The Instigator
MikeySweet
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
The_American_Sniper
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

A fetus is a human and is therefore entitled to all human rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 685 times Debate No: 78814
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

MikeySweet

Pro

In this debate, I will defend the fact that a fetus is a human and is therefore entitled to all human rights.
Debate Round No. 1
MikeySweet

Pro

1:

It is immoral to kill a human being. I believe that we can agree on this point.

2:

A fetus begins development right at the instance of conception.

Prior to conception, two gametes are not together. Directly afterwards, the two cells have fused together. They cannot be taken apart again. development begins right at this instant. That is a scientific fact. The baby begins to grow right after conception.

3:

All humans are continuously growing and developing.

This is an undisputed scientific fact as well. We can both agree that as children we grow and change continuously. We are bigger and more developed at 10 than we are at 5. We are more developed at 5 than we are at 1.

After reading this, please look back at point 2. It says that a fetus begins development right at the instance of conception. If all humans are continuously growing and changing, then that goes to show that fetuses, which are growing and changing, are human. Therefore, it is immoral to kill a fetus, as it is a human.

Why is a fetus different from any other human? how can man kind possibly decide the exact time when a fetus is considered human? Any time decided upon is arbitrary besides conception.

Please, Con, answer this question, as it will be an integral part of this debate: If not at conception, then when does life begin? I need an exact time. as exact a time as you can make it. Because if you can't decide a time, then you shouldn't kill it, for fear of murdering a human, correct?

I will end my opening statement with the definition of human from The English Dictionary:

Human:
A member of the primate genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.

This very definition alone proves my side to be true. is a fetus not a member of the Human species?

Let's use logic here: A fetus is scientifically classified as a Homo Sapien. by the very definition of the word, a Homo Sapien is a Human. So because a fetus is a Homo Sapien, it is therefore, by the Transitive Propery, a Human by default. This is simply pure logic at it's most simple. If you can not argue this point, then I automatically win this debate.

All living things must be part of a species. So, Mr. Con, If a fetus is not part of the species Homo Sapien, then what species I it a member of? Like I said, If you cannot disprove my final point, then I automatically win this debate.

Try me.
The_American_Sniper

Con

Just to point out, BOP is on Pro to prove a fetus is classified as a human. I do not have to present any arguments.

1. Yes I agree to that



2. First of all, you need to define baby, which you haven't done.

"very young child, especially one newly or recently born."

How can you call it a baby, before it because a baby? As far as science goes, it is classified a fetus. And that too, is only after 8 weeks of conception, before that point it is known as an Embryo.




3. "Let me point out what you just said. "If all humans are continuously growing and changing, then that goes to show that fetuses, which are growing and changing, are human. Therefore, it is immoral to kill a fetus, as it is a human." Ok, so bacteria grows and changes, so would that mean it is a human?


Let me point this out, we are arguing the legality of something. Just because Pro-lifers think a fetus is a human, does not mean it is classified as one. The United States federal government makes it clear that the two are seperate, so why would you argue something that is a law? You could overturn it, but the debate isn't about that. A fetus is not a human. Its in our law. Therefore you already lose the debate.

Also you make a good point "When does life begin" When it begins is up to the family. Just because you think it starts during fertaliziation, doesn't mean everybody does? Why are you choosing what the family believes and what it doesnt? If somebody thinks your upbringing is harming your child, do you think its fair for them to take your child away from you?

This very definition alone proves my side to be true. is a fetus not a member of the Human species?

Does it say a fetus is a member of the human species?


So far Pro has failed to establish any legality behind saying a fetus is a human. It isn't legally a human, therfore it isn't a human.

The resolution is affirmed.
Debate Round No. 2
MikeySweet

Pro

First of all, just to make it clear, my first speech was meant to be a string of logic, in which one argument lead to another.

Second, simply for the sake of the debate, assume any time I have written baby that I meant fetus.

Before I refute any of your points, I would like to point out that you STILL have not answered my question: If a fetus is not a member of the Human species, then what species is it from? It is important that you answer this question.

Also: you claimed that because it is a law that a fetus is not human, I automatically lose the debate. Let me ask, do you have any idea how a debate works? the purpose of one side is to CHANGE the status quo, while the other defends it. In this debate, I am challenging the status quo, while you are defending it. virtually all of the debates on this site challenge SOME law or rule in some way or the other. To say that you win because the status quo is the status quo is ridiculous.

You responded to one of my arguments by saying this: "...so bacteria grows and changes, so would that mean it is a human?"
No, it definitely would not. Here is why: a bacteria does grow and change, I will give you that. However, bacteria is a member of it's own species, is it not? Is a bacteria not a bacteria? Identically, is a fetus not a member of it's own species? What species is it?
You said this: " When it [life] begins is up to the family."
WHAT? This makes zero sense. Humans do not have the power of choosing when life begins. Life must begin at one instance in time. Most people should agree on that. Life isn't this thing that we can postpone if we want to. Regardless of who is right or wrong- whether life does indeed begin early in the pregnancy, at conception, or at the end of a pregnancy- It must begin at ONE CERTAIN POINT. It is not "up to the family." That is ridiculous. So I ask yet again: when does life begin?
You said, "So far Pro has failed to establish any legality behind saying a fetus is a human. It isn't legally a human, therfore it isn't a human."
Dude, this is the purpose of the debate: to prove that it is human. Legality? Take my advice and don't bring that argument up again, please.
And I want you and all of the voters to understand: If you cannot disprove that a fetus is a member of the human race, then I automatically win this debate. So please tell me what species a fetus is.
The_American_Sniper

Con

Ok. I would like to point something out.

Pro challenged me to this debate saying that
"fetus is a human and is therefore entitled to all human rights."

Now he is saying, "If you cannot disprove that a fetus is a member of the human race"

There is a huge difference between the two. If a fetus belongs to the human race, it doesn't mean the fetus is a human being, and is entitled to human rights. The fact you are changing the premise of your debate is ridiculous and unfair.

According to BBC, they have stated

"Unfortunately there's no agreement in medicine, philosophy or theology as to what stage of foetal development should be associated with the right to life."

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

So, there is no stage where a fetus has the right to live, because there legally isn't any documentation that states it. You of course, can present so legal document of the United States that states that fetuses are entitled to human rights, and in that case you automatically win the debate. So far, you haven't done anything.


Say for arguments sake, I say a fetus is part of the human race, it doesn't explain why it should be entitled to human rights, because you haven't presented any arguments that say a fetus is a human. If you are going to give me a pro life source, it better have references to medical documents, or else I won't consider it.







Debate Round No. 3
MikeySweet

Pro

You said this: "If a fetus belongs to the human race, it doesn't mean the fetus is a human being, and is entitled to human rights. The fact you are changing the premise of your debate is ridiculous and unfair."

I am not changing the premises of this debate at all. The topic of this debate is: "A fetus is a human and is therefore entitled to all human rights." Throughout the entirety of this debate, I have only said that a fetus is a human. I am following the premise of the debate completely. I have called a fetus human. The first part of the resolution is: "A fetus is human...". I am not breaking any rules there.

Now, by making this comment you have brought to my attention a very interesting point that automatically allows me to win this debate. In advance, I am by no means conceding that a fetus isn't a human being. This I fully believe. But, I have just come to understand, that is not what we are currently debating about. If it was, the resolution would be as follows: "A fetus is a human BEING and is entitled to all the rights of a human BEING." I know that this sounds trivial, but we are not talking about a human BEING having human BEING rights, but about a HUMAN having HUMAN rights.

Although you have made the argument that A fetus is not a human BEING, you have not once made the argument that a fetus is not human.

So therefore, I simply have to extend my arguments from the last round. I am speaking of humans, not human beings (Although I do believe that a fetus is a human being, but that is a different debate.)

So I ask you once again: if a fetus is not a part of the human species, then what species is he a member of? If you can't answer this question, then you lose the debate.
The_American_Sniper

Con

Debate Premise

Ok, so I will just ignore the part where you said if you cannot disprove that a fetus is a member of the human race, then I automatically win this debate.


I know that this sounds trivial, but we are not talking about a human BEING having human BEING rights, but about a HUMAN having HUMAN rights.

For us to have that discussion, you needed to first prove a fetus is a human in the first place. Which you haven't. You just said a fetus belongs to the human race, the whole point of this debate was for you to prove that a fetus is a human, therefore is entitled to all human rights. I asked you last round to prove actual sources to prove a fetus is a human. You haven't done that. Instead, I did it for you, something I don't actually have to do, since the BOP is on you. I proved using sources, that a fetus is not a human being.

Now you are saying that I haven't made an argument that a fetus is a human. 2 things, first of all, I simply do not have to. You chanllenged me to a debate saying a fetus is a human. Instead, you are asking me to prove it, or else you win the debate. Doesn't make alot of sense. 2nd of all, the big problem was you never gave definitions. I now understand when you said human, you mean the human race. When I accepted the debate, I assumed you meant the fetus was a human being. There absoulutley no way to tell what you meant, and the fact that you said "a human" made me think you were talking about an actual human, not the human race.


Ok, I'll say a fetus is what leads to become a human. So? why should that mean it should be entitled to human rights? Thats something you stilll haven't proven. I have proven a fetus is not a human being, therefore it shouldn't be entitled to human rights, because it is not human. It is still physically dependent on the mother, because the umbilical cord is still attached to the mother. What the mother does with her body will effect the fetus.


So, no I do not lose this debate. The BOP was on you, and you have to prove a fetus is a human being. and must be entitled to human rights.



Debate Round No. 4
MikeySweet

Pro

Con, you are mistaken. In my very first argument I defined human. Here is what I said:
Human:
A member of the primate genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
You said this:
"you needed to first prove a fetus is a human in the first place. Which you haven't. You just said a fetus belongs to the human race, the whole point of this debate was for you to prove that a fetus is a human, therefore is entitled to all human rights. I asked you last round to prove actual sources to prove a fetus is a human. You haven't done that."
You claimed that I did not prove that a fetus was a human. But as a matter of fact, I did. You said yourself that I claimed that a fetus is a part of the human species. Now please take a look back at my definition (Which, by the way, is a good source. So don't make the claim that I did not provide any actual sources.) The definition included in it this line: "a member of the species Homo sapiens." So therefore, JUST AS I SAID BEFORE, by the transitive property, because the very definition of human is a member of the species Homo sapiens, a Homo sapien is, obviously, a HUMAN. There is NOTHING that you can do to disprove that claim. And even if you could, you can not argue that point any more, as we are in the final round of the debate, and your refutes will not be considered. Because of this point ALONE I automatically win this debate.
This is why throughout the entire debate I urged you to disprove the fact that a fetus was a member of the human species. Since you did not, like I said, I win this debate by default.
You claimed that I did not prove that humans were entitled to human rights. And I simply do not need to. I will explain why all humans are, however.
If there is a group (Let's use the present situation as an example) that has a title, such as human rights, then all of the members of the group of humans have the rights. Otherwise, the group CAN NOT be called HUMAN rights, as not ALL humans are in it. It would have to be called some other name that is a subset of human. such as Humans-That-Are-Not-Fetuses Rights , or something to that effect. But since they are called human rights, all humans, even fetuses, are entitled to them.
I claimed that based on the very definitions from the English Dictionary, fetuses are humans because they are a member of the species Homo sapiens. Because you have not successfully argued this or any of my other points, I automatically win this debate.
Remember, you can not introduce any new arguments to this debate, as that would take away the fairness of the debate itself.
Since I HAVE provided the BOP, and have made many points that you have not refuted, and have also defeated your points indesputably, it is clear that I, the Pro have won this debate.
Thank you for debating with me. I have enjoyed it.
The_American_Sniper

Con

Pro seems to keep repeating himself, so I'm not going create another pointless long rebuttal.

So, basically here is what Pro has conceded

-When the right to live occurs
-A fetus should be entitled to human rights.

Pro uses the transitive property to show that Humans are homo-sapiens. Ok, so where did I say a Human wasn't a homo-sapien? The premise of the debate was regarding a fetus, not a human. Pro failed to prove a fetus is a human. Its simple as that. There is not scientific backing for his assertion, and he simply did not present any sources. Like I mentioned before, Pro simply didn't give definitions to what he actually meant, which is why there is such confusion on a human and a human being. His only reason as to why fetus is a human, is because it's part of the homo-sapien race, but he never actually gave proof of that. I can simply say I don't believe him, because he gave 0 proof of it.

So I believe I won this debate, because Pro failed to actually prove a fetus is a human.

Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by PericIes 1 year ago
PericIes
A fetus is a human, but not necessarily a person.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Tough// Mod action: Removed<

2 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: bbc news source. pro proves fetus is human, con proves it can still not need human rights... Not sure 50/50 for arguments

[*Reason for removal*] The reasons for the source point allocation aren't clear. Having a BBC news source doesn't make one side better than the other in sources. If the voter was referencing the lack of sources from Pro vs. the one source from Con, a) that should have been made clear, and b) merely having more sources doesn't suffice as a reason to give one side source points. The voter must explain why the source was important to the debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by MikeySweet 1 year ago
MikeySweet
The_American_Sniper, if I really wanted to support myself with a fake account, do you think that I would have ended my fake username with the same word? I'm not stupid. So don't make false accusations.
Posted by The_American_Sniper 1 year ago
The_American_Sniper
pat_the_sweet, I know you are a multi account made by Pro to try convince voters. Good try, but you failed,
Posted by planck 1 year ago
planck
It seems to me that Pro is a bit confused about the differences between human life, human beings, and what constitutes being a member of the human species.
Posted by pat_the_sweet 1 year ago
pat_the_sweet
Although the con is clearly wrong, I kinda feel bad for him. He's getting crushed! The pro is composed with obvious tangible facts that can't be denied!
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
If you are against legal abortions you will have ilegal ones. Dead and suffering women. And a lot of genetic defekts. So it makes sense to let the woman deside. Is a fetus a human ? No. Depending on what contry they become human between 12-24 weeks...Before that they are regarded as any other type of cells.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
humans are aware
Posted by Greg4586 1 year ago
Greg4586
You wouldn't expect someone with a Rand Paul poster as their picture to argue con for this
No votes have been placed for this debate.