is entirely legal and was not done for profit. If the tissue isn't sold into research, it is disposed of at the cost of the clinic. C3: Outlawing abortion would have terrible effects Think of what has happened throughout history when a massive service is outlawed. Prohibition saw the rise of organized crime and massive illegal distribution of alcohol and increase in criminal power. The war on drugs saw the number of illegal drug cartels soar and has been responsible for the death or incarceration of thousands of people. What happens when you restrict the ability of people to access a service? They turn to illegal, vastly less safe methods. Outlawing or restricting abortion would cause the many people who truly need it to turn to dangerous and illegal methods, and if unable to recieve these services may even turn to suicide. "Although self-induced abortion is dangerous under any circumstances, other methods run a higher risk of injury and death. In order to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, women [in countries that have outlawed abortion] will drink turpentine, bleach, or livestock manure concoctions. Some will inflict direct injury to the vagina by inserting herbal mixes or inserting foreign objects into the body like a twig or a coat hanger. Some use external injury--jumping from the top of the stairs or from a roof--to induce abortion, as well as inflicting blunt trauma (like punching or kicking) to the abdomen." [9] Even more disturbing, in El Salvador, a country that has completely outlawed abortion, "suicide is the cause of death for 57 percent of pregnant females between the ages of 10 and 19." [10] It's undebatable that restricting women's access to abortion services causes devastating effects. It is imperative that the United States does not continue on the path of further restrictions. Conclusion: Not only has the Surpreme Court ruled in a landslide descision the right of women to recieve abortion services, no where in the constitution is the explicit illegality of abortion or protection of the unborn mentioned, nor does any government funding go towards abortion. Additionally, the effects of further restricting or outlawing abortion completely would be devastating on American women and would cause massive spikes in illegal activity and suicides among pregnant teens. As Americans, we need to stand up for the civil liberties of women and say no to restricting the right to abortions before viability. Sources: [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>... [6] <URL>... [7] <URL>... [8] <URL>... [9] <URL>... [10] <URL>...

IndependentTruth

Thank you for the debate, Pro -- I would like to counter your points in which you state abortion is a violation of the U.S. constitution and additionally counter your assertions in regards to planned parenthood and abortion in general. C1: Legality of abortion in regards to the Constitution First off, it is important to understand that no where in the Constitution is the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This is found instead in the Declaration of Independence. More specifically, legal protections in regards to life, liberty, and property are found in the 5th amendment, where it states that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." [1] To delve into the constitutionality of abortion, we needn't look further than one of the most infamous supreme court descisions in history - Roe v Wade, in which by a 7 - 2 decision the legality and right to abortion was affirmed. The court ruled that " a right to privacy under the due process cla use of the 14th amendment e xtended to a woman's decision to have an abortion." [2] Additionally, the court stated t hat a person has a right to abortion until viability, which they defined as the abilitity to live outside the mother's womb with or without artificial aid. This is usually considered around 24 to 28 weeks of development. Most importantly, however, the court ruled that "that the word 'person' as used in the due process clause and in other provisions of the Constitution did not include the unborn, and therefore the unborn lacked federal constitutional protection." [3] Because of the fact that the Constitution does not explicitly include protection for the unborn, they cannot be considered persons under the law. This means that a woman's right to abortion does not violate the Constitution in any way. C2: Planned Parenthood There is a massive misunderstanding of what Planned Parenthood provides to its patients and what the funding it recieves from the federal government goes to. It is imperative to understand that it is illegal for the federal government to fund abortion, as explicitly outlined in the Hyde Amendment. [4] The federal government provides $528.4 million dollars a year to Planned Parenthood, none of which goes to abortion due to the Hyde Amendment. Additionally, only 3% of all of Planned Parenthood's services go towards abortion; the overwhelming majority of Planned Parenthood's services go towards extremely important issues like STDs, contraception, and cancer screening. [5] It is also important to realize that the vast majority of patients recieving care from Planned Parenthood are poor, and would have extremely limited health options if Planned Parenthood were to be defunded: "As of 2012, 79 percent of people receiving services from Planned Parenthood lived at 150 percent of the federal poverty level or lower (that comes out to around $18,500 for a single adult)" [6] To see evidence of this in action, we can look at Wisconsin, where Governor Scott Walker (R) defunded Planned Parenthood in that state. " Walker in 2011 eliminated all state funding to Planned Parenthood, which in turn closed five clinics over the next three years. The loss of those clinics meant women were referred to other facilities, in some cases a considerable distance away, in order to continue getting services." [7] The State of Indiana has cleared Planned Parenthood of any wrong doing. [8] What Planned Parenthood did is entirely legal and was not done for profit. If the tissue isn't sold into research, it is disposed of at the cost of the clinic. C3: Outlawing abortion would have terrible effects Think of what has happened throughout history when a massive service is outlawed. Prohibition saw the rise of organized crime and massive illegal distribution of alcohol and increase in criminal power. The war on drugs saw the number of illegal drug cartels soar and has been responsible for the death or incarceration of thousands of people. What happens when you restrict the ability of people to access a service? They turn to illegal, vastly less safe methods. Outlawing or restricting abortion would cause the many people who truly need it to turn to dangerous and illegal methods, and if unable to recieve these services may even turn to suicide. "Although self-induced abortion is dangerous under any circumstances, other methods run a higher risk of injury and death. In order to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, women [in countries that have outlawed abortion] will drink turpentine, bleach, or livestock manure concoctions. Some will inflict direct injury to the vagina by inserting herbal mixes or inserting foreign objects into the body like a twig or a coat hanger. Some use external injury—jumping from the top of the stairs or from a roof—to induce abortion, as well as inflicting blunt trauma (like punching or kicking) to the abdomen." [9] Even more disturbing, in El Salvador, a country that has completely outlawed abortion, "suicide is the cause of death for 57 percent of pregnant females between the ages of 10 and 19." [10] It's undebatable that restricting women's access to abortion services causes devastating effects. It is imperative that the United States does not continue on the path of further restrictions. Conclusion: Not only has the Surpreme Court ruled in a landslide descision the right of women to recieve abortion services, no where in the constitution is the explicit illegality of abortion or protection of the unborn mentioned, nor does any government funding go towards abortion. Additionally, the effects of further restricting or outlawing abortion completely would be devastating on American women and would cause massive spikes in illegal activity and suicides among pregnant teens. As Americans, we need to stand up for the civil liberties of women and say no to restricting the right to abortions before viability. Sources: [1] http://www.usconstitution.net... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://law.justia.com... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.npr.org... [6] http://www.gao.gov... [7] http://www.politifact.com... [8] http://www.politifact.com... [9] http://prospect.org... [10] http://www.reproductiverights.org...

Politics

Abortion-violates-the-Constitution./1/

I agree with you, Pro, that abortion is not a noble thing. As a nation it is imperative that we focus on education and prevention in regards to couples who have unwanted pregnancies. Despite this, however, there is simply no evidence to suggest that abortion violates the Constitution. We can argue about when life begins, what makes someone living, when it's too late to get an abortion, etc. -- but all of these things fail to address the fact that the unborn are not explicitly protected under the Constitution. You claim that you "believe that no matter how small, people are people." That is your belief, which has no relevance to federal law. No where did you counter my assertions that the Constitution does not explicitly protect the unborn. [1] You reference the heavily edited and spun Planned Parenthood video to make the case that they should stop abortions completely -- despite the fact that there is no evidence to suggest PP did anything illegal, and they never sold any fetal tissue for profit. [2] You say that "most common abortion methods cause intense, long lasting pain, both emotional and physical, to not only the unborn child, but to the mother as well." This is a dubious claim, as "89-92% of all abortions happen during the first trimester, prior to the 13th week of gestation." [3] A fetus does not develop a central nervous system until around 10 weeks -- it is incapable of feeling any pain before that point. [4] While it is true that evidence suggests that mothers who have abortions face an increased risk of psychological problems, only " 10% of women who have a first-time abortion face immediate physical complications." [5] You claim that the Constitution should be amended due to the fact that it was written "long before anyone even thought about terminating a pregnancy." This is simply untrue. " The practice of abortion, the medical removal of a fetus, has been known since at least ancient times. Various methods have been used to perform an abortion, including the administration of abortifacient herbs, the use of sharpened implements, the application of abdominal pressure, and other techniques." [6] Abortion is not a new idea, it has existed for as long as women have been getting pregnant. Hell, abortions are even in the Bible. [7] It is simply fallacious to say that the founders didn't know about abortion. If they wanted to specifically protect the unborn, they would have included such language in the Constitution. Conclusion: Pro's argument against the constitutionality of abortion is simply ideological. The overwhelming majority of scientific research does not support his claims that abortions cause long lasting physical and emotional trauma for the mother and fetus. Planned Parenthood has not been convicted of any wrong doing, and it has been proven that they have not sold any fetal tissue for profit. Abortion is not a new idea, it has been around since the beginning of humanity -- and if the founders were opposed to it, they would have said so. The dangers of continued restriction of abortion are all too apparent in countries who have already outlawed it, and as a country we can not afford to go down that path. Sources: [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>... [6] <URL>... [7] <URL>...

IndependentTruth

I agree with you, Pro, that abortion is not a noble thing. As a nation it is imperative that we focus on education and prevention in regards to couples who have unwanted pregnancies. Despite this, however, there is simply no evidence to suggest that abortion violates the Constitution. We can argue about when life begins, what makes someone living, when it's too late to get an abortion, etc. -- but all of these things fail to address the fact that the unborn are not explicitly protected under the Constitution. You claim that you "believe that no matter how small, people are people." That is your belief, which has no relevance to federal law. No where did you counter my assertions that the Constitution does not explicitly protect the unborn. [1] You reference the heavily edited and spun Planned Parenthood video to make the case that they should stop abortions completely -- despite the fact that there is no evidence to suggest PP did anything illegal, and they never sold any fetal tissue for profit. [2] You say that "most common abortion methods cause intense, long lasting pain, both emotional and physical, to not only the unborn child, but to the mother as well." This is a dubious claim, as "89-92% of all abortions happen during the first trimester, prior to the 13th week of gestation." [3] A fetus does not develop a central nervous system until around 10 weeks -- it is incapable of feeling any pain before that point. [4] While it is true that evidence suggests that mothers who have abortions face an increased risk of psychological problems, only " 10% of women who have a first-time abortion face immediate physical complications." [5] You claim that the Constitution should be amended due to the fact that it was written "long before anyone even thought about terminating a pregnancy." This is simply untrue. " The practice of abortion, the medical removal of a fetus, has been known since at least ancient times. Various methods have been used to perform an abortion, including the administration of abortifacient herbs, the use of sharpened implements, the application of abdominal pressure, and other techniques." [6] Abortion is not a new idea, it has existed for as long as women have been getting pregnant. Hell, abortions are even in the Bible. [7] It is simply fallacious to say that the founders didn't know about abortion. If they wanted to specifically protect the unborn, they would have included such language in the Constitution. Conclusion: Pro's argument against the constitutionality of abortion is simply ideological. The overwhelming majority of scientific research does not support his claims that abortions cause long lasting physical and emotional trauma for the mother and fetus. Planned Parenthood has not been convicted of any wrong doing, and it has been proven that they have not sold any fetal tissue for profit. Abortion is not a new idea, it has been around since the beginning of humanity -- and if the founders were opposed to it, they would have said so. The dangers of continued restriction of abortion are all too apparent in countries who have already outlawed it, and as a country we can not afford to go down that path. Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.thedailybeast.com... [3] http://www.abort73.com... [4] http://www.whattoexpect.com... [5] http://www.birthmothers.org... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org... [7] https://www.biblegateway.com...

Politics

Abortion-violates-the-Constitution./1/