The Instigator
Dragonblade
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
saphirescar
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

Abortion Should be Illegalized

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 8 votes the winner is...
saphirescar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,233 times Debate No: 68876
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (64)
Votes (8)

 

Dragonblade

Pro

Abortion is the process by which a baby is terminated while still in its mother's uterus. I consider this to be a form of murder, because you are killing a baby while it is helpless in the womb. Usually, by the time a mother finds out that she is pregnant, the baby already has a beating heart, fingers, a torso and legs, and is about the size of a quarter. It essentially has all the body parts of a human being. So, that proves that you aren't killing a blob of cells, you're killing a baby. You also have to consider that the baby is helpless. It can't do anything about what will happen to it because it doesn't even know. When pro-choice people say that it's a woman's right, they don't take whether it's the baby's right into consideration. After all, how is it fair to kill a human baby (as I said before) when it can't even do anything about it. That is murder. And even if the baby could do anything about it, that would still be murder. And, last time I checked, murder is against the law of the United States of America.
saphirescar

Con

Yes, murder is illegal. However, abortion is not murder.

The legal definition of murder is the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. (1) Abortion meets none of those qualifications.

The first of these qualifications is that the victim would have to be a human being. Now, there is a difference between a human, a human being, and a person. Human is the biological definition of our species. A human being, however, denotes sentience, or things like empathy and interactions with the world -- something a fetus does not have. Simply having the same body parts as a human being does not prove anything.

Secondly, abortion is not done out of malice. Malice being spite, more or less. There are a variety of reasons that people choose to get abortions, usually because they have no other option. Rape, incest, or if the mother's life is at risk... Many people are not able -- whether it be financially, physically, or mentally -- to carry a child to term. "But adoption is an option!' you may say. However, that still leaves the physical and mental criteria. Sometimes abortions are performed on very young girls who have been raped. Take, for example, the case of a 9-year-old girl from Nicaragua, where abortion is completely illegal. She was raped by a 22-year-old man and found to be pregnant. She then had an abortion, causing a huge debate in the country. Often at these points in their lives, young girls who are able to get pregnant are still too small to deliver a full term baby, nor are they mentally capable of understanding what is happening to them. Many anti-choice people avoid this topic in favour of the common "irresponsible teens having sex" argument. (2)

Another topic not many consider is mental ability to carry a child. This strikes a bit of a nerve for me, as I at one point in my life had a pregnancy scare. I have something called tokophobia, which is the extreme fear of pregnancy/childbirth. Tokophobia is divided into two groups, primary and secondary. Primary tokophobia is the fear and deep-seated dread of childbirth which pre-dates pregnancy and can start in adolescence. This often relates back to their own mother's experience or something they learned in school. Secondary is due to previous experience of traumatic birth, poor obstetric practice or medical attention, postpartum depression or other such upsetting events. (3) I have the former, and I honestly sometimes have a hard time looking at a pregnant woman. The fear and anxiety I had during the time I thought I might have been pregnant is nearly indescribable. I cried myself to sleep for two nights straight. I thought I was going to die, because I knew that if I could not get an abortion I would rather take myself than be pregnant. I have since met others who share the same feelings. (4) (5)

The third qualification is that the killing would be done without legal excuse or authority. Abortion does not meet this qualification, seeing as how the pregnant person has legal authority over their body. In your argument you mention that pro-choice people don't take the baby's right into consideration with this point. Well, that's because it doesn't have any rights. In order to have rights, one would have to be a person, or, a human being. Whether you classify a fetus as a person or not, they do not meet the legal definition of a person and therefore do not have any rights. And even if it did have rights, it still would not have the right to use the person's body without explicit, ongoing consent.

If you want to bring fairness into this, saying that it's not fair because the baby can't do anything about being aborted, then is it fair to force a woman to carry a child? Is it fair to care more about the unborn than the living? Is it fair to allow a child to be born into poverty, into a home where it will not be loved? Is it fair to help a pregnant person up until they give birth and then blame them for being in poverty? Is it fair to stigmatize abortion AND teen pregnancy/parenthood? No matter which option the mother chooses, people will look down on her.

If you want abortion to be completely criminalized, there wouldn't be any exceptions to it. We would live in a country live El Salvador, where a little girl who was raped and abused was forced to have a C-Section, and where 57% of pregnant teenagers kill themselves. (6) Or what about Ireland, where a dead woman is being kept on life support against the wishes of her and her family because she was pregnant? (7)

Just saying, it seems a bit totalitarian to take away the rights of someone who already is a human being in favour of something that only has the potential to become a person.

(1) http://dictionary.law.com...
(2) http://www.cbsnews.com...
(3) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(4) http://pro-choice-or-no-voice.tumblr.com...
(5) http://pro-choice-or-no-voice.tumblr.com...
(6) http://www.amnesty.org...
(7) http://www.independent.ie...
Debate Round No. 1
Dragonblade

Pro

I understand that rape can happen, and it's a really bad thing. But, it's not fair to take your problem (rape) and use it as an excuse to kill something (the baby) that was a byproduct of it. Also, if you're in poverty and "unable" to raise a child, you should look at all the single moms that have raised children in the United States and other countries perfectly fine. They may have struggled, but they made it eventually. It's definitely not impossible to raise children when you are at or below the poverty line.

Tokophobia is not a valid excuse to justify abortion either, because at one point you have to realize that there is this thing called facing your fears. I have a perfect example. I am afraid of falling. But do I man up and ride roller coasters? Yes. And, in fact, I actually enjoyed it. In the end, you have to come to terms with the fact that fear is simply a natural reaction and that you shouldn't base your decisions purely on fear, because if you do, you will never accomplish anything.

You said in your statement that a fetus does not qualify as a human because it is not sentient. Well, there is no proof that the fetus is or is not sentient. Absolutely no one remembers whether they were sentient or not when they were in the womb, and scientists cannot read the minds of babies to figure that out. So, it is purely undefined whether they are sentient or not. If a vegetable human without a consciousness isn't sentient, then should we deny him his natural rights? No. Even if the fetus was not sentient, it still has its natural rights, because they are NATURAL and apply to ALL HUMANS, which the fetus biologically is.

The fact that a pregnant person has legal authority over their body is true, but the fetus is a physical body, so that legal authority does not extend to the fetus. The fetus is in no way part of the mother's body, because they are physically two different things. They may be joined/connected, but that doesn't make them one entity.

Abortion is as unfair as it gets. You may say that it's not fair to favor the unborn over the living, but that is invalid. First of all, the fetus is a living thing, so the mother and the baby are on the same level. Second of all, the fact that it is living, just unborn, gives it the right to life. And, third of all, if the mother will be looked down upon no matter what path she takes, then why doesn't she choose to save a life and be looked down upon, or kill a baby and be looked down upon?

Just letting you know, all of the scenarios you listed in your second-to-last paragraph are potential scenarios, and not everybody that has to choose whether to get an abortion or not is not in those scenarios.
saphirescar

Con

If you're not familiar with Rape Trauma Syndrome (RTS), then let me explain it to you. It's basically PTSD that affects rape victims. And often times, having a child that is a byproduct of rape can make the child a constant reminder of that traumatic event. This reminder could cause them to have panic attacks, or possibly hate the child.

Yes, it is true that single parents are capable of raising a child. I myself grew up with a single parent. But I think perhaps the question is not if they are "able", but if they are best suited to do so. Wouldn't it be best for a child to grow up with the best life possible? To grow up in a home where they are loved, clothed warmly, fed, etc. Often times, especially with the prejudice faced by teen parents, these things can be hard to supply. This brings up a big point in anti-natalism, that of presence of pain and pleasure. If someone exists, there is the presence of both. If no one exists, however, nothing bad happens to them and pain is avoided. They miss out on pleasure, but it seems that 'ignorance is bliss' with not existing. A child born into poverty would suffer through a lot, but if they were never born, they would suffer nothing. (1)

Being afraid of falling and riding a roller coaster is completely different than a tokophobic person being forced to carry a child. The key difference in this is that you had a choice, I'm sure. You were not strapped down into the seat of a roller coaster against your will and forced to ride it. No, you most likely decided that you were ready to face your fears and then did so on your own accord. And if a tokophobic did one day decide to face their fear and have a child, then it should be done when they feel ready to do so and no other time.

Oh, but on the contrary. It's been proven that fetuses can't feel any form of pain until the 24th week of pregnancy, which is towards the very end, and it's highly unlikely that they have any sentience before the 30th week. And, if by 'vegetable' human, you mean 'brain dead', then, yes. If someone is brain dead, they are dead by the legal definition and have no rights. After all, wouldn't one need sentience in order to use their rights? (2) (3) (4)

Yes, however, the same could be said of the fetus. It's an either or situation, so the fact that you're prioritising the unborn over the living is completely valid. Either we give the right to the mother, who -- hypothetically -- has decided she does not feel ready to have a child and has asked to have an abortion, or we give rights to the fetus -- who, still technically only has the potential to be a person, and never asked for anything. Like you said, we can't read their minds. But no one asks to be born.

Saying that just because the mother and the fetus are on the same level simply because they are both living organisms is akin to saying that you are equal to a bacteria cell, so you might want to think that statement over. It does not give it the right to life, because it cannot choose what to do without that right. And, here's a thing: not everyone views abortion as 'killing', and won't automatically get some kind of moral ego-boost just because they chose not to get an abortion.

Also, abortion is not 'as unfair as it gets'. There are plenty of things that are more unfair than abortion.

Right, but in your hypothetical scenario where abortion is totally illegal, those things could still happen. Just because they're rare doesn't make them invalid.

(1) http://hplusmagazine.com...
(2) http://www.newscientist.com...
(3) http://informahealthcare.com...
(4) https://www.rcog.org.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
Dragonblade

Pro

To start this off, saying: "Also, abortion is not 'as unfair as it gets'. There are plenty of things that are more unfair than abortion" is essentially you admitting that it is unfair.

Some invalidating phrases you used: "highly unlikely" "hypothetically" "most likely" "perhaps"

When you say that "no one asks to be born," did you think that no one asks to die, other people ask them to die?

We agree that we do not know if the fetus is sentient or not. So, imagine what would happen if we took our chances and did assume that babies aren't sentient, and supposedly say that that makes them 'not human.' So, what if, in years, we discover that the fetus is sentient. Then what? Do we excuse the doctors for taking a huge risk and it ends up being murder? Or would the fact that the fetus is sentient not matter and would it still not be considered human?

Proof that the fetus is human: Like a_janis1 said, the fetus has human DNA. That makes it biologically human. And, as we agree, no one is sure if it is sentient yet. So, there is more evidence presented than not in favor of the fetus being a living thing. Besides, when I said that the mother and the fetus are on the same level, my reasoning was that they are both LIVING HUMANS. So, no, since the fetus is, in fact, living, bacteria is definitely not on the same level.

Let me ask you a question. In fact, I am directing this to everybody reading this. Have you ever thought that your mother may have thought about getting an abortion while you were a fetus? What would you have thought if you knew that she would have been considering killing you for her convenience? In the eyes of the person being killed, what does it feel like? I'm pretty sure that it doesn't feel fair.
saphirescar

Con

To answer the question in your last paragraph, I never have considered it. I know she didn't, because there is a such thing as planned pregnancy, you know. And I wouldn't have thought anything, because I wouldn't be alive, nor would I have to deal with the task of answering that ridiculous question in the first place. It also, wouldn't have felt like anything. As I already explained, fetuses can't feel anything until they're 24 weeks old, which is well past the time most abortions take place. (1) (2)

Also, let me stress the fact that it is in no way about convenience. Perhaps from your perspective it may seem that way, but it's more about health. Of the mother, whose physical and mental health could be put at risk, and of the fetus. Many times fetuses are aborted if they have a severe birth defect. In some cases, this is the humane thing to do for both the mother and child. Aborting a fetus with a severe defect would be sparing it from a lifetime of constant pain and suffering. Or maybe, on the part of the mother, take the example of Polish doctor Bogdan Chazan, who refused to perform an abortion or refer the patient to a doctor who would, thus breaking Polish law. The baby was destined for a slow and painful dead shortly after birth due to severe brain and facial deformities. The couple spent ten days watching the child die. Can you imagine that? Being forced to watch your child die, knowing how much pain it is in, and not being able to do anything to stop it from happening. If you care so much about how they feel, why do you not care about this? (3) (4)

Saying that abortion is not 'as unfair as it gets' is not admitting anything. During this entire debate you have seemed to be obsessed with the idea of fairness, and for most of it I've chosen to go along with the idea rather than refute it. This isn't about fairness, and the harsh reality is that almost nothing in life is fair, and it never will be. Simply being 'not fair', however, is no reason to make something illegal. You know what else isn't fair? Wage gaps. Lying. Numerous other things. But these things all exist and are legal. Saying that something should be illegal because it is, as you claim "unfair" is childish, not to mention that you are clearly showing that being fair to the fetus is more important than being fair to the mother.

Actually, some people do ask to die. Often times it is in cases such as terminal illness or suicidal people. But fetuses do not ask to die, nor do they ask to be born. They don't ask for anything; they can't. They lack the consciousness and thinking skills to do so. And is it moral to force something to live?

Whilst it is not known when a fetus becomes sentient, 'highly unlikely' doesn't automatically mean 'wrong'. 'Highly unlikely' is basically the same thing as being 99% sure. Also, I never said that babies aren't sentient. Babies are very much sentient. They have already been born. A fetus, however, is for most of its development non-sentient, so whilst it is human it is not a human being. And just to play into your scenario, if that did happen by some astronomical odds, then it would be an accident and not be considered murder.

As I responded in the comments, a fetus very much is a living thing. 'Living thing', however, is a very vague term and can apply to anything from bacteria cells to a person. In case you weren't aware, all cells are living things. That's basic 7th grade science.

Seeing as this is the third round, I'd like to go over some points.

Pro is saying that abortion should be completely criminalised. Pro is also a 15-year old, Republican, Christian male. Pro is unable to get pregnant. Why should he get to decide about something that doesn't affect him? Why should he even care?

Abortion is a lot more complex than he may think it is. There are a lot of reasons people get abortions, some of which I've already mentioned such as rape, physical inability, and mental problems. Most of the times, people who are against abortion hold the "unless you're raped, incest, or the life of the mother is at risk" sentiment. But there are many other reasons why someone might need an abortion. One of which is teenage pregnancy.

The common conservative view towards this is that it's their fault and they have to deal with the consequences. Well, it's a lot more complicated than that. One of the biggest factors in all of this is the American sex ed system. It's no secret that the US education system is lacking, but it's especially bad in the area of sex ed. In many parts of the US, schools teach abstinence-only sex ed, meaning they don't properly educate teens on how to use protection during sex. In most states with this system, it is against the law to do things such as distribute condoms or provide information on contraceptives. An example of this is in the state of Mississippi, where 1/3 of babies are born to teen moms and teen pregnancy is the second highest in the country. A sex ed teacher decided to go around this rule by making a video of "how to put on a sock". Better sex ed would greatly reduce abortion rates, but since many pro-lifers are often also anti-contraceptive, and they're basically fighting themselves here. (5) (6) (7)

Even so, condoms and birth control are not 100% effective, so would it really be fair to not allow those who DID take precautions to have an abortion? If Pro is so focused on fairness, then this would certainly be unfair to the mother. And to expect people to just not have sex until if or when they want a child is completely absurd. Also, standard penetrative sex is not the only way to get pregnant. According to NHS, even getting sperm NEAR your vagina has a chance of getting you pregnant. (8)

If the US were to criminalise abortion, we would live in a state much like Ireland or El Salvador. There is really so many problems with this. In El Salvador, for example, women can be arrested for having a miscarriage, something they had no control over. (9) Is that what you want?

Finally, addressing a_janis1 about a fetus's "right to life", let's say for a moment that this is true. This hypothetical right does not give include the right to use the body of another human being. In the same way that one is not required to donate organs -- even if it would be saving the life of another person -- a pregnant woman should not be and is not required to save the life of a fetus by loaning out her body for nine months against her will. Why should the fetus's rights overrule those of the woman? She has the right to choose what happens to her body. A right to life would require that the fetus/person/whatever you want to call it is capable of living an independent existence. And, seeing as the fetus is not only dependant on the mother but literally resides in her body, it does not meet these qualifications.

To summarise, abortion is so much more complicated than simply choosing not to have a child at a time when it is convenient for the person. To say anything otherwise would be to ignore these facts and prioritize the fetus and not care at all about the mother. If you don't support abortion, then don't get one, but don't stop other people from exercising their choice to get one, either.

(1) http://www.newscientist.com...
(2) http://www.guttmacher.org...
(3) http://www.bbc.com...
(4) http://the-elderscrolls.tumblr.com...
(5) http://articles.latimes.com...
(6) http://www.livescience.com...
(7) http://www.motherjones.com...
(8) http://www.nhs.uk...
(9) http://www.bbc.com...
Debate Round No. 3
64 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by a_janis1 1 year ago
a_janis1
An arm is biological matter aka physical composition. So since both are fundamentally physical composition, and since we are equal despite differences in amounts of physical composition, then a fetus, by not having a fully developed body, is no less of a living human being than you or me.

Furthermore, you allude to the reality I am pointing towards. How can a brain do the things that you say "makes us human"? A brain can do those things you suggest by reaching a level of biological complexity within the brain. We are not born with fully developed brains. Not even close. And since you agree a new born baby is a human being then why would brain capacity matter in determining a human being or not? The fetus has biological potential to reach a mental state. And a baby has biological potential to reach a mental state. Neither have yet reached that mental state. Therefore, once again, by having biological mental potential such as free will, emotion etc. then a baby and a fetus are equally human beings.

Im not saying soul in a religious way. Im saying that a soul/value/worth must exist outside of the human body that a human being has.
Posted by a_janis1 1 year ago
a_janis1
Fetus responds to stimuli:

"Touch, the first sense, is the cornerstone of human experience and communication, beginning in the womb (Montagu, 1978). Just before 8 weeks gestational age (g.a.), the first sensitivity to touch manifests in a set of protective movements to avoid a mere hair stroke on the cheek. From this early date, experiments with a hair stroke on various parts of the embryonic body show that skin sensitivity quickly extends to the genital area (10 weeks), palms (11 weeks), and soles (12 weeks)." < https://birthpsychology.com... >.

"Able to perceive or feel things" Because the fetus can "feel" touch sensitivity, then the fetus by your own definition is sentient.

Exist - "have objective reality or being." The fetus is an "objective reality" therefore the fetus exists independently.

Survive- "continue to live or EXIST, especially in spite of danger or hardship" The fetus survives dependently.

Existence is the prerequisite for survival. So basically something must first exist independently in order to survive. Therefore a fetus EXISTS independently.

What are these "other qualities" that you refer to?

Your argument for sentience is not relevant because sentience does not prove whether human being is a human being. Therefore, why would sentience matter? And even if it were relevant( which it is not), i have shown the fetus is sentient.

If I have no intrinsic value, then valuing any life would be a lie. Everything that humanity has worked for in stability, peace and reconstruction would be a pointless endeavor. That is nihilism. Do you believe lives matter? I know you do. Therefore there is intrinsic value in human life. Intrinsic value is embodied in the rights that every living human being has.

On a fundamental basis, then a brain is what? A brain is biological matter aka physical composition. On a fundamental basis what is an arm?
Posted by saphirescar 1 year ago
saphirescar
@a_janis1 Sentience (n.) - able to PERCEIVE or feel things.

Responding to stimuli doesn't prove much. Dead frogs can also respond to stimuli. Not that you've shown any proof that fetuses can respond to stimuli.

Yes, a fetus at 30 weeks is, by definition, a human being. It has developed sentience and can survive outside the womb, therefore it is a human being. However, I'd like to point out that most places only perform abortion until the 20-24th week.

Sentience is not irrelevant just because animals have sentience. In case you didn't know, human beings TECHNICALLY are animals. But, aside, a human being would be a human who is sentient, among other qualities. And we both agree that a fetus is a human.

No, it does not. If you took it out of the womb before a certain time, it would not survive, therefore it cannot exist independently.

You're bringing up intristic value now, so let me ask you, what does it take for something to have intristic value? Who's to say that human beings like you or I - let alone a fetus - have any intristic value?

I'm not missing your point, I'm just saying your point is wrong. A brain is more than just physical composition. A brain is a vital organ, arguably the MOST vital. It's possible to survive without an arm. And also, a brain and the things it does it was makes us human - or, human beings.

Also, in case you didn't know, the myth of the soul exists due to the brain. Everything that people believe makes up the soul are, as you say, "physical composition". So you can't give the argument of souls without acknowledging the brain is more than just physical composition.
Posted by a_janis1 1 year ago
a_janis1
Depends on your definition of sentience. If you would agree that it means to be "responsive to or conscious of sense impressions" then explain why a fetus responds to stimuli before birth? Because if sentience if were enough to be a human being then you would agree by your own terms a fetus at 30 weeks is a human being. But then also any mere animal by being "responsive to sense impressions" has sentience so sentience is not proof of being a human being or not. Sentience is irrelevant.

Furthermore, "ability to exist independently from another organism." The fetus is its own being and therefore exists with INDEPENDENCY. But the fetus survives by being DEPENDENT on the mother. Existing is the act of being, surviving is the act of remaining in existence. So the fetus is two part: Existing by its own being and surviving with dependency on the mother. The fetus has unique human DNA, is living, and has an intrinsic human value, which fundamental rights protect, therefore, just because the fetus cannot be considered independent, does not mean the fetus is not a living human being with the right to live. So actually a fetus does exist independently. There is no fundamental difference in existence between a fetus and a baby.

You are missing my point about the no arms. What is a brain? A brain is physical composition. What is an arm? Physical composition. What are feelings?... Chemical processes that are physical composition. Therefore, if we say a fetus is less of a human being than you and I because the fetus has no brain, emotion, feeling, then we must also say a person with no arms is less human than you and I because both arms and brains and emotions exist due to physical composition. So being a human being means more than just the body a person/adult/baby/fetus has. So that is a sign that an intrinsic value/soul exists outside of the body.
Posted by saphirescar 1 year ago
saphirescar
On the contrary, a day old baby would in fact have all those things, or at least sentience and ability to exist independantly from another organism. Granted, it wouldn't survive very long, but they are still capable. As I pointed out in my argument it is unlikely that fetuses have sentience before the 30th week, so that would mean that after the 30th week they may in fact have sentience. So no, I cannot accept that.

To answer your question, having no arms or legs is in no way the same as not having a brain. You can survive without arms or legs, but you cannot survive without a brain. Similarly, a person with no functioning brain is legally and medically dead, but a person without a leg is not. Also, there is no proof that souls exist.

To answer your last question, I don't know. I've never thought about it much, but I'd have to say that if I were to decide yes, those rights would be for human beings only. Not fetuses.
Posted by a_janis1 1 year ago
a_janis1
Well a day old baby is neither sentient, independent, nor able to access and use a conscience or is self aware of its own existence. The baby has the potential to use those things but not yet because the baby is not matured into enough biological complexity to use such things. Despite that, we still consider the day old baby a living human being. Can you accept that?

Also where does this sentience/conscious come from? A developed mental acuity is the answer. How does a person have mental acuity? Mental acuity is developed from the growth towards biological complexity in the formation of brain matter, neurons, and chemical processes. Brain matter, neurons, and chemical processes are "physical composition." And because you admit a person without legs and arms is equally as human as you, then you are admitting humanity exists outside of mere "physical composition." So then why would a fetus, by not having the physical composition such as fully developed brain matter, neurons, and chemicals be less of a human being than you? Humanity exists on potential of complex biological growth with unique human DNA, which a fetus has, and also, more importantly, an intrinsic human value that supersedes "physical composition." Because we agree a human without arms and legs is equally as human as you and me, then the intrinsic value of a human is not the number of cells someone has, or a physical composition that science can measure in the lab. Rather, every conceived human being must have an intrinsic value/worth/soul (whatever you choose to call it) that cannot be subject to the body a human being has. What it truly means to be human is based on this intrinsic worth, which a fetus has. This is another reason why a fetus is a human being.

And finally, would you agree every living human being has inalienable rights?
Posted by saphirescar 1 year ago
saphirescar
Yes, I can accept that a fetus is both alive and a human. It is not a human being.

Yes, it has potential from conception. However, things are not defined by what they could be, but what they are. A fetus most definitely has the potential to become a human being, but it is not one yet, and it the same way we cannot call an egg a chicken we cannot call a fetus a human being. Or, if someone is going to med school, that doesn't make them a doctor. They have the potential to become a doctor, but they are not one yet.

A human being is a human which possesses consciousness, sentience, and can exist independently. Therefore, despite its potential, a fetus is not a human being. I really don't know where you got the whole "because it has potential it's a human being" thing from.

Yes, I agree that a quadriplegic would most certainly be just as much of a human -- or human being -- as you or I. But, like I said, the key is in the definition above. A quadriplegic meets that definition.

I suppose, but the laws can only conform to the rights of those who have them. A fetus doesn't have any rights.
Posted by a_janis1 1 year ago
a_janis1
@saphirescar
If you believe I havent thoroughly explained, then let me restate my arguments.
I believe you can accept that the fetus is both alive and human and here is why:

The fetus is uniquely human because the fetus has unique human DNA unlike that of the mother or father. On this DNA, the entire genetic code of a unique human is written. From this code, there is biological potential.

The fetus is alive because the fetus grows from biological simplicity into biological complexity. And because growth is the fundamental from which all other signs of life stem, then biological growth is enough for the fetus to be considered alive from the moment of conception.

That was scientific proof that the fetus is both alive and human. Can you accept this? (Note I have not yet shown the fetus is a human being)

Now here is how the fetus is a human being.

The potential of the fetus from the moment of conception is one sign that the fetus is a human being. No skin or cancer cell has the potential to grow into a more biologically complex being. The fetus has this potential to continually grow. Only human beings have unique human potential. The fetus has unique human potential (such as emotion/ free will). Therefore the fetus is a human being. But Im not done in proving how the fetus is a human being.

Now the next step in proving the fetus is a human being is to ask you this: Do you believe a person with no arms and legs is equally as human as you and I? (Assuming we both have a complete set of arms and legs).

And hold on, I'm not yet stating whether it is a right law or not.

So you agree laws can be wrong. Why? Would it make sense that the laws are subject to a higher standard? Because you agree laws can be wrong, can you agree laws must conform then to inalienable/fundamental rights?
Posted by saphirescar 1 year ago
saphirescar
@Esiar

Preventing life isn't murder.

Also, *evil.
Posted by saphirescar 1 year ago
saphirescar
@a_janis1 In no way did you show that with science or logic.

Yes, laws can be wrong. This is not one of them.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 1 year ago
MrJosh
DragonbladesaphirescarTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: CON used well sourced arguments, while PRO simply kept restating his point. Also, PRO loses conduct by trying to emotionally manipulate voters.
Vote Placed by AlwaysRight12345 1 year ago
AlwaysRight12345
DragonbladesaphirescarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made arguments and defended them while effectively refuting Pro's. Pro ignored Con saying that a baby is not sentient until 30 weeks in, instead saying that "we don't know." (Just an example.) Conduct and Spelling/Grammar is tied as they were equal there.
Vote Placed by NathanDuclos 1 year ago
NathanDuclos
DragonbladesaphirescarTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had bop which he didn't make. He made objections, however the objections were personal biased and objections, not arguments. Pro was clear, concise and raised a number of objects and valid arguments against pro, which pro didn't fully address.
Vote Placed by Leo.Messi 1 year ago
Leo.Messi
DragonbladesaphirescarTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Con cited his sources.
Vote Placed by Philocat 1 year ago
Philocat
DragonbladesaphirescarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro, as Con used an ad hominem attack in round 3 with the age-old 'you're male so have no right to debate abortion'. Sources go to Con however, as pro used no sources. Arguments go to Pro, for a few reasons: 1. Con's argument rests upon the dismissal that a foetus is not a human being. However, the assertion that 'human being' requires sentience is unwarranted. 2. Using examples such as the 9 year old in Nicarauga is an appeal to extremes logical fallacy, as the VAST majority of abortions are done out of convenience and not danger to the mother's life. 3. Con's arguing from the point of tokophobia is invalid, as murder is not justified if it is done so out of fear. If I was a coulrophobe and I was locked in a room with a clown, I would not be justified in killing him. There are more reasons but I do not have enough space.
Vote Placed by Chuz-Life 1 year ago
Chuz-Life
DragonbladesaphirescarTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro sticks to the premise of the debate "abortion SHOULD be illegalized" throughout this exchange. Con counters primarily by claiming that "abortion is legal so it's not murder. That does not address why it "should not" be considered murder. Con then introduced the false claim that "sentience" is required for a human being to be considered as a person. Pro was quick to correct Con's mistake. Arguments go to pro.
Vote Placed by o0jeannie0o 1 year ago
o0jeannie0o
DragonbladesaphirescarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources clearly con, Nice looking format (grammar) to con, In round three pro picks on opponent and voters, conduct to con. btw if my mother thought about aborting me I wouldn't care, not because i dont appreciate it but because it would not matter as I would not know. Argument to con as pro mocks speculation, backed up by sources, yet uses "what if's" themselves without the back up of facts.
Vote Placed by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
DragonbladesaphirescarTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were more valid. Con used more sources though while pro didn't.