The Instigator
Torvald
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
InVinoVeritas
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Abortion is a mother's right.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+16
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...
InVinoVeritas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,494 times Debate No: 26437
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (26)
Votes (3)

 

Torvald

Pro

It should be the prerogative of the mother to have a fetus or embryo aborted, since it is not a child, but an extension of her own body, and remains such until the third trimester. I challenge anyone to make a valid case for why a mother should not be allowed to have an abortion.

The debate shall be conducted under the following rules:
1. No trolling
2. Ordered, at least to some extent, and civil conduct
3. Legible and comprehensible English
4. No sensationalism; unfounded statements like "A person's a person, no matter how small" are to be avoided.
5. No direct accusation or insults about the opponent's sense of morality; limit such things to insinuations and covert assaults, if founded.
6. Try to reply with expediency, so as to avoid forfeiture of rounds, and thus a boring debate.
InVinoVeritas

Con

1. Agreed.
2. Agreed.
3. "Legibility" is not an issue, since these debates are typed. In regards to general comprehensibility, I agree.
4. The statement "A person's a person, no matter how small," in and of itself, is not "unfounded." How valid it is is determined by the context within it is presented. It seems that the opponent deems any blanket statement that he does not find substantiated to be "sensationalist"; this is, of course, arbitrary and incorrect.
5. Agreed.
6. Agreed.

---

I accept the debate. Further clarifications regarding the terms of debate can be discussed in the comments section.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Torvald

Pro

Since I typically like to debate by responding to my opponent's initial case, I shall make a simple enough opening statement, and await your response.

At the age at which abortion is performed, an embryo or fetus is not 'alive,' and therefore cannot be killed. The termination of its development toward life is simply the halting of a biochemical process within the mother's body, to which she has full executive rights, as far as any individual has. It may be prudent later that I define 'alive,' 'embryo,' 'fetus,' and 'organism,' in which case I shall do so. I await the opening of my distinguished opponent.
InVinoVeritas

Con

Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo. [1] This effectively precludes the fetus or embryo's potential from developing further. I will prove that a fetus is morally equivalent to a fully developed human and that therefore, abortion is immoral.

1. The unborn entity, from the moment of concept, is a full-fledged member of the human community
2. It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community
3. Every successful abortion kills an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community
4. Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong [2]

(The term prima facie has been used a lot so far, so I will explain what it means. In Latin, it means "at first sight," [3] and the reason that it is used is that it excludes rare cases in which abortion may be deemed justifiable (e.g., when a mother's life is at risk.))

The part of the argument this debate is concerned with is the first premise, with whether or not a fetus is a full member of the human community (and consequently, whether or not it is morally equivalent to a mature member of this community.) The second statement in the syllogism will serve as an axiom if it is brought up, unless the opponent contests this. We now understand the broad context of this argument, and where it stands in the abortion controversy.

So, without further adieu, let us put narrow our focus.

---

1. Photo Album

Well, I'm flipping through my photo album right now. I see a photo of a small, gleeful InVinoVeritas sitting naked on a dinosaur-themed potty. Is that me? I was so much smaller and less mentally and physically developed. Hell, I had only started college at the time the photo was taken.

I case you were wondering, yes, it was me. It was just me at a different stage of development. A baby InVino became a child InVino became an adolescent InVino became a (childish) adult InVino. But through all of it, I was InVino. My mother was pregnant with and gave birth to me, not someone else who would later become me. Although I developed, my body has maintained the same distinct identity of personhood. I was a fetus at an earlier stage of development. That fetus was me.

Now, if I were the victim of a murder right now, prima facie, then the murder would be considered immoral, since I am a member of the human community. Any case of prima facie murder of InVinoVeritas would be immoral; I am a victim against whom such an act of murder is deemed immoral. If I were killed as a fetus, then who would be the victim? Since I have established that the fetus is still me (at an earlier stage of development), then the victim is namely me.

It is immoral to kill me now, and consequently, it is immoral to kill me as a fetus. [4] In both cases, the victim is the same; the victim is me.

2. SLED

SLED: Size, Level of Devlopment, Environment, Degree of Dependence[5]:

a. Size:

Are moral rights given to those who are bigger? I am shorter than Michael Jordan, and a four-year-old is shorter than me. Size cannot be used to decide whether one is a human or not, nor moral value.

b. Level of Development:

The developing fetus is far more cognitively underdeveloped than a mature adult. But do we assign moral rights based on cognitive ability? Is a child less morally valuable or less human than an adult due to less developed cognitive abilities? People who are insensitive to pain (e.g., sufferers of Congenital Insensivity to Pain with Anhydrosis) or severely mentally disabled to the point that they are not self-aware are disqualified from being human beings? People in comas who are not cognitively able to actively think, feel pain, or be self-aware are disqualified, too? This is, of course, absurd.

c. Environment:

The location of the fetus is irrelevant. If, hypothetically, my mother grew to twenty times her size, and I climbed back into her womb, would I be less human? By being passed from the womb to the outside (a distance of mere inches), a meaningless non-human becomes human?

d. Degree of Dependence:

Dependence does not determine moral value. If you are a lifeguard at a pool, you see someone drowning, and no one else is there to help, what do you do? Do you decide not to help, because the moral value of the drowning person is below human because he/she is dependent on you? That's absurd. An unresponsible teenager may depend on his/her parents, but that does not take away from his/her moral value as a human being.

These traits do not justify the labeling a fetus as a non-member of the human community.

3. Natural abortions

Some state that since many pregnancies result in miscarriages, or spontaneous abortions, that the moral value of fetuses is lower than that of a human being. This, however, is not the case, because it conflates natural death with intentional death. In the words of Norman Geisler, "Protecting life is a moral obligation, but resisting natural death is not necessarily a moral duty" There is no inconsistency between preserving natural life, opposing artificial abortion, and allowing natural death by spontaneous abortion." [6]

Let us say that a group of ten people have been exposed to extreme radiation. Two of them have died, as a direct result. Would killing the other eight people (by our own will) be more moral than killing someone who was not exposed to the radiation? No, because despite the fact that they have a higher chance of facing a natural death in the near future than random members of the general public, they maintain their moral value as human beings. Hence, murdering them would be just as morally wrong.

Now back to Pro.

[1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
[2] Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture
[3] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie
[4] http://www.uffl.org...
[5] http://www.heartlink.org...
[6] http://www.equip.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Torvald

Pro

I will initially challenge your assumptive syllogism. Firstly, an 'unborn entity' is not a member of the human community. Even in the third trimester, when a fetus is recognizable by genus, even sometimes species, it is not yet 'part of the community.' Such a concept is not an objective characteristic. It is like 'tall,' a mere facet of logic completely dependent upon relativity. It is typically considered, however, that the process of birth is what brings a person into the human community, not conception. By that argument, every eukaryotic embryo could be a member of the 'human community,' since it is a while before such a nascent lifeform is even recognizable as mammalian, let alone human. Secondly, I will not dispute the moral issues of killing a member of the 'human community.' Thirdly, you have not yet established how a nascent lifeform that is not even distinguishable as human, let alone a member of the 'human community.' Fourthly, you must establish your original logic, before you can make claims using unsupported assumptions as supporting evidence and foundation.

Regarding My Opponent's "Photo Album"
Well, it is certainly interesting that you like your photo album. Let's try, however, to get through this without issuing any absurdities, 'collegiate.'
You are not actually entirely correct, about being the same person you were as a fetus, infant, child, adolescent, or adult. The very nature of life is that it is constantly changing. You are made of totally different matter from what you were earlier. Your cells are constantly breaking down and being rebuilt with new matter, so that you are never made of exactly the same matter. The only identity that you retain is neural patterns, which fundamentally change throughout life. That fetus became you. It was not you. Any single different factor could totally change who that fetus became.
If you were to kill a member of the 'human community,' it would indeed be considered murder. However, neither a fetus nor an embryo have yet been established as members of such. They are nascent life. They are definitionally not yet alive. They have the potential to come alive. But like a bird egg or a tree seed, they are not yet alive. The potential to become something does not make an object that something. Just because a fetus has the potential to become a living being does not mean it is one. Separated from its mother, it would instantly lose that potential, making it even less alive than a seed or egg.

Regarding My Opponent's "SLED"
A. No, size cannot determine rights. But a fetus is not merely a miniature human, any more than a seed is a miniature tree.

B. The fact is that it is not known to be cognitively active at all. The brain of a fetus or embryo does not begin working until around the third trimester, which is why it is considered unethical to perform an abortion after the second trimester.

C. The fetus is not just a little person, it is not, in fact, even alive. Being born does not change that state. After the second trimester, a fetus gains more independence, and can possibly survive removal from the uterus, another reason that abortions are considered unethical after the second trimester.

D. It is an entirely different sort of dependence. Someone who is already alive, but whose life is in peril, is drastically different from a nascent lifeform. In the case of a mammal, a nascent lifeform is totally dependent (with perhaps the exception of monotremes and marsupials) on its parent. It is not alive at all, it is only feeding off of the parent, so that it might eventually become an individual organism.

The traits you have listed are largely unfounded, and lack scientific support. Additionally, you have yet to establish that a fetus or embryo qualifies as a member of the 'community.' An embryo cannot even be distinguished as unique to a Phylum, and a fetus is, while more developed than an embryo, cannot be recognized as belonging to a specific genus, let alone species. Saying that either is a member of the 'human community' is like saying that caviar is a large fish.

Regarding 'Natural Abortions'
I acknowledge that an embryo or fetus might accidentally perish as a result of miscarriage, or some other accident. However, would it not be evident that if a fetus or embryo is unable to survive on its own after a miscarriage, it is not an independent lifeform? After all, life is defined as "the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally." Neither a fetus nor an embryo metabolizes, reproduces, nor adapts, whether by internal or external changes. It matches no characteristics of life.

You make an interesting case, but I do not see that any of your claims are backed by biology. They are all references to subjective moral musings by minor religious philosophers.

Sources:
Dictionary.reference.com
En.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
En.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus
En.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo
Life: The Science of Biology, Fifth Edition
InVinoVeritas

Con

Just to note, "the unborn entity" that is being referred to in the syllogism happens to be the point of contention in the debate, and whether or not it morally fits in the human community pretty much determines who wins. Since most of the points in the first paragraph are attacking straw men, I'll go point by point.

"Even in the third trimester, when a fetus is recognizable by genus, even sometimes species, it is not yet 'part of the community.' Such a concept is not an objective characteristic."

From my arguments, one can see that in order to qualify as a "part of the human community," one must be morally equivalent to a human. Up to this point in his refutation, he has not provided a moral inequivalence between an unborn entity that will become human and a human.

"It is typically considered, however, that the process of birth is what brings a person into the human community, not conception."

Semantic mislabeling of "human community" and appeal to popularity ("It is typically considered...").

"By that argument, every eukaryotic embryo could be a member of the 'human community,' since it is a while before such a nascent lifeform is even recognizable as mammalian, let alone human."

When did I mention recognizability as a factor? Blatant straw man.

"Thirdly, you have not yet established how a nascent lifeform that is not even distinguishable as human, let alone a member of the 'human community.'"

This is an incomplete sentence and therefore, incomprehensible. (Note that this is against one of terms of debate that the opponent established. Consider for Conduct and S/G points.)

"Fourthly, you must establish your original logic, before you can make claims using unsupported assumptions as supporting evidence and foundation."

All of my arguments are attempting to support the first premise in the syllogism that the opponent is addressing.

Photo Album

Since birth, I have not died. My body is constantly developing since my conception, but from my conception to my current state, I have been InVino. The fetus did not "become me." An InVino with different features became an InVino with his current features, but this continuous spectrum of development, stemming from conception to death, is that of InVino. As the growth period continues, we have a transition from the embryonic stage to the fetal stage, but InVino does not die in between, just like he does not die in between adolescence and adulthood. InVino never split in two or merged with another identity; he has been a single, unified organism since conception. Sure, InVino's cells have been constantly replaced, but they originated from those of the past in a continuous spectrum of InVino's development.

Therefore, InVino has always been morally equivalent to a human being. From conception onward, it was immoral to kill him; since conception, I was the same InVino as I am now, when we consider metaphysical identity. [1]

SLED

a. Size: The idea that a seed to a tree is the same as an embryo to a human is unfounded. There is a confusion between TYPE and STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT. On the contrary, a seed to a tree is the same as an embryo to an ADULT! When we ask what kind of seed/embryo, the answer is clear. "What kind of seed? "Oak." (not "tree") "What kind of embryo?" "Human." (not "adult.")

b. Level of Development: "The brain of a fetus or embryo does not begin working until around the third trimester." That is just wrong. [2]

c. Environment: An adult who cannot be independent and depends on an oxygen mask is still a human, and unless the opponent contests this, his point is invalid. This, however, is more relevant to the next point.

d. Degree of dependence: The opponent proposes that the degree to which an entity is human is founded on degree of dependence. This is unfounded, of course. There is no reason to believe that someone with diabetes and is dependent on an insulin pump is less human than someone who is not.

The fallacy of the "caviar to large fish" is similar to that of the "seed and tree" fallacy that the opponent presented earlier in the debate.

Natural Abortions

The opponent does not directly contest the "natural abortions" case.

The opponent then states: "Neither a fetus nor an embryo metabolizes, reproduces, nor adapts, whether by internal or external changes. It matches no characteristics of life."

Someone whose digestive function is compromised is not human? Someone who is unable to reproduce (pre-puberty or sterile) is not human? It certainly adapts through its development; a developing fetus is affected by environmental stimuli and changes as a result.

---

The opponent fails to refute my case. The Con position stands.

---

[1] http://www.uffl.org...
[2] http://www.buzzle.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Torvald

Pro

In answer to your note, no, the 'unborn entity' is not the point of contention. Whether or not it is a mother's right to have that unborn entity aborted is the issue of contention. Even if it were established that it does indeed fit into the 'human community,' there would still be the issue of whether or not it is the mother's right to remove it from the human community.

Now, if you maintain that I am only attacking straw men, then I would be interested to know what that says of your argument, since I addressed every issue you brought up, point by point. I would think, as well, that the biological properties of the 'unborn entity' are highly in question, since in determining the moral worth of something, you cannot approach by a subjective stance, basing your arguments on photo albums and poorly constructed references to facts, built around the slanted words of religious philosophers. Who is it that is setting up those straw men for me to knock over?

Regarding your first point, I have established that something that is not even alive is certainly not human, since humans are alive. Now, at the embryonic stage one of your unborn entities is basically identical to the embryos of other animals, even ones that belong to different phyla. If you wish to assign equal moral worth to the embryo of a shark that you do to the embryo of a human, then killing anything is as morally questionable as killing a human.

I would like my opponent, and anyone reading this debate, to closely examine the following images, and determine which one you think is deserving of more 'moral worth' than the others.

http://goo.gl...

http://goo.gl...

http://goo.gl...

http://goo.gl...

I imagine that unless you are a biologist, you found it difficult to determine which one of those embryos would one day become a member of the 'human community.' In the next round, I shall announce to my opponent, and to the audience, whether or not your guesses were correct.

Now, I have yet to see my opponent establish that something not alive is morally equal to you and me. I would not call an unconscious bag of cells morally equal to an independent, conscious, aware human.

Regarding the point you make about my statement 'It is typically considered, however, that the process of birth is what brings a person into the human community, not conception,' Do tell us, how is that a semantic mislabelling? That I acknowledge what the average person thinks, and that there may be differences in opinion, by saying "It is typically considered," does not mean that I have mislabelled something. I would like you to explain your words, not just utter them.

Ah, another blatant straw man. Well, please explain why it is such. I would say that recognizability has very much to do with moral worth. If something is indistinguishable as human, it need not necessarily be afforded greater moral worth than any other animal. Again, view the images above, and see if you can afford one of them moral superiority over another.

You are building your argument for your own win based on a stray 'that'? I regard with incredulity that you would criticize a single misplaced relative pronoun. If you like, I can start asking for points based on every accidental grammar mistake you have made. When the rules reference comprehensability, they are meant to apply to things like 'text-speak' and utter nonsense, not commonplace typographical errors. If semantics is the best argument you can make, you'll have a bad time.

Secondly Regarding My Opponent's Photo Album
You may have the same DNA that you have had earlier, and you may have derived neural patters, but I seriously doubt there is a single original cell. A person is always changing. Saying that because you have the same DNA now that you did as a nascent lifeform does not afford your nascent self more moral significance than your independent, living self. One might as well claim that a seed is as valuable as a tree, because it has the same DNA as the tree it might one day grow to become. Ever tried building a house out of seeds?

I understand that from conception, the budding lifeform in the uterus of your mother was going to become you. However, it was not until around the third trimester that you were even remotely capable of living without living off of your parent. You were unconscious, unaware, and undeveloped. Your embryo was different from that of a cat or an elephant only in that it was feeding off of a human. Your fetus was likewise indistinguishable as human, though by that stage of development it was recognizable only as belonging to Hominoidea, the taxonomic Superfamily of apes. Until the third trimester, you're just a budding from your mother. You may have become the person you are now, but metaphysically speaking, that developing bag of cells only became you.

Secondly Regarding My Opponent's SLED
A. Your statement is, I believe, based on either biological ignorance or misunderstanding of my allusion. I will describe the relations in the following analogy sequence:

Seed is to tree as embryo is to adult. Oak seed is to oak tree as human embryo is to adult human.

B. (Next round)

C. (Next round)

D. That much, about an individual with diabetes, is true; they are no less human than an individual without diabetes. However, the issue at hand is not diabetes, it is lack of independent vital functions. The vital functions of someone with such a condition are not nonexistent, or under construction, they are malfunctioning. You suggest that the foundation of a house has the same intrinsic value as the completed house.

Secondly Regarding Natural Abortions
I do not contest the natural abortions case because I do not contest that there is nothing morally wrong with a 'natural abortion,' and because I am out of room. I shall expand in next round.
InVinoVeritas

Con

Contrary to what my opponent has stated, the "unborn entity" is certainly the point of contention. Whether or not something should be killed or not is determined by what that "something" is. And earlier in the debate, the opponent conceded points 2-4 in my syllogism, so the premise of this resolution is founded on the first premise: "The unborn entity, from the moment of concept, is a full-fledged member of the human community."

My arguments are founded on axioms that are grounded in logic and philosophical reasoning. My opponent superficially describes my arguments (e.g., "arguments on photo albums") and implements the fallacy of argumentum ad passiones, or "appeal to emotion." [1]

My opponent is mistaken when he states that different animal embryos are "basically identical." There are certainly several physical and developmental differences among them. [2] However, the difference that I would like to emphasize for this debate is the inherent potential to develop into a human being; a shark embryo does not possess this trait. A human embryo is programmed to develop the structures and functions of a human being, because it is a human embryo, in type. Hence, the equivocation between human and non-human embryos that my opponent attributes to my argument is completely inaccurate and such a use of moral equivalence would be absurd.

My opponent then shows a set of embryos of various species and challenges the reader to evaluate moral worth. This point whithers down to the principle that "appearance determines moral worth," which is inaccurate and does not serve the opponent's argument. For example, if a living human being has serious injuries causes him to be unrecognizable as a human being to me, that does not mean that he has less moral worth as a human being. Furthermore, if I were a sociopath and perceived the life of another person to be of no moral significance, would my killing someone have no moral bearing due to that fact alone? Of course not; limited, arbitrary human perception does not set moral worth.

To further elaborate on my opponent's statement, "It is typically considered, however, that the process of birth is what brings a person into the human community, not conception": 1) This statement appeals to popularity and does not serve the opponent's point. 2) In the everyday definition of "human community," indeed, birth is considered the gateway into it; however, in this debate, we are discussing this "community" in a sense of moral equivalency. Hence, the opponent's statement implements semantic ambiguity to uphold his case.

Photo Album

Question posed by my opponent: "Ever tried building a house out of seeds?" No. To my opponent: Have you ever tried to host a running marathon for infants? Again, a tree and a seed are simply at different stages of development; in the same way, an infant and an adult are at different stages of development. But when we inquire into the TYPE of seed, we will label it by the name of the tree; in the same way, we can label an embryo as human, as opposed to, say, dog. The dilemma that the opponent creates with this analogy simply misrepresents the reality of the situation at hand.

Then my opponent proposes various criteria that supposedly devalue the morality of an embryo as a human. He brings up the issue of dependency; many babies are born needing supplemental oxygen support... Are they morally sub-human? He brings up unconsciousness and unawareness; are temporarily fainting or sleeping people morally sub-human? He then says that a human embryo is solely different from those of other species due to the species of the mother. This is absurd, because there are physical differences, as well as the inherent programmed potential to become a specific species over another.

From a metphysical standpoint, there is a spectrum of life development without pause (i.e., death), and hence, one's identity remains the same from the start of this development (i.e., conception) to the end (i.e., death.)

SLED

a. As the oak seed (a.k.a. "acorn") sprouts into the oak tree, we can analogize each stage of its development with the stages of development of a human being. An oak seed becomes a oak sapling, like a human embryo becomes a human infant. Throughout, however, the seed and sapling remain oak in type, just like the embryo and infant remain human in type.
b. Dropped
c. Dropped
d. The opponent cherry-picks a new criterion to exclude diabetic people by saying that th function must be innately nonexistent. Okay. If someone who is born without legs (and did not develop them during prenatal development) less human than someone who did develop them, even though he may be more dependent on others due to his lack of legs? We can see that the dependency argument is absurd, even as the opponent's arbitrary criteria narrow down.

Natural Abortions

The opponent does not contest this.

---

In conclusion, the unborn entity, from the moment of concept, is a full-fledged member of the human community. Therefore, it is immoral to kill it, as it has the same moral significance as a human at any other stage of development. The resolution has been refuted.

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://wishihadgills.files.wordpress.com...


Debate Round No. 4
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tanner775 4 years ago
Tanner775
Hey InVinoVeritas, I had to create an account just so I could thank you for shining light on a very sensitive and controversial topic that a lot of demographics do not want to hear. I was very impressed with your argument and I hope there are more of you. You may have won the debate but the demographics are against us. =(
Posted by chrisphd 4 years ago
chrisphd
People should have the right to do what they please with their own bodies. So if someone can abort their baby themselves, that's fine, but medical professionals should not be allowed to abort someone else's baby, just as they wouldn't be allowed to remove someone's liver even if requested by the patient.
Posted by babyy 4 years ago
babyy
Hello dear, my name is Ester, i came across your profile now.So I decided to stop by an let you know that I really want to have a good friendship with you. Beside i have something special i want to discuses with you, but I find it difficult to express myself here, since it's a public site. I will be very happy, If you can get back to me, through my e-mail iD(esteredmond(at )ymail.c o m)
Posted by fulltimestudent 4 years ago
fulltimestudent
Yes buh-bye..and u might want to address tour rage issues that are apparent in tma good share of your posts in this thread at least. But i guess a debate forum against a group youre not a part of is a safe outlet
Toodles
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
It must suck to try to distort what it means to be a human being just as an excuse for killing people.

It also must suck to not have any grasp of logic or moral reasoning.

Apparently, it sure sucks to be you. Good bye!
Posted by fulltimestudent 4 years ago
fulltimestudent
It must suck to need to distort so much. The fact that u need to distort that theres never been a person whos completely lackedlungs and bones with a suggestion of removing lungs from an actual person speaks volumes about u
On some level, u must know youre in the wrong. It would be very sad if someone was able to spew so much ridiculous nonsense and actually believed it
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
So, if we took a person and removed their lungs, they would no longer be humans up until the point that they suffocate to death?

I believe in males' and females' rights; however, the right to life that the fetus possesses is far more important than one's right to be comfortable. For example, just because someone greatly annoys us and causes us stress and discomfort, we cannot kill that person; in our system of ethics, right to life is prioritized over the others.
Posted by fulltimestudent 4 years ago
fulltimestudent
Embryoa r no more ppl than Romney is prez of the US keyword:potential..look it up sometime
Posted by fulltimestudent 4 years ago
fulltimestudent
*morally* equivalent?! Lol! So in your OPINION that u wish to deem as moral..a lungless boneless entity that needs to leech off a particular woman is the equivalent of that woman? Well i guess it'd be better to say that the embryo would be equivalent to a man given how low women r on your totem pole FYI...there has never been a person that completely lacked lungs or bones much less both
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
You can misuse words all you want... An embryo is morally equivalent to a human being.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
TorvaldInVinoVeritasTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro bases his argumentation on the unfounded assertion that fetuses are not alive, he takes this premise for granted and does not take seriously or even address arguments to the contrary.
Vote Placed by martianshark 4 years ago
martianshark
TorvaldInVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments used some of the most logical reasoning I've seen. Conduct because Con addressed almost all points, Pro basically dropped B and C, and didn't make very relevant or logical points.
Vote Placed by Straight_A_Kate 4 years ago
Straight_A_Kate
TorvaldInVinoVeritasTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: If they don't want a baby, don't do "it"