The Instigator
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Bitz
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Abortion and infanticide are morally equivalent.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,828 times Debate No: 4180
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (11)

 

LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

CON, you go first, but here are these definitions.

abortion-the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus (Merriam-Webster)
infanticide-the killing of an infant (Merriam-Webster)
morally equivalent-equal in moral correctness or incorrectness
Bitz

Con

Had the debate resolution read "Some forms of abortion are morally equivalent to infanticide" I would be hesitant to take on this debate. Fortunately for me, that is not the case. As Con, it is up to me to demonstrate how there are some cases of abortion that are not equivalent to infanticide.

In this debate, I will be launching a three-pronged attack on my opponent, one argument from a neutral perspective, another argument from a PRO-LIFE perspective, and yet a third argument from a PRO-CHOICE perspective to successfully demonstrate just how flawed my opponent's illogical resolution is.

===============================================================================
Neutral argument-Death of women:

Therapeutic abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy before fetal viability in order to preserve maternal health. (1) A therapeutic abortion can be performed to save the life of a mother that would otherwise die in childbirth. The reason this form of abortion is moral is the same reason killing in self defense is moral. If someone or something is going to kill you, then it is not only your right, but it is your moral obligation to do anything in your power necessary to prevent your death, even if it means killing your causer of death. If someone picks up a weapon and is going to kill you, what is the moral thing to do? Kill the attacker? Or simply wait for your attacker to kill you? The answer is obvious.

The same thing applies to abortion, if a woman needs an abortion due to the fact that she will most probably die in childbirth, than it is not only her right, but it is her moral obligation to get an abortion to save her own life. It doesn't matter who, what, or how someone or something is going to kill you, be it intentional or natural. If something is going to kill you, KILL IT FIRST! This form of abortion is moral, while infanticide is not, since the baby is already borne and is no longer a threat to the mother.
===============================================================================

PRO-LIFE argument-Origins of human life/personhood.

One can logically conclude when human life begins by inverting the time when human life ends. Human life ends when brain activity ends. If the heart stops, sometimes a defibrillator can be used, if arms or limbs are severed, a person can still live. However, once the brain dies, there's no coming back. If the person hood of a human ends when brain activity ends, then logically, the person hood of a human begins when brain activity begins. In addition, brain activity is the first possible start for sentience, which is what most people define person hood as in the first place.

Since human life/personhood begins when brain activity begins, then logically, abortions performed before brain activity is present is morally acceptable. Infanticide is not morally acceptable, since brain activity is already present.

Therefore infanticide is NOT morally equivalent to infanticide.

===============================================================================

PRO-CHOICE argument- State of leeching, and state of dependence.

The fetus is in a state of leeching off the mother's body without the mother's permission, while an infant does not leech off the mother's body without her permission.

If I needed a bone marrow transplant and only one other person on the entire planet had a perfect bone marrow match, and I needed her bone marrow to save my life, do I have the right to forcibly take her bone marrow? Of course not! The same thing applies to a fetus, even though the fetus is a person, it does not have the right to leech off other people's nutrients without their permission.

Objection#1) the analogy is flawed because the mother caused the fetus to be in a state of dependence to begin with, therefore the mother is obligated to give nutrients she can spare to the fetus.

Rebuttal#1) it may be true that the mother caused the fetus to be in a state of dependence, but had the mother not caused the fetus to be dependent on her, the fetus would have never existed in the first place. Objection number 1 would work if I caused damage to someone and because of that damage, that person needed a bone marrow transplant, then he would have the right to take my bone marrow without my permission, however this is not the case with abortion, the mother caused no damage to the fetus, in fact, she did just the opposite, she brought the fetus into a state of being, from non-existence.

If a doctor performs an operation that saves a persons life, and because of that operation, the person will need a bone marrow transplant in 5 years, can the patient now force the doctor to give up his bone marrow without the doctors permission? Of course not! It's about damage, not causality. The doctor had causality of dependence on his patient, yet he is still not obligated to donate his bone marrow. Likewise, the Doctor did not have damage on his hands, and therefore he is exempt from giving up his bone marrow to his patient.

The same reasoning applies for abortion. The mother has causality of dependence on the fetus, but she did not have damage. In fact, she did just the opposite of damage to the fetus, she brought it into being. Therefore objection #1 does not give the fetus the right to forcibly take nutrients from the mother's body without the permission of the mother, anymore than the patient has the right to forcibly take nutrients from the doctor in the case listed above.

Objection # 2) Your analogy is flawed. Abortion cuts up little babies; it doesn't just take them out of the womb to sever the nutrients from the mother. It directly attacks the fetus that is dependent.

Rebuttal #2) This is somewhat true. Some forms of abortion specifically target the fetus, rather than just severing the umbilical cord. I will concede the point that these forms of abortions are wrong. However, not all forms of abortions do that. Many abortions simply cut the umbilical cord, thus severing the flow of nutrients from the mother to child, until the child suffocates. Other forms deliver the baby prematurely fully intact. These forms of abortion are supported by my analogies, and thus, should be permissible.

Objection#3) But the mother agreed to have sex! Thus she agrees to take full responsibility of the consequences of her actions. And if having a baby that is dependent on her body is one of the consequences, so be it!

Rebuttal #3) Imagine a hypothetical scenario if you will: There is a park, notoriously filled with criminals. These criminals have one special objective: to kidnap women and force them to undergo a bone marrow transplant operation. If a woman knows this can happen, and still chooses to take a walk in that park, does that make it right for the criminals to force her to donate nutrients from her body? Just like sex, the woman knew the possible consequences of her actions; she knew the risks of walking in that park. However, that does not make it right for another person to forcibly /use her body any way he/she wishes without her permission.

Infanticide is not supported by these analogies since the mother is giving nutrients (milk) from her body with her permission, and if she does not want to, she can give the infant up for adoption, this does not hold true for abortion.

Therefore, abortion is not morally equivalent to infanticide.

You, as pro, have provided me with no argument for round 1, and as such, the burden of proof is still on your absolute statement of abortion being morally equivalent to infanticide is reasonable.

(1)http://www.emedicine.com...
Debate Round No. 1
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

I'll give my case, then rebut his.

My case:
For the purposes of this debate we must look at why the killing of a fetus is wrong/permissible and why the killing of an infant is wrong/permissible.

For abortion "rights": The fetus is not a person, and because of that, it cannot have rights. As it has no rights, the mother is free to abort it. This is basically what Mary Ann Warren, a pro-choice philosopher says. She defines "person" as a being that has
1. Consciousness and the capacity to feel pain
2. Open-ended reasoning ability
3. Self-motivated activity
4. The capacity to communicate in an open-ended way
5. Self-awareness
(This comes from an anthology I have, I googled her name and I found this (This comes from an anthology I have, I googled her name and I found this site:http://instruct.westvalley.edu...
which has this defintion in it if you need verification.)

Another argument, similar to the one my opponent used is that fetuses are "leeching" off the mother, and therefore, the mother can sever those ties.

So it is established that abortion is permissible because the a) the fetus has no rights, and b) the mother has the right to control over her body.

Against abortion: Fetuses will develop into persons that will have a meaningful future, a "Future Like Ours." Killing the fetus will end the FLO which is wrong, as FLOs are something of value.

In short, because fetuses have a future, we cannot abort them.

Now, for infanticide.

It is permissible: Infants are not persons under Warren's definition. They are not self-aware they can't communicate in open-ended methods, they can't move freely, and they cannot reason. Therefore, they have no rights and can be killed whenever it pleases us.

Against infanticide: Infants have FLOs, we cannot deprive them of it.

Now, I know the leeching argument cannot be extended to infanticide, so I'll simply argue that that cannot make abortion permissible. Although you would argue that if someone needs your bone marrow or else they will die you have no obligation to give them the marrow. This is very callous. Although many of you are not religious, I feel one of Jesus' parables is extremely applicable here. In the parable, this guy gets beat up and left for dead on the side of the road. Everyone who passes by ignores him, until this one guy saves him and takes him to safety. Jesus says that we must treat others as we wish them to treat ourselves, which goes far beyond religion. Ethics are established to help mankind, and this more, the Golden Rule is a mantra that furthers the well being of mankind. WE are obligated morally to assist our fellow men in surviving. The leeching argument goes directly against this basic principle, and therefore is wrong.

Your case:
First, you say that abortion in the case of saving the mother's life is certainly moral. I agree, but this must be extended to an infant. If somehow an infant was a direct threat to the mother's life, then killing it would be permissible. For example, the Inuits have a history of killing infants when it becomes necessary for survival. This is of course an older example, but cases resulted where the mother couldn't feed the baby and herself, so she chose her own life over its. This is equally permissible. Most fetuses don't threaten the mother's life, and most babies don't threaten the mother's life. These situations are moral equivalents.

Next you say life begins when brain activity begins, maybe so, but this does not overcome two challenges. One, even though they have brain activity, infants are not persons, making their killing permissible, as they do not have rights. The second, is that fetuses and infants alike have FLOs and no matter when they are killed you are depriving them of FLOs which is wrong.

Finally, you bring up the leeching argument, which I showed was wrong, we have a moral obligation to help fellow man survive. I'll give another analogy. Say you're rock climbing, you make it to the top, but your buddy's rope snaps. You catch the rope, but you have to go to your wedding. If you wait for rescue, you'll miss the wedding. Even though your buddy is leeching your time, it is not permissible to let him fall and die so you can go to your wedding. The same goes for fetuses.

Quod erat demonstrandum.
Bitz

Con

I will rebut my opponents case, then defend my points mentioned in R1.

"For abortion "rights": The fetus is not a person, and because of that, it cannot have rights. As it has no rights, the mother is free to abort it. This is basically what Mary Ann Warren, a pro-choice philosopher says. She defines "person" as a being that has" "Consciousness and the capacity to feel pain"

Many researchers agree pain likely cannot be felt until around the seventh month of pregnancy, although some scientists disagree and a consensus has proven elusive. because pain can involve sensory, emotional and cognitive factors, it is difficult to know when pain can exist. One thing is for sure though, there is no capacity to feel pain when the fetus is just a zygote, there is no pain 1 week after conception, the brain didn't even develop yet. If you are going to define being a person as the ability to feel pain, than abortion would still be permissible before the fetus is able to feel pain, this does not hold true for infanticide, since the ability to feel pain is already there.

"Against abortion: Fetuses will develop into persons that will have a meaningful future, a "Future Like Ours." Killing the fetus will end the FLO which is wrong, as FLOs are something of value."

1) This is known as the potential life argument. Potential life is not the same thing as actual life. Even if it is wrong to kill potential life, are you really willing to argue that it is just as morally wrong as killing actual life? Just because they are both morally wrong does not mean they are equally morally wrong EX: vandalism and murder are both wrong, but not equally morally wrong.

2) Are you kidding? Potential life/personhood is not the same thing as actual human life/personhood. By this logic, an FLO can exist before the fetus even exists. I probably have the potential right now to go out with some prostitute, and impregnate her. Should it be immoral not to? After all, by choosing not to impregnate a woman, I will be ruining the ruining the potential "FLOs" that can come forth from my impregnating the prostitute, heaven forbid. What about couples that choose not to have sex? should they be thrown into jail because they are ruining "FLOs" every day they don't have sex? By this logic, it should be immoral for me not to go around raping every woman I find simply because of myself ruining the potential FLOs that can come forth from my raping woman. It's simple: If I go around raping every woman in sight then i'm bound to impregnate some, and therefore will be giving FLOs!! Yay!

"Infants are not persons under Warren's definition."

1)Yes they are. See your own definition: The ability to feel pain- Infants can feel pain, a zygote can't
2)I am not Warren, what does warren have to do with this?
3)I defined a person as a human with brain activity, that means an embryo is not a person, a fetus is.

Your Jesus analogy is flawed on several counts:

1)The pain involved to save the dying man on the road is not equivalent to a bone marrow transplant. For example if someone was going to die, and only needed a drop of my blood to live, some would argue that I should be forced to give it to him based on the low level of pain involved to save one's life, although that's debatable at best too. However, a bone marrow transplant is much more painful to go through than a simple drop of blood.

2)Even if your analogy fits the bill, so what? Are you really willing to argue that watching someone die is morally equivalent to actively killing someone? They may both be immoral, but that doesn't mean that they are morally equivalent. Vandalism and Rape are both immoral, are they morally equivalent? No. Remember, you defined infanticide as "killing." Abortion can be performed simply by severing the umbilical cord, thus cutting off the flow of nutrients to the fetus, this is not active killing, this is letting one die.

3)(again) Level of pain man it's all about the LEVEL OF PAIN. If a woman was dying, and the only way I could save her was by chopping off one of my legs, am I morally obligated to do so? Clearly the level of pain is a great factor of consideration, and is also the reason your analogy if logically flawed. 9 months of pregnancy followed by labor, may not be equivalent to chopping off one of your limbs, but it's definitely more painful that the pain involved of saving a dying man on the street.

Defending my own arguments:

Your objection to the neutral argument is valid, next.

"you say life begins when brain activity begins, maybe so, but this does not overcome two challenges. One, even though they have brain activity, infants are not persons, making their killing permissible, as they do not have rights."

No…..read my argument again. I said "logically, the person hood of a human begins when brain activity begins." Human life begins when brain activity begins also, in addition to personhood. The fetus is not a person before brain activity. After brain activity begins, the fetus is a person. This is why killing an infant is morally wrong, yet killing a fetus before brain waves are recordable is fine. The logic is simple: A human looses his personhood when his brain activity stops. Therefore a human gains his personhood when brain activity begins. As for FLOs, I addressed them earlier.

"Finally, you bring up the leeching argument, which I showed was wrong we have a moral obligation to help fellow man survive. I'll give another analogy. Say you're rock climbing, you make it to the top, but your buddy's rope snaps. You catch the rope, but you have to go to your wedding. If you wait for rescue, you'll miss the wedding. Even though your buddy is leeching your time, it is not permissible to let him fall and die so you can go to your wedding. The same goes for fetuses."

It is very important to note here that just because two things are immoral, does not mean they are morally equivalent. For example, stealing is morally wrong, and murder is morally wrong. Are they morally equivalent? No. For example, imagine a hypothetical scenario if you will: A man needs a bone marrow transplant. Your bone marrow is the only bone marrow that he needs in order to survive. You only have two options:

1)Don't give your bone marrow and let the man die
2)Stab the man in the chest with a sword, effectively murdering him

Of course, if you had to pick, you would choose option 1. Is it morally wrong? Maybe. But not nearly as morally wrong as committing murder. The same thing applies to abortion. Severing the umbilical cord and letting the fetus starve may be morally wrong, but It wont be AS morally wrong as killing someone. My opponent may argue that starving an infant would be morally equivalent to starving a fetus, however, this is not how my opponent defined infanticide, he defined infanticide as "killing" an infant. While in the case of abortion one can simply let the fetus die by a premature delivery, which is not as morally wrong as killing someone.

Like I said, level of pain. In the case of the rock climber, the level of pain required to save him is not even close to enduring 9 months of pregnancy + labor. Let me modify your analogy: Try to imagine a hypothetical scenario. You are able to save a rock climber. However, in the process of grabbing the rope, your foot slips into a crevice. You now have two options:

1)Turn back with your leg still intact and let the rock climber die
2)Sever your leg from your body and save the climber, in this scenario, the damage to the leg will be repairable, but it will be VERY painful; 9 months of repair will have to take place each day the pain of repairing the leg grows.

Due to the level of pain the person would have to endure, he should have the moral right to opt out simply because he does not want to handle the pain. The same applies to abortion. The level of pain involved for a complete pregnancy is greater than a bone marrow transplant.
Debate Round No. 2
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

His case then mine.

"Human life begins when brain activity begins also, in addition to personhood. The fetus is not a person before brain activity. After brain activity begins, the fetus is a person. This is why killing an infant is morally wrong, yet killing a fetus before brain waves are recordable is fine. The logic is simple: A human looses his personhood when his brain activity stops. Therefore a human gains his personhood when brain activity begins."

Personhood is not humanhood, being a person in the moral or mental sense means more than brain activity. It means that the individual has to be responsible and aware of its actions. In courts of law, mentally unstable individuals are allowed to plead innocent by way of insanity. This is because we feel they are not responsible for their actions. They are not mentally persons. Infants are not persons either. Also, your argument for brain activity being the beginning of life is flawed. Take this analogy: I have a dollar. I lose the dollar when I buy some fries from McDonald's. This however, does not mean that I gain the dollar by not buying fries from McDonald's. Just because something ends because of occurrence x does not mean it begins because of the opposite of occurrence x.

"It is very important to note here that just because two things are immoral, does not mean they are morally equivalent. For example, stealing is morally wrong, and murder is morally wrong. Are they morally equivalent? No. For example, imagine a hypothetical scenario if you will: A man needs a bone marrow transplant. Your bone marrow is the only bone marrow that he needs in order to survive. You only have two options:

1)Don't give your bone marrow and let the man die
2)Stab the man in the chest with a sword, effectively murdering him

Of course, if you had to pick, you would choose option 1. Is it morally wrong? Maybe. But not nearly as morally wrong as committing murder. The same thing applies to abortion. Severing the umbilical cord and letting the fetus starve may be morally wrong, but It wont be AS morally wrong as killing someone. My opponent may argue that starving an infant would be morally equivalent to starving a fetus, however, this is not how my opponent defined infanticide, he defined infanticide as "killing" an infant. While in the case of abortion one can simply let the fetus die by a premature delivery, which is not as morally wrong as killing someone."

I would contend that although stealing and murder are not equivalent, killing and letting die are. For example, say I am at my obscenely rich uncle's dinner party. His young son is taking a bath. Incidentally, if his son dies, I, his favorite nephew will get his son's inheritance. Since no one is around, I decide to murder his son, and make it seem like a drowning. This is obviously wrong. Now take this situation: I see his son having a seizure in the bath tub. If I do not intervene, he will die. Instead, I decide to let him drown so I get the inheritance. Both examples are equivalent, my actions or inaction led to the child's death, as the result is the same, their immorality is the same. Now I know you will say that my saving the nephew wouldn't have caused me pain, so I should have saved him, and that pregnancies cause pain. It is overly self-important to feel that your personal happiness is more important than another's life. Although the bone marrow transplant is not something I desire, it is effectively killing the other man to refuse my marrow. Temporary pain is irrelevant, that man's death is permanent. In response to my choice of letting the man die or stabbing him to death, I would say that the only reason stabbing him to death is worse is because he is deprived of time to tend to his affairs before he dies. By denying him the marrow you are effectively stabbing him through the chest.

"Due to the level of pain the person would have to endure, he should have the moral right to opt out simply because he does not want to handle the pain. The same applies to abortion. The level of pain involved for a complete pregnancy is greater than a bone marrow transplant."

Pregnancy cannot cause enough pain to warrant the destruction of a FLO. While some extreme situations in life may warrant killing, pregnancy is not one of them.

My case:

"If you are going to define being a person as the ability to feel pain, than abortion would still be permissible before the fetus is able to feel pain, this does not hold true for infanticide, since the ability to feel pain is already there. "

I listed other criterion as well, maybe you didn't see them, but to be a person, an individual must meet all of them, and neither fetuses nor infants meet all of the criteria.

"This is known as the potential life argument. Potential life is not the same thing as actual life. Even if it is wrong to kill potential life, are you really willing to argue that it is just as morally wrong as killing actual life? Just because they are both morally wrong does not mean they are equally morally wrong EX: vandalism and murder are both wrong, but not equally morally wrong."

I am ready and arguing that it is the same as actual life, and anyhow, infants don't really have any actual FLO, they may be biologically alive, but they don't have a FLO. That won't occur until childhood. The reason however it is equivalent is that the result is the same, an individual is deprived of its just desserts. For example, if I owe someone a dollar, it is just as bad for me to not pay him back as it is to pay him back, then steal the dollar.

"By this logic, an FLO can exist before the fetus even exists. I probably have the potential right now to go out with some prostitute, and impregnate her. Should it be immoral not to? After all, by choosing not to impregnate a woman, I will be ruining the ruining the potential "FLOs" that can come forth from my impregnating the prostitute, heaven forbid."

Well, the reason an abortion is different, is that you are changing what would naturally occur. If I impregnate someone, the fetus will almost certainly develop into a person. If I simply live my life and impregnate no one, I am depriving no one of any FLO. It is like me never borrowing money, if I borrowed money (was impregnated [if I were a female]) and didn't pay it back (abortion) that would be wrong. If I never borrow (abstinence or contraception) then I never owe any money, so not paying people back is not an issue.

"1)Yes they are. See your own definition: The ability to feel pain- Infants can feel pain, a zygote can't
2)I am not Warren, what does warren have to do with this?
3)I defined a person as a human with brain activity, that means an embryo is not a person, a fetus is. "

1) You didn't read the whole definition, there is more than feeling pain to being a person.
2) Warren's definition is good, because it creates a mental person that is responsible for his or her actions, and has value as an individual, basically an individual worthy of rights. Simply having brain activity does not warrant rights. Ants have brain activity, and I have no moral qualms when I set ant traps to prevent my house from being overrun by ants.
3) I just showed brain activity is insufficient.

As I am low on room I'll summarize your objection to my Jesus analogy. You said that saving the man did not cause pain, so it is an obligation.

As I said, only a tremendous amount of pain is worth more than a human life.

You also said that killing and letting die and not equivalent.

Yes they are, they end the same.

You said that pain is important.

I'll say it again, life is more important, only huge amounts of pain outweigh life.

Why vote PRO?
1. Infants and fetuses are not persons, so any action done on them is equivalent.
2. Infants and fetuses have FLOs, both infanticide and abortion deprive them of FLOs
3. Leeching is not justification for abortion.
Bitz

Con

Nonsense.

"being a person in the moral or mental sense means more than brain activity."

Possibly, but brain activity is definitely a requirement for personhood. an embryo does not have brain activity, therefore it is impossible for it to be a person. An infant does have brain activity, therefore it is possible for an infant to be a person with FLO.

"Just because something ends because of occurrence x does not mean it begins because of the opposite of occurrence x." "Take this analogy: I have a dollar. I lose the dollar when I buy some fries from McDonald's"

Flawed analogy. allow me to modify it to make it more clear.
Given FACT 1: I have a dollar and some fries from McDonald's.
Given FACT 2: If I lose the dollar then I will not have the fries from McDonald's.
LOGICAL CONCLUSION (based on given facts): Therefore, in order to get the fries from McDonalds's I must have the dollar. And there is no way I can get the fries from McDonalds without having the dollar.

Substitute "dollar" for brain activity, and substitute "fries from McDonald's" for "being a person" And here is what you get:
Given FACT1: I have brain activity and I am a person
Given FACT2: If I loose my brain activity, then I am not a person.
LOGICAL CONCLUSION (based on given facts) : Therefore, in order to be a person I must have brain activity, and there is no way I can be a person without having brain activity.

Therefore, brain activity is a requirement for being a person, (even if the person is retarded, there is still brain activity.) My argument still stands.

"personhood is not humanhood,"

This is true, however one can not have personhood without humanhood, if something is not human life, it can't be a person. We know an embryo is not human life because At a conference held over a decade ago to discuss the issue of personhood, leading scientists, legal experts, and theologians concluded that, if brain death is viewed medically as the end of human life (which it is), then no beginning of human life is logically possible before brain life. (1) Therefore, an embryo can't be a person, while an infant can.

"mentally unstable individuals are allowed to plead innocent by way of insanity. This is because we feel they are not responsible for their actions. They are not mentally persons"

Just because someone is mentally unstable or not responsible for his actions does not mean that he/she is not a person. They still have the right to life, just like you and me. However, if their brain activity stopped (brain died) then they would not be a "person." this fit's in perfectly with my stance.

Killing and letting die are not morally equivalent. If we kill, we directly cause the death. If we let die, death is foreseen but not directly caused.

"my actions or inaction led to the child's death, as the result is the same, their immorality is the same."

This is a huge flaw in your argument. Just because the result is the same does not mean the morality is the same . For example, say person A saw a car speeding down the street near a pedestrian, upon seeing this person A concludes that the car will crash into the pedestrian, so he attempts to shove the pedestrian out of the way in order to save him. Person A is quite off in his calculations and actually causes the death of the pedestrian by pushing him into the car.

Person B sees a car zooming near a pedestrian, and concludes that the car will miss the pedestrian. Upon seeing this, person B pushes the pedestrian into the car with the intention to kill him. The pedestrian dies.

In both of these cases, the outcome was the same, however it is clear that person B was much more immoral than person A. this is because person B's intentions were worse. The mother does not have the same intention for getting an abortion than killing her infant, since she is doing it because she does not want to endure the pain and thus, Your objection fails.

"Pregnancy cannot cause enough pain to warrant the destruction of a FLO. While some extreme situations in life may warrant killing, pregnancy is not one of them."

Out of all the things you said in this debate, this is quite possibly the worst. Who are you to determine that pain causes by pregnancy/labor is "not enough"? Pain is all relative, some women experience more pain than others. It is the individual woman's right to determine how much pain she is in, NOT you. My argument still stands.

"I listed other criterion as well, maybe you didn't see them, but to be a person, an individual must meet all of them, and neither fetuses nor infants meet all of the criteria."

No, in order to be a person, only 1 definition be fulfilled. If any of the definitive terms of personhood are filled, than the individual in question is a person. Pain happens to be one of them, show me an example of a human that can feel pain that is not a person. Show me an example of a human that has Open-ended reasoning ability, and yet is still not a person. If a human is numb and can't feel pain, yet he still has Open-ended reasoning ability, than by your logic, that human is not a person. Your logic is twisted indeed. My argument still stands.

" You didn't read the whole definition, there is more than feeling pain to being a person."

There may be more to being a person, but that doesn't mean someone must possess all those other traits to be a person. If someone is numb and can't feel pain, yet has the ability to communicate with people, he is still a person, regardless of his inability to feel pain. The reverse is also true, if someone is able to feel pain, yet does not have The capacity to communicate in an open-ended way, than he is still a person. All it takes is one definitive term fulfilled. Once again, my argument still stands.

"I just showed brain activity is insufficient." Brain activity is a key requirement to being a person as I have explained above. Since an embryo does not have brain activity it is impossible for it to be a person, since a infant does have brain activity, it is possible for it to be a person. And since an infant can feel pain it fulfills one of the definitive terms of personhood. Therefore a infant is a person, FLO, future life, whatever you want to call it, an infant a person with just as much rights as you, the same does not hold true with embryos, they can't feel pain, and they don't have brain activity. Therefore, unlike an infant, an embryo does not have any definitive terms of personhood fulfilled. So it's not a person. And the morality is not equivalent.

"you said that pain is important. I'll say it again, life is more important, only huge amounts of pain outweigh life."

Once again, pain is all relative. Some woman have less pain, some woman have more pain, and some woman have tremendous amounts of pain. It is up to the individual woman to determine how much pain she is in, NOT YOU

"Although the bone marrow transplant is not something I desire, it is effectively killing the other man to refuse my marrow."

If it were really true that letting someone die was just as immoral as actively killing someone, than everyone in the US that refused to donate bone marrow to patients that needed it should be charged with murder. Seeing as how my opponent favors the death penalty, then in order to make his position consistent, he must advocate the executions of anyone that did not donate their bone marrow to patients that needed it. It is quite clear to that my opponents position; that not donating bone marrow is equivalent to murder is ridiculous! I didn't donate any kidneys or bone marrow, should I be put on death row? Did my opponent donate bone marrow/kidneys to patients that needed it? No? let's execute him too! and while we're at it, let's take all the women that aborted their embryos and execute them as well. How should we go about practicing our righteous moral justice? Lethal injection? Hanging? Fire squad? Oh the possibilities!
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Bitz 8 years ago
Bitz
I see several moral and logical problems with that argument.

1) By this logic women who are prone to miscarrages can get an abortion no problem, since it is also more likely that the fetus will not survive to have this "FLO."

2) By this logic, it is perfectly moral to slaughter a sick infant that has a 51% chance of dying, since it is also also more likely than not that the potential will not be fulfilled.

3) And if you're going to base the morality of abortion on the mere "chances" of surviving to furfill an FLO, then just as well with a fetus compared to an infant. A fetus has potential, but not as likely to be forfilled as an infant. An infant has more of a chance of surviving as a fetus, Therefore it is less moral to kill a fetus than an infant.

Sorry, try again.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
They do, have potential, but it is more likely than not that the potential will not be fulfilled if left alone.
Posted by Bitz 8 years ago
Bitz
1) A sperm cell and an egg cell in a close environment also have natuarl FLO, since there is a chance that naturally, a zygote will form, which has a chance of forming a person. Is it illegal to seperate a sperm cell from an egg cell in a close environment? Clearly an actual perosn and a potential person is not the same thing.

2) My main contention is that pain is all relative and it is the woman's right to determine how much pain she is in, not someone else, (especially from someone who never has, nor ever will get pregnant.)
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
I never said life begins at conception, I just said that fetuses have FLOs at conception. Whether they are alive or persons is not a factor, it is the fact that they have FLOs
Posted by Bitz 8 years ago
Bitz
Man you should have made this with more rounds, I think this debate can go places. Shame it's almost over.
Posted by Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
EDIT: "that means an embryo is not a person, a fetus is." Should read "that means an embryo is not a person, a infant is."
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 9 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
I would have posted, but I was too tired to think clearly, I didn't want to forget the topic so I posted. Next time I'll probably post my constructive first.
Posted by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
She's right, Con. Don't start debates if you're not going to argue the first round. It's a waste of time. It just means that you wait for Con's argument just for loop holes. If you want that, go join debates in challenge mode. Pro always carries the burden of proof, so you must first prove what it is you're even defending.

Would have challeneged you, but it's a waste of time if you're not going to argue your burden of proof.
Posted by Spiral 9 years ago
Spiral
Pro, at some point you must actually make a case in your opening rounds, you are essentially wasting one round of Con by forcing them to provide a burden of proof, where you, as Pro, must.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Bitz 8 years ago
Bitz
LR4N6FTW4EVABitzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Ayame 8 years ago
Ayame
LR4N6FTW4EVABitzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
LR4N6FTW4EVABitzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ecstatica 8 years ago
ecstatica
LR4N6FTW4EVABitzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by apathy77 8 years ago
apathy77
LR4N6FTW4EVABitzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Hypnodoc 8 years ago
Hypnodoc
LR4N6FTW4EVABitzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by revleader5 8 years ago
revleader5
LR4N6FTW4EVABitzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by oboeman 8 years ago
oboeman
LR4N6FTW4EVABitzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
LR4N6FTW4EVABitzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
LR4N6FTW4EVABitzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03