The Instigator
donald.keller
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
pozessed
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion is a Violation of Human Rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
donald.keller
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,993 times Debate No: 36840
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (3)

 

donald.keller

Pro

Is Abortion is the Violation of the Unborn Child's Rights?

Pro - Yes, Abortion is a Violation.
Con - No, Abortion is not a Violation.

Both sides shall carry BOP.
============================

Rules:
- The topic must stay relevant.
- The topic must stay respectable.
- Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy.

R1: Introduction of Sides.
R2: Debate
R3: Debate
R4: Conclusion (Final Rebuttals)

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

I shall take Pro, and will argue that Abortion is the violation of the Unborn Child's Rights:
pozessed

Con

I will kindly accept Pros challenge.

I would like to point out that a right comes from a governing entity that depicts and enforces the rights to whichever it governs.

In the case of a mother and a fetus, the fetus is governed by its mother. Thus the child has no rights, unless the mother decides to grant the privilege.

I would like to also point out that the fetus has no liberties that would help to define which rights it needs.

Thank you pro for this debate and I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 1
donald.keller

Pro

Thank you for accepting.

I will start by countering Con's first argument.

The concept of the Mother governing her child implies only in setting rules and restrictions appropriate to raising the child. The concept of the child having no rights unless the mother decides to grant the privilege is ownership and servitude.

1: Ownership

The concept of owning another person is unconstitutional and violates the Constitution and UN laws and acts both signed and ratified by the United States.

Amendment XIV
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.(1)

The 14th Amendment claims in the following:
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property..."

This implies no human may be denied his fair liberties, including life. It doesn't imply citizenship or being natural-born, or any being born. It says 'any person', so it applies to anyone who falls into the bottom definitions.

Person: noun
:a human being, whether man, woman, or child.
:a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.(2)
:human, individual "sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes(3)

Person: noun
As defined by the Legal Dictionary:
:In general usage, a human being; by statute, however, the term can include firms, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in Bankruptcy, or receivers.(4)

If a baby is, by definition, human, it is a person. This grants it the liberties of the 14th Amendment. If the child is human, it's also granted liberties by the United Nations. For this we must prove it's Human.

[1] http://constitutioncenter.org...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
[]

2: Is it Human?

The sperm and egg carry 23 Chromosomes each. Human's have 46 chromosomes(5). At conception, the two create a Zygote, which has 46 Human Chromosomes. The DNA is human. By extension, this means the Zygote is human, even if it's only one cell at this time.(6,7)

At conception, the Zygote is genetically human. Since our species is determined by our DNA, as evolution would support, having Human DNA makes it human. We know this because our DNA is 99% the same as a chimpanzee's. It's less than a percent that separates us.(8) With that, we know that what determines our species is if the DNA blueprint is that of a human.

Being genetically human means the baby is Human, and (even by the Legal Dictionary) that the baby is a person, even at conception.

[5] http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...
[6] http://www.biologycorner.com...
[7] http://www.healthline.com...
[8] http://www.scientificamerican.com...
[]

3: Is the Baby alive?

Being alive is determined by Biology's 7 Signs of Live. Of course those signs don't apply to a One Celled Organism. We will discuss that later.
Biologist have generally accepted 4 signs, and debate on 6 others. Instead of making a list of the 10 Signs, they seem to stick with lists of 7.(9)

The Signs are as follow:

1- Homeostasis
The placenta helps most in Homeostasis by providing the baby with oxygen-rich blood, while hormones and body functions are handled by the babies body.(10)

2- Organization
The cell of a Zygote has organized Organelles inside it..
Since the early stages of being a Blastocyst, (usually 4-5 days of conception) the fetus is composed of many cells.(10)

3- Metabolism
A baby takes in a supply of nutrients through the umbilical cord, placenta, and amniotic sac. Where the baby gets it's nutrients is irrelevant. Everyone takes in an external supply, and few living things produce their own food internally, including humans.(12,13)

4- Growth
The baby will show continuous growth for 9 straight months. It starts growing from day one to the time it's born.(14)

5- Response
A baby will react to its environment like any other human. A study (in link below) revealed that a baby will move in reaction to noise. This is sign that a baby shows response to its environment.(15)

6- Adaption
The same study later found that over the course of the study, a baby would start to remember the noise, and would stop reacting to it.(15)

7- Reproduction
A baby is part of a species that can fully reproduce. A baby itself cannot reproduce much like a 3 year old child can't. It's not that it can't, it's that it's too young in its development to.

8- Excretion
A baby does get rid of waste the normal way... While their waste is a little different than ours, it comes and goes the same way and for the same reason.
Although a baby will usually hold in anything that isn't urine until birth, it can, and commonly does defecate inside the womb.(16)

9- Movement
A baby is known for moving. Within a relatively short period, they are kicking and twisting inside the womb.(17)

10- Respiration
A fetus breaths, in a sense, the fluid around it. The lungs do not process the fluids, but the breathing is important to a fetus. The actual respiration (intake of oxygen) comes from the mother"s blood through the umbilical cord. The process of respiration is clearly found in the fetus.(18)

We find that a baby follows all 10 possible signs of life that Biologists accept. The baby fitting into all 10 signs means it's alive.

To determine if a One Celled Organism is alive, scientists place it in a medium it can live in. If it's begins cell division, it's considered alive. Since, when put in the proper medium, a Zygote begins cell division, we know it's alive even at that stage.

As a one celled organism, the Zygote is determined alive and human, and continues to be as it progresses. Ending the life of a living human without a probably cause or with a reasonable doubt is murder and a violation of Human Rights.

[9] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
[10] http://www.healthcaremagic.com...
[11] http://www.nlm.nih.gov...
[12] http://www.livestrong.com...
[13] http://www.reproduction-online.org...
[14] http://www.babycenter.com...
[15] http://abcnews.go.com...
[16] http://www.fitpregnancy.com...
[17] http://www.whattoexpect.com...
[18] http://www.livestrong.com...
[]

3: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, both signed and ratified by the United States, says in the following Articles.

Article II
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article VI
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article III
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article II claims that everyone (all humans) have the rights listed in the Declaration without distinction of any kind. Article VI says that even if you don't like it, the Government must recognize everyone (all humans) as persons. Article III says everyone has the right to Life and Liberty.(19)

With this, we can conclude the following;

:The Zygote is genetically Human.
:Therefore; The Zygote must be recognized as a person, and is granted all rights in the Declaration.
:Therefore; The Zygote is granted Right to Life and Liberty.
:Therefore; Abortion is a Violation of Human Rights by violating the rights of a Zygote as is determined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

:The Baby is genetically Human.
:Therefore; The Baby must be recognized as a person, and is granted all rights in the Declaration.
:Therefore; The Baby is granted right to Life and Liberty.
:Therefore; Abortion is a Violation of Human Rights by violating the rights of a Baby as is determined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Before I pass it on to Con...

Return to Section 1: Ownership

The 13th Amendment of the Declaration of Independence and Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

The 13th Amendment
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.(1)

Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.(19)

Servitude:
:A state of subjection to an owner or master.(20)

Since servitude is the act of being owned or lacking freedom, and servitude is Illegal, it would be both unconstitutional and illegal for a mother to own their child. As is written in the Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the human Baby is recognized as it's own person, granted Right to Liberty and Life, outside the mother's control.

[19] http://www.un.org...
[20] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[]

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

I now pass it on.
pozessed

Con

Thank you pro for the thoughtful response.

Something to clear up.

I am not arguing whether it's human or not. I am arguing about a fetus/baby that is in the beginning stages of life. Anyone reading this argument will know henceforth that the terms "baby, child, fetus, etc" are emotional ploys to drive your vote in the direction of the speaker.

Argument using the 14th and 4th amendments.

These amendments are great arguments and I am glad you used them Pro.
The fact that a baby inside of the womb requires so much attention from a dedicated mother, it could be considered a breech of these amendments.
A pregnant woman who does not want a child could feel like a slave to that fetus. I bring this up because if the government forced just 1 women into feeling this way, they have destroyed their credibility to withhold the constuitution.

The 13th amendment even states that slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist. Not wanting a baby and being pregnant is natural involuntary servitude.

Hopefully, some people will recognize my point. The baby or the mother can be considered the master or slave. It depends on the perspective of the mother which roles each will be playing.

As well the 14th and 4th amendments can be used against both the mother and the baby. Neither has the right to own the other as a slave, but both naturally fall into the definition of slave.

Slave
1. a person legally owned by another and having no freedom of action or right to property
2. a person who is forced to work for another against his will
3. a person under the domination of another person or some habit or influence: a slave to television
4. a person who works in harsh conditions for low pay
5. a. a device that is controlled by or that duplicates the action of another similar device (the master device)
b. ( as modifier ): slave cylinder

If they both fall into the statutes as slave owner both should be punished. The mother is more of a slave to the baby than the baby is to the mother.

Why the mother is a slave.
  • The fetus obtains it nutrients through its mother.
  • The body of the mother changes in response to the babies needs.
  • The mother is forced to carry the fetus wherever she goes.
  • A mothers body is forced into labor.

Why the baby is a slave.

  • The mother forces the fetus to eat what she eats.
  • The mother forces the fetus to go where she goes.

Argument against a right to life, liberty, and security of person.

As I said, I will not argue whether it is human. I will argue that in our society people have the right to lethally defend themselves if their life and livliehoods are threatened.

I will also argue that a fetus has no rights to obtain due to it's dehabilitated status. A fetus has less rights than a prison inmate in solitary confinement. I'm only pointing out that a fetus has less rights than a prisoner who supposedly has no rights.

Debate Round No. 2
donald.keller

Pro

Thank you for the quick reply.

I am not arguing whether it's human or not. I am arguing about a fetus/baby that is in the beginning stages of life.

Baby: Noun
:an infant or very young child..
:a newborn or very young animal.
:the youngest member of a family, group, etc.
:an immature or childish person.
:human fetus.(1)
:a very young child; an infant.
:an unborn child; a fetus.(2)

Calling it a baby is appropiate. Your attack on what I choose to call it is unwarranted.

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

1: Constitution

The Constitution can not be breached by a baby, who is well below the legal age (often set at 10) that someone can be convicted of breaching the law or Constitution.

"If you are under 10 you cannot be held criminally responsible. This means that you can't be charged with a criminal offence."

Even after turning 10, until you are 13, you may not be Charged until there is evidence that you knew that what you were doing was wrong.

"You can be charged with a criminal offence once you turn 10.

But if you are aged between 10-13 you cannot be found guilty unless there is evidence that you knew what you did was wrong when you did it.

It is up to the prosecutor (who might be a police officer or a lawyer) to prove that at the time of the crime you knew or should have known what you were doing was wrong." (3)

A baby, especially when unborn, is well below the age where it can legally breach any law. This means the baby is innoncent of the Pro's accusation(s).

"I bring this up because if the government forced just 1 women into feeling this way..."

How a woman feels =/= what a woman is.
A woman could feel like a slave, but if she isn't a slave, than the Government isn't breaching the Constitution.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[3] http://www.legalaid.qld.gov.au...
[]

2: Slave

Here, the Pro has conceded that the mother does not own the Child, and thus dropped the argument:
In the case of a mother and a fetus, the fetus is governed by its mother. Thus the child has no rights, unless the mother decides to grant the privilege.

I would like to also point out that the fetus has no liberties that would help to define which rights it needs.

Let's continue.

"Not wanting a baby and being pregnant is natural involuntary servitude."
Nature is above the law.

The Pro is trying to show that the Baby has inslaved the Mother. The Baby is innocent of breaching the Constitution (14th Amendment), UN Declaration of Human Rights (Article 4) and the law because it is too young to be found guilty of breaching the prior mentioned documents.

Pro has even acknowledged that the servitude of the mother is natural:
Not wanting a baby and being pregnant is natural involuntary servitude.
If the process (of childbirth) is natural, than it is above the law of men, and the child and nature can not be held guilty of breaching the law. There is another reason the Child is innoncent...

The Pro has confused a Dependant with a Slave Owner. A child isn't classified under law as a master or owner of a mother, but as a dependant.

Dependant:
A dependent is someone who is sustained by another person, such as a child supported by his or her parents.(4)

Slave Owner:
Someone who holds slave.(5)

Legally (as seen actually written out in the first Definition) a child is not a Slave Owner, but a Dependant. If Pro's argument was right, than we would all be guilty of breaking the 14th Amendment, and appearantly death would be a reasonable punishment.

Being a Dependant also implies the Mother must care for the child or adopt it to someone who will.

This argument applies to the rest of Pro's Slave Argument.

[4] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
[5] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[]

3: Right To Life and Liberty

The Pro has acknowledged the the baby is a Human.

The Pro fails to understand that Self Defense (which doesn't always imply killing) may only be used if the other person is trying to harm you. If the person (baby) is innoncent of attempting to kill you, you are not permitted to kill the person.

If you have a reason to believe the other person is attempting to do great bodily harm to you, you may defend yourself, but if you know for a fact that it isn't trying to, than you are in the wrong. I assume the Mother understands the Baby isn't actually trying to hurt her, and therefore she may not legally act against it.

"...Under both Criminal Law and Tort Law, self-defense is commonly asserted in cases of Homicide, Assault and Battery, and other crimes involving the attempted use of violence against an individual..."(6)

The Pro talks about the Mothers right to Self Defense, but ignores that the Baby is the one being threatened. Unlike the Baby, who isn't trying to hurt the Mother, the Mother is actually attempting to end the Babies life.

I will also argue that a fetus has no rights to obtain due to it's dehabilitated status.

I will display the 4th Amendment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights again.

Amendment XIV
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.(1)

The 14th Amendment claims in the following:
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property..."

The Constitution never mentions you must habilitated, or any other status... Just that you are a person.
Someone who is Dehabilitated still has rights, and is still Human.

Article II
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article III
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights says Everyone... Not strong, or rehabilitated, or born persons... Everyone, has the rights listed. The Pro is trying to create distinctions that void's the Babies rights, but the UN grants these rights to Everyone, without distinction of any kind.

The Baby is granted these right reguardless of Disabilities (like being born without arms) or being unable to speak or if it's dehabilitated.

The claim that a Criminal has no rights is unwarranted. Niether me, the UN, or the Laws claims this.

[6] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
[]

4: Homicide

The Pro has acknowledged that a Baby is Human.
Therefore; The Pro has acknowledged that a Baby is a Person.

Homicide: Verb
: the killing of one human being by another. (Dictionary)
: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder: (Oxford)
: The killing of one human being by another human being. (Legal Dictionary)
: a killing of one human being by another (Merriam-Webster)

Kill: Verb
: to deprive of life : cause the death of. (Oxford)
: cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing) (Merriam-Webster)
: to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; (Dictionary)
:
a. To put to death.
: b. To deprive of life. (Free Dictionary)

Based off the Definitions, the Mother (human) depriving the Baby (human) of life is homicide.

[7] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[8] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
[9] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
[10] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[11] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
[12] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[13] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[14] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[]

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

I have refuted the Pro's arguments and set forth an additional argument of my own.

I pass it on.
pozessed

Con

Sorry for the delayed response. I have had some responsabilities to tend to.

"Calling it a baby is appropiate. Your attack on what I choose to call it is unwarranted."

I never said it was inappropriate and I didn't attack your argument. I just stated that using certin words is a ploy to manipulate the reader. I also suggested we were both going to be using the technique.

"The Constitution can not be breached by a baby, who is well below the legal age (often set at 10) that someone can be convicted of breaching the law or Constitution."

The question is not "can the fetus be convicted for breaching the constitution?" The question is "Is the fetus in fact breaching the constitution?"

If the fetus is breeching the constitution it should be the mothers right to decide how she claims sovereignty, not the governments.

"How a woman feels =/= what a woman is.
A woman could feel like a slave, but if she isn't a slave, than the Government isn't breaching the Constitution."

Actually, any person who feels a certain way is based on perception. Perception is reality, and any pregnant womans charecteristics falls into the description which fits the definition of slave.
In short if a woman has the charecteristics of a slave and feels like a slave, she is a slave.

Also, It's not the government doing the breaching it's the fetus.

"Here, the Pro has conceded that the mother does not own the Child, and thus dropped the argument:
In the case of a mother and a fetus, the fetus is governed by its mother. Thus the child has no rights, unless the mother decides to grant the privilege."

I admitted the mother can grant the privelage. However with goverment intrusion she could be forced to grant the privelage.
There was no argument dropped, the child still has no rights unless the mother grants them or is forced to.

"The Pro is trying to show that the Baby has inslaved the Mother. The Baby is innocent of breaching the Constitution (14th Amendment), UN Declaration of Human Rights (Article 4) and the law because it is too young to be found guilty of breaching the prior mentioned documents."

We never had to have this appear in a courtroom (from what I searched anyway). However, if I were a woman being forced to carry and birth a child I had no desire to carry. I would envoke my right to a fair trial and claim that I was a slave to that baby and whoever governed that childs rights is responsible for my captivity and suffering. This would make the government responsible as it allowed the baby to enslave me for its own agenda.
If there hasn't been any trials on something similar it is completely speculative though.

" If the process (of childbirth) is natural, than it is above the law of men, and the child and nature can not be held guilty of breaching the law. There is another reason the Child is innoncent..."

With that type of logic we would consider all parasites, diseases, and all types of natural harms as "above the law". It's common for humans to tranform nature to their desire.

"Dependant:
A dependent is someone who is sustained by another person, such as a child supported by his or her parents.(4)"

Contrary to your argument, dependant has more than one meaning. A parasite is a dependant, a pet is a dependent, a wart is a depndent.

1. depending on a person or thing for aid, support, life, etc
http://dictionary.reference.com...

"Slave Owner:
Someone who holds slave.(5)

Legally (as seen actually written out in the first Definition) a child is not a Slave Owner, but a Dependant. If Pro's argument was right, than we would all be guilty of breaking the 14th Amendment, and appearantly death would be a reasonable punishment.
"

Legally no, that's not to say a child doesn't fit the definition of slave owner if the mother is permitting it. We are all guilty of breaking the 14th amendment, but we don't perceive it as such, so it doesn't seem true.

"If you have a reason to believe the other person is attempting to do great bodily harm to you, you may defend yourself, but if you know for a fact that it isn't trying to, than you are in the wrong. I assume the Mother understands the Baby isn't actually trying to hurt her, and therefore she may not legally act against it. "

Labor is great bodily harm, I never heard of anyone laughing and cheering while they were giving birth. It also has the potential to leave some women scarred for life.


"I will display the 4th Amendment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights again."

The 14th amendment in context clearly states a person born (after birth) or naturalized (which they would not need to do if it was before birth).

The UN amendment is an obvious contradiction. It takes away the security of a person, their liberties, and the potential life they possibly planned to protect the life of another. A woman obviously loses more from her woes than the fetus.

"4: Homicide"

Homicide has not been commited unless you can prove it wasn't aborted to prevent future bodily suffering and agony. Otherwise it is self defense.


Sorry, this is rushed. I still have a lot of things to accomplish.
Debate Round No. 3
donald.keller

Pro

Thank you for the Reply.

1: Constitution.

"The question is not "can the fetus be convicted for breaching the constitution?" The question is "Is the fetus in fact breaching the constitution?

First: This implies the Con acknowledges that the baby can not be convicted.

The child can not (by law) breach the Constitution if he is too young to legally (by law) breach it. But if he could technically breach the Constitution, it wouldn't matter because he can't be held guilty or responsible for doing it.

The Child is labeled under law as a Dependent. This means the Child isn't breaching the constitution because of it's dependency.

"Actually, any person who feels a certain way is based on perception."

Because) Perception = Reality
Therefore) I perceive being a cat = I'm a cat now.

We know this isn't the truth. Perception is simply a viewpoint... Even viewpoints can be false. We see this is the following common legal example.

-Person perceives underage woman as not underage:
-Underage woman is still underage;
-Therefore; Person still breaks the law for sleeping with her.

That is a very common example of how, under law, what you perceive doesn't change reality. A woman may "perceive" being a slave, but by no means is she legally a slave, especially since the Child is legally a Dependent and not legally a Slave Owner.

"Also, It's not the government doing the breaching it's the fetus."

Again. An unborn child can not breach the Constitution.

The Government and the mother would both breach the UN articles if they deprived a child of its Right to Life for the two (hardly illegal) crimes of being dependent and inconvenient.

There was no argument dropped, the child still has no rights unless the mother grants them or is forced to."

No. That is Slavery. Literally, view the definition YOU gave in R2.

This is hypocritical and contradictary to the point of ending Con's argument. He says that the Child may be aborted because it has made the mother a slave (although I've already discussed that.) but than making his second argument about how the mother legally owns the child, and the child has no freedom of action or rights unless it's granted...

Slave
1. a person legally owned by another and having no freedom of action or right to property

That definition was from Con's R2 argument. He has contradicted himself and displayed hypocrisy with two of his three arguments. Even without the Defintion, his arguments as he says them are hypocritical and contradictary.

Besides, the UN's Declaration of Human Rights (granted to all humans) says that Child has all privileges and rights of a human. The Mother has no authority to revoke those rights, especially the right to life.

The Con's Argument:
The Child owning the Mother = breach of 14th amendment.
The Mother owning the Child =/= breach of 14th amendment.

He Cherry-picks who the Constitution and Declaration of Human Rights applies to for his own argument. This hypocrisy is another major contradiction in Con's Argument. He claims involuntary servitude is a breach of the Constitution and Declaration of Human Rights only when it's the woman. Although he ignores that the child is a Legal Dependent.

Dependent
A person whose support and maintenance is contingent upon the aid of another.
A dependent is someone who is sustained by another person, such as a child supported by his or her parents.(1)

By law, the mother isn't a servant because the Child isn't a legal master, but a Dependent.

(If) The Mother is a Slave:
(Than) The Child is a Slaver Owner:

(But) The Child is a Dependent and not a Slave Owner:
(Therefore) The Mother is not a Slave.

The Con has continued to ignore this conclusion.

The Con claims the Government would have an agenda for banning abortion... The Agenda would be the preservation of human rights.The Con obviously only values rights when they are his own, and seeks to void anyone else's if they inconvenience him.

"With that type of logic we would consider all parasites, diseases, and all types of natural harms as "above the law". It's common for humans to tranform nature to their desire."

It is 'natural' to fight off diseases, it is not natural for a mother to call for her child's execution because she can't be bothered. A Baby isn't a parasite however...

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[]

2: Parasite?

The concept of a Parasite is that it isn't supposed to be there. The woman's body was literally made to host it, and to create it. because the Woman's body was designed to host the Baby, the Baby can not be considered a Parasite. it is a Mutual Relationship(2), and not a Parasitic Relationship. In fact, the mother actually gains a lot from the relationship..

The definition of Parasite is too broad, and doesn't fully pinpoint or discribe the complexity of a Mother-Baby relationship.

One of the many benefits the Woman receives is Fetal Cell Microchimerism. What research has found is that cells from the Pregnancy is left behind, and helps prevent the woman from later issues like autoimmune disorders.(3,4)

"More recent studies suggest that fetal cells may actually protect women against autoimmune disorders, such as rheumatoid arthritis."

Like all things natural, there are a few messed up cases, but the natural relationship is benefical, not parasitic.

Also, the Woman's body gives the Baby nutrients. The Child doesn't just 'take' the nutrients and support, it is given it by the mother's body. The body ultimately has final say, which is why your heart beats without you making it.

[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
[]

3: Fair Trail

The Con claims he would exercise his right to a fair trail. However, since the punishment the Con seeks is the Death Penalty, it would require a crime so bad that the Death Penalty is required. Looking at the list (by state) of crimes punishable by death, nothing the Baby had or could have committed appears on it.(5)

Even breaching the Constitution isn't punishable by Death. You would have to wait until the child is born, then sentence him to prison. Except that you couldn't, because in a fair trial, the Child couldn't be convicted because he is under the age of innocence, and can't be legally held guilty of enslaving the mother, or breaching any laws or amendments.

[5] http://tinyurl.com...
[]

4: Slave?

To began, a parasite is a parasite, not a dependent. The Con clearly does not know how Legal Dependents work.

He has confused 'being dependent' with 'being a Dependent.' A Dependent is an actual legal title for humans who legally depend on someone else. You learn this quickly when tax season comes.

A Parasite is not a Legal Dependent, nor is a pet... Nor is the baby a parasite or pet... Con is confusing the Normal definition with the Legal definition.(6)

"A dependent is someone who is unable to care for or support themselves and looks for such care and/or support from another." - uslegal website

Now while not all Legal Dependents are tax-deductible, under law, they are still Dependents.(7)

Legally no, that's not to say a child doesn't fit the definition of slave owner if the mother is permitting it.

Legally, the legal definition says what the child is regardless of anything or anyone else's opinion. Again, the Con cherry-picks who he feels has rights. The Mother doesn't dictate what the child is under law... Only the Law can, and the Law dictates that the child is a dependent. Nature built him to be dependent on his Mother, and again (as Con failed to account for in my Prior argument), Nature is above the law.

We see the flaw in Cons logic that a mother chooses what rights her child has here;

A) Child is 15
B) Mother lets child drink alcohol
C) Child still broke the law

Ultimately, Con's argument is that law only matters if the Parent says so.

Labor is great bodily harm, I never heard of anyone laughing and cheering while they were giving birth.

Pregnancy = possible bodily harm of human mother.
Abortion = guaranteed death of human baby.

It's obvious which action, if allowed, does the most damage. Even than, Con continues to try to hold the child accountable for such issues. He talks of what pregnancy (might) do to women, but ignores what Abortion will do to the Baby, and to the woman. There are many issues that abortion can cause in woman,

The thing about Con's argument is that it's not supported by woman with experience. As polls show, 95% of women who were denied their abortion, and had to endure the painful labor... Had no regrets.(8) So according to 95% of the women who know this first hand, Con's argument is crap.(9)

[6] http://tinyurl.com...
[7] http://tinyurl.com...
[8] http://tinyurl.com...
[9] http://tinyurl.com...
[]

5: Homicide

Self Defense implies the mother was at risk of great bodily harm... Only 15 in 100,000 mothers die in childbirth... HALF of all deaths are the fault of the doctor or hospital. Even than, the child itself is not attempting to kill you.

Con gravely exaggerates the dangers of childbirth.

I will rewrite this again for you...

Homicide: Verb
: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder: (Oxford)
: The killing of one human being by another human being. (Legal Dictionary)

Based off the Definitions, the Mother (human) depriving the Baby (human) of life is homicide.

The child isn't trying to kill the mother... The mother, however, is actually trying to kill the child... In principle, it's the child who needs self-defense.

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

Con has Acknowledged the following arguments:

- Nature is Above the law.
- The baby is human.
- The baby is alive.
- The child can not be convicted of breaching the law.


I conclude that Abortion is a Violation of Humans Rights using what the Con has personally acnkolwedged...


- A baby is a living human.
- The UN's Declaration of Human Rights grants all living humans liberty and life.
- The UN's Declaration of Human Rights grants all Babies liberty and life.
- Abortion (and Con's remaining Arguments) violate those Human Rights.

Therefore - Abortion is a Violation of Human Rights

The resolution is upheld...

pozessed

Con

"But if he could technically breach the Constitution, it wouldn't matter because he can't be held guilty or responsible for doing it."

It technically is enslaving the woman. Saying "it is not legally rsponsible" is not the same as saying "it didn't breach the constitution."

" Because) Perception = Reality
Therefore) I perceive being a cat = I'm a cat now."

If you had the charecteristics of a cat, you would be a cat.

"This is hypocritical and contradictary to the point of ending Con's argument. He says that the Child may be aborted because it has made the mother a slave (although I've already discussed that.) but than making his second argument about how the mother legallyowns the child, and the childhasnofreedomofactionor rights unless it's granted..."

It's not hypocritical because I have stated both are potential slaves, the mother is the deciding factor, UNLESS the government enforces birth.


"That definition was from Con's R2 argument. He has contradicted himself and displayed hypocrisy with two of his three arguments. Even without the Defintion, his arguments as he says them are hypocritical and contradictary."

Notice there is no explenation of how I contradicted myself.

"The Con's Argument:
The Child owning the Mother = breach of 14th amendment.
The Mother owning the Child =/= breach of 14th amendment."

The fetus has no ability to control the conscious functions of the mother, which grants the mother full rights to her body. Also the fetus has no perception to clarify itself as a slave.

"(If) The Mother is a Slave:
(Than) The Child is a Slaver Owner:

(But) The Child is a Dependent and not a Slave Owner:
(Therefore) The Mother is not a Slave."

Both scenarios are true. The mothers perception is the deciding factor.

"The Con claims the Government would have an agenda for banning abortion... The Agenda would be the preservation of human rights.The Con obviously only values rights when they are his own, and seeks to void anyone else's if they inconvenience him."

Ad hom.
I have nothing to gain other than ensuring conscious citizens are able to maintain their rights and liberties they deserve.

"It is 'natural' to fight off diseases, it is not natural for a mother to call for her child's execution because she can't be bothered. A Baby isn't a parasite however..."

Many things in nature kill their offspring for "inconveniences". Some animals even eat their young.
http://www.livescience.com...

"The concept of a Parasite is that it isn't supposed to be there. The woman's body was literally made to host it, and to create it. because the Woman's body was designed to host the Baby, the Baby can not be considered a Parasite. it is a Mutual Relationship(2), and not a Parasitic Relationship. In fact, the mother actually gains a lot from the relationship.."

There are healthy and unhealthy parasites. The person carrying the parasites is who determines if the parasite is bothersome enough to need treatment or not.


"The definition of Parasite is too broad, and doesn't fully pinpoint or discribe the complexity of a Mother-Baby relationship."

There are not many definitions of parasite.
par·a·site [par-uh-sahyt] Show IPA
noun
1.
an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
2.
a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
3.
(in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.


All of which defines a baby-mother relationship if the baby is unwanted by the woman carrying it. Perception is key.

"Also, the Woman's body gives the Baby nutrients. The Child doesn't just 'take' the nutrients and support, it is given it by the mother's body. The body ultimately has final say, which is why your heart beats without you making it."

You talk as if the mother has consious control of her maternal functions once impregnated, which is not true.


"The Con claims he would exercise his right to a fair trail. However, since the punishment the Con seeks is the Death Penalty, it would require a crime so bad that the Death Penalty is required. Looking at the list (by state) of crimes punishable by death, nothing the Baby had or could have committed appears on it.(5)

Even breaching the Constitution isn't punishable by Death. You would have to wait until the child is born, then sentence him to prison. Except that you couldn't, because in a fair trial, the Child couldn't be convicted because he is under the age of innocence, and can't be legally held guilty of enslaving the mother, or breaching any laws or amendments."

I hope people reading this has comprehended my arguments better than con, I know I lack some communication skills but he totally ignored what my "fair trial" argument was trying to establish.
The government would be held responsible for the enslavement if I were to win that specific case.

"To began, a parasite is a parasite, not a dependent. The Con clearly does not know how Legal Dependents work."

Pro used a random dictionary for his definition. How was I to know he wanted to stick with legal terms if he didn't specify? Granted we are talking about the constitution, but I was using terms most of us would undestand and use. I don't expect everyone to be a lawyer.

"Legally, the legal definition says what the child is regardless of anything or anyone else's opinion. Again, the Con cherry-picks who he feels has rights. The Mother doesn't dictate what the child is under law... Only the Law can, and the Law dictates that the child is a dependent. Nature built him to be dependent on his Mother, and again (as Con failed to account for in my Prior argument), Nature is above the law.

We see the flaw in Cons logic that a mother chooses what rights her child has here;

A) Child is 15
B) Mother lets child drink alcohol
C) Child still broke the law"

Legally a slave can be a dependant. As for the rest of his comments they are dribble compared to the scenarios we are disussing.We are talking about a fetus and a woman. Not a mother and her teenager.

A better comparison would be:

A)Woman as conjoined twins.
B)Mother decides to split twins for personal reasons.
C)1 of the twins die.

or

A)Mother is pregnant
B)Mother has cancer
C)Mothers treatment of cancer kills baby


"Pregnancy = possible bodily harm of human mother.
Abortion = guaranteed death of human baby."

This is a failed attempt to prove that woman don't suffer agony through pregnancy and labor. Pro is also trying to play on emotions instead of defending his argument.
Therefore homicide is still irrelevant because it is still self defense against bodily harm.

-A mother still has the potential to be a slave.
-The fetus is possibly an unwanted parasite.
-The woman has more right to her body than the fetus.
-A governent which forces a mother to carry for full term is potentially liable for legal restitution for slavery.
-Nature is manipulated by humans for personal desires
-The American constitution trumps the UN cnstitution in America.

Therefore abortion is not against human rights. Making abortion illegal however, would be.
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by donald.keller 4 years ago
donald.keller
And as the true nature of reality become apparent, those laws change. This is why we don't allow child labor anymore. Back then, child labor was perceived as not being that bad. Now we know the reality of the case.

Like-wise, how a woman perceives being a slave isn't important to the law because the law knows the reality of her not being one. Like the definition says:
:: The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

We must be subjective if we all do not know the truth, but when we do... Then it's Objective.
Posted by pozessed 4 years ago
pozessed
"What we think the world is is only important in informal conditions. In a court of law or in Government in general, what the world really is must come first."

We need to create a perception before we can derive laws. It is personal perceptions that create social perceptions which influence the laws and government of which you speak. This understanding of "what the world is" as you put it, would have to come from a persons self revelation first, which will only come from their self perception of what they think the world is.
Posted by pozessed 4 years ago
pozessed
A blind man does not perceive light, but light still exists around him.

re"al"i"ty
noun
1. the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

I thought that was an implication that the blind mans perception was not his reality. IMO both realities exist, his reality with no light and the worlds reality with light.
Posted by donald.keller 4 years ago
donald.keller
I'd say there is perceived reality, but that phrase is an oxymoron. There is what we think the world is, and there is what the world is.

What we think the world is is only important in informal conditions. In a court of law or in Government in general, what the world really is must come first.
Posted by donald.keller 4 years ago
donald.keller
That's a loaded question, and you know that. Such a fallacy....

Before I answer, you must copy/paste where I said that perception doesn't exist?
Posted by pozessed 4 years ago
pozessed
Would you at least agree that there are 2 realities that exist. One is a social reality and the other is a persons individual reality?
Posted by pozessed 4 years ago
pozessed
Are you now implying that a persons perception does not actually exist?
Posted by donald.keller 4 years ago
donald.keller
Reality exists to everyone, even if you don't perceive it. A blind man does not perceive light, but light still exists around him.

re"al"i"ty
noun
1. the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
Posted by pozessed 4 years ago
pozessed
Reality exists to whom regardless of perception?

Are you implying that the person sees a 5 pointed star but claims it's a square?
I am implying a person sees a 4 sided square and claims it is a square even though everyone else sees a 5 pointed star.

It seems wrong to deny that person sees a square when we do not have the same perception as them. It would also make it more complicated if the word square had more than one category of definitions it could fall into. Like if square and star had the same definition to different people.
Posted by pozessed 4 years ago
pozessed
Reality exists to whom regardless of perception?

Are you implying that the person sees a 5 pointed star but claims it's a square?
I am implying a person sees a 4 sided square and claims it is a square even though everyone else sees a 5 pointed star.

It seems wrong to deny that person sees a square when we do not have the same perception as them. It would also make it more complicated if the word square had more than one category of definitions it could fall into. Like if square and star had the same definition to different people.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 4 years ago
bsh1
donald.kellerpozessedTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were far more comprehensive. Technical debate won by Pro.
Vote Placed by Marshall-Abarca 4 years ago
Marshall-Abarca
donald.kellerpozessedTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made much better points than Con did.
Vote Placed by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
donald.kellerpozessedTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: This quote from Con cinched it for me " -A mother still has the potential to be a slave. -The fetus is possibly an unwanted parasite." Several pf Con's contentions were reduced to "possibles." They were not strong to begin with and seemed almost seemed to be abandoned, but not recanted, as Pro continued in his clear and logical approach to the debate and the overall issue. Con seemed to be stretching words and clauses into something that was barely reckognizable as that with which he began. Con had a moderate amount of improper apostrophe and comma usage. Con also misspelled several words. Pro's use of spelling and grammar was much better than Con's usage. Finally, for sources, Con used very few sources, and these sources were not diverse or unique from Pro's myriad of unique and diversified sources. Overall, this was a win for donald.keller, who seems to have put much more preparation into this than pozessed. However, Con put up a good fight. It was just not good enough