The Instigator
Samcoder1
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Aguilajoyce
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Abortion is a reproductive right

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2016 Category: People
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 268 times Debate No: 89417
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Samcoder1

Con

Format of the debate:

1) Acceptance
2) Opening statements
3) Further points/rebuttals
4) Further points/rebuttals
5) Closing statements

Rules are simple:

No trolls, I'm interested in a good debate.
No insults, argue sensibly.

Good luck!
Aguilajoyce

Pro

Hi there!

I would like to accept this challenge and ask if 'right' is to be defined as:

a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.
"she had every right to be angry"
synonyms:entitlement, prerogative, privilege, advantage, due, birthright, liberty, authority, power, license, permission, dispensation, leave, sanction, freedom;

Thanks for engaging me:-)
Debate Round No. 1
Samcoder1

Con

Greetings there! By right I mean the latter, so if I say it is not a right, I'm saying that abortion is not a female entitlement in a free society.

I do not think that abortion is a reproductive right, because it is an issue regarding another life. To call it a reproductive right would be to claim a women has the right to take the life of a human at will solely because it lives inside her, which as a humanitarian is for me a fundamentally wrong idea. The debate ultimately boils down, for me, is whether what exists inside the womb is a living human, which I feel inclined to belief yes, yes it is. Scientifically there is no agreement as to when a ball of cells becomes a human foetus, and so I see more and more people justifying abortions with arbitrary anatomical features (a developed brain) or otherwise (can survive outside the womb) which make no progress to actually deciding when it becomes human. One could argue it isn't human until it has first sucked its thumb; yet another arbitrary deciding point albeit a very exaggerated one. I do not believe in ending a life for convenience, or for mercy with the assumption that disabled babies are better of not existing. I would be lenient if lives were at risk, but with new developments in medicine and C sections, this is increasingly irrelevant. I think that ending the life of a young human is not a right by any means, and that no one regardless of their situation should be the arbiter of who should live and who should die.
Aguilajoyce

Pro

Hiya!

So to summarize,your argument is:

that abortion is not a female entitlement in a free society...because it is an issue regarding another life.
That allowance of...a reproductive right would be to claim a women has the right to take the life of a human at will. The fact that it lives inside her, for you, is immaterial.
That taking a life, as a humanitarian is... fundamentally wrong or that
no one, regardless of their situation, should be the arbiter of who should live and who should die.
And finally, The debate ultimately boils down, for me, is whether what exists inside the womb is a living human, which I feel inclined to belief yes, yes it is.
Although you concede that, Scientifically there is no agreement as to when a ball of cells becomes a human foetus.

It seems then at the onset, that it all comes down to a value judgment which is defined appropriately as "An assessment of a person, situation, or event. The term is often restricted to assessments that reveal the values of the person making the assessment rather than the objective realities of what is being assessed.

This means you are simply pro-life, that you value human life, or feel it should be preserved, above all, which is good, but regrettably, only subjective. So the argument is not about life, it is about values.

Even if we could prove definitively that, at conception, the life is human, we still must admit that it is our values and values alone, that dictate how that life should proceed. This debate extends far beyond the womb. How children should be nurtured, e.g., their diet, education, future etc, varies from country to country, culture to culture, family to family, and person to person. People who are pro-choice simply reject what they feel is an over-extension of those values into the life of the individual.
The facts are, human or not, a foetus is 100% dependent in the woman's body to exist. yes it is alive, but its life cannot be separated from her body. Upon implantation (adhering to the womb for nourishment) and several weeks after, any attempt to seperate this life from its attachment to her body is certain death. So the woman's ownership is pretty clear cut as embyonic transfers, post-implantation is not yet possible. What im saying is that nurture is very much so a choice, i.e., a willful act. It can never be an imposed obligation. Just as in nature, a mother decides because noone else can relieve her of this responsibility. If she sees no value in the life, or is unable to nurture it, it is lost.

If we force her? Well..we have seen the failed results with unwilling mothers who do just enough to avoid prosecution... Lol. If she bears the child, then she is legally responsible for it until it is of age (unless she endures the stigma and gives it up), Also because nurture is subjective (kids don't come with instructions), to force one to mother a child, instantly places the child at risk, because it is totally dependent on someone who does not want it/the responsibility! Will we interrogate miscarriages to ensure they were not intentional? Did they eat everytime they were hungry, take their prenatal vitamins, voice every concern at doctors visits? The lengths we would have to go to secure the life of the child only indicate, how far we would be overreaching!!!
So to take away this right would be to usurp control of her biology, or turn it into a liablity to their autonomy. Women did not choose their bodily capabilities, it is something that happens to us, whether we desire it or not...i.e.,we are born with it, but it does not wholly define us. We have the right to a life without childbearing. So just because we can, does not mean we must. Should we obligate a man to intercourse everytime his penis becomes erect? I know it is not a life, but it was once considered 'wrong' to masturbate because it was the 'makings' of life.

I guess that's good for now...

Looking forward to your response...
Debate Round No. 2
Samcoder1

Con

Of course my case comes down to my own personal values which include human life having fundamental value. That is my personal opinion, however I think it is an opinion that people really ought to share. Humans share rights that other animals do not including the right to life which is not the case with others in the animal kingdom I think due to this fundamental value. Now I think that if we are to bring subjective morality into the debate, the pro choice advocate could argue that the lives of conscious humans or humans that can survive out of the womb don't have value either and so those humans under the parent's responsibility that cause a nuisance or are particularly inconvenient like the disabled can be discarded as well. I think a slippery slope could easily develop if we are to say human life has value only in specific situations.

I'm not sure if I quite understand your argument about 'Even if we could prove definitively that, at conception, the life is human, we still must admit that it is our values and values alone, that dictate how that life should proceed. This debate extends far beyond the womb. How children should be nurtured, e.g., their diet, education, future etc, varies from country to country, culture to culture, family to family, and person to person. People who are pro-choice simply reject what they feel is an over-extension of those values into the life of the individual.' so please correct me if I misunderstand. I think there is however a big distinction between how one raises a child and whether the child should be raised. However I am still a little confused so if you could try to explain it a little further I'd appreciate it.

'If she sees no value in the life, or is unable to nurture it, it is lost.' I very much disagree with this. Just because the mother does not see value in a life, that does not mean it doesn't have value. If a murderer didn't value his victims, we would still stop him, as the lives are valuable regardless of whether he thinks so or not. The fact that a woman can get pregnant is an unfortunate biology fact, however I don't think that the ability to survive outside the womb or not is the deciding factor when it comes to 'is this human life worth saving?'. Just because it is dependent, that doesn't mean it doesn't mean the value of human life is diminished. It means it the child is more of an inconvenience, but when did convenience justify murder?

If a mother did not want a child and so mistreated it, the mother would be charged with child abuse or neglect. I don't think that the best way of stopping women from abusing their children is to kill their children. Two wrongs don't make a right. If human life does have value, I think it is important to investigate if people are ending lives. I don't think that looking into the reasons miscarriages occurred is so bad that we should end the lives instead. Again this is simply a convenience thing. Would you not go to extreme lengths to see the cause of death of a child outside the womb? Just because it is inconvenient to investigate foetus deaths and foetus abuse, that does not mean we should allow parents to kill the foetus.

It is only usurping control of her biology if the foetus was part of her body, like a kidney or a limb, but it is not. Also women do not have to get pregnant. The only argument you could make with saying women didn't choose to be able to bear children is to argue rape victims should be allowed abortions, which does not make it a reproductive right.

I think it is very dangerous to claim human life doesn't have value in certain situations, especially when disability is the justification. I also think that if one is to believe human life has value (which anyone who disagrees with murder apparently believes), it is wrong to have abortion be a thing of convenience and a 'right' that women can exercise at will. With abortion legal in the UK, 37% on abortions are done with people who have already had one or more (1). This shows that people are more than happy to end life when it suits them, which is not something I think society should be encouraging.

(1) https://www.gov.uk...
Aguilajoyce

Pro

Of course my case comes down to my own personal values which include human life having fundamental value. That is my personal opinion, however I think it is an opinion that people really ought to share.Personal opinions and value judgments are a poor way to engage in a debate, for two reasons. 1/they are often unfounded (not factually provable), and usually employ circular logic, which is fallacious, e.g., “Something is good/bad, because I believe/say it is good.” You are not my authority so determining what is good/bad, neither am I yours so we must find an authority to which we both submit. That authority is logic. Pardon the pedantry…but it seems we are not on the same page as to the rules of engagement.So you admit that it is your personal opinion, and you also admit by saying that it not scientifically provable when a fetus is human that your claims are both unsound and invalid.

Your burden is to prove why your values are more rational/sound/or even better than mine.

I hope you recognize this and adjust your claims accordingly, in the meantime I will respond to your points:

Humans share rights that other animals do not including the right to life which is not the case with others in the animal kingdom I think due to this fundamental value.Here is the problem with value judgments.if humans truly share the right to life, why are we having this debate? Why are humans around the world still killing other humans? Why do wars and murder exist? It is apparent that either we do not share this right, or that even if it existed universally, we still have the freedom to not obey/act in contrary to what we believe/know to be good, which makes your personal opinion irrelevant.

Now I think that if we are to bring subjective morality into the debate, the pro choice advocate could argue that the lives of conscious humans or humans that can survive out of the womb don't have value either and so those humans under the parent's responsibility that cause a nuisance or are particularly inconvenient like the disabled can be discarded as well. I think a slippery slope could easily develop if we are to say human life has value only in specific situations. This is true!!! As I said before, nurture is subjective. A parent’s childhood, his ideology and his/her personal opinion affects how they raise their children. There is no objective right and wrong because children do not come with instructions. So on whose authority do you say claim a certain typr of nurure or unwiilngnes to nurture is wrong? The law (a commonly held authority) does not state that it is illegal to see your child as an annoyance/inconvenient. It does not yet affirm (in all states) that it is wrong to terminate a pregnancy, which is why we are having this debate ;-)

I'm not sure if I quite understand your argument about...However I am still a little confused so if you could try to explain it a little further I'd appreciate it. (this is explained above)

If a murderer didn't value his victims, we would still stop him, as the lives are valuable regardless of whether he thinks so or not. ‘Ahhh…this is because we have a commonly held, external value i.e., the law. The law on abortion is currently being decided so until then, it is just our opinion. I hope you see what I mean. The fact that a woman can get pregnant is an unfortunate biology fact, however I don't think that the ability to survive outside the womb or not is the deciding factor when it comes to 'is this human life worth saving?'. Just because it is dependent, that doesn't mean it doesn't mean the value of human life is diminished. It means it the child is more of an inconvenience, but when did convenience justify murder? I don’t think pregnancy is unfortunate. When a person is ready to take on this responsibility, pregnancy can be a very good thing. The ability to survive outside the womb is a key point. If a fetus must depend on the life of the mother, then the mother has the right to allow it to persist or not.

If a mother did not want a child and so mistreated it, the mother would be charged with child abuse or neglect. And how many incidents of abuse do you think are actually reported, especially regarding the abuse of the unborn???? I don't think that the best way of stopping women from abusing their children is to kill their children. I don’t think I said this…lol. I think I said that when we force people to do things out of obligation (with the threat of punishment), their motivation is often lacking. Two wrongs don't make a right. If human life does have value, I think it is important to investigate if people are ending lives. ... that does not mean we should allow parents to kill the foetus. You dismiss ‘convenience’ at your peril. Humans generally lean toward that which is convenient. And I probably would go to extremes to ascertain the cause of death of a child, but you must concede, in light of the many crimes that go unpunished, for adults and children alike, that the resources required to establish proof of ‘foul play toward the unborn would have to be so invasive that they would infringe upon a womans individual rights.

It is only usurping control of her biology if the foetus was part of her body, It is part of her body, if it is separated, especially in the first trimester, it will wither and die, like a kidney or a limb!!! Embryos cannot be moved after implantation. Also women do not have to get pregnant. Sex is an act that has become increasingly about sensual pleasure, rather than to procreate. If you can justify imposing a lifelong responsibility, for an unintentional result of a very natural act, I am all ears/eyes. The harsh truth is that to abort a child that you do not want is more responsible than giving birth to it and either keeping it (which creates resentment) or maing it society's responsibility. People gripe everyday about having to support parents who cannot support themselves and their children, and the poor socialization (rearing) of children who become liabilities to our society.

The only argument you could make with saying women didn't choose to be able to bear children is to argue rape victims should be allowed abortions, which does not make it a reproductive right. So you are willing, in the case of rape (emotional/psychological) or risk to the life of the woman (physical), to back off your pro-life position, but the life inside her is still not responsible for its own origin. Is the value of a life less in these situations? Or is the life of an unborn child, simply subordinate to the condition (physical and emotional)? Well that’s all I’m saying too, I just think volition is a valid justification as well.

...This shows that people are more than happy to end life when it suits them, which is not something I think society should be encouraging. So again, human life doesn’t have objective or shared value,as there are people (adults and children alike who suffer and perish without just cause (even in a wealthy country like ours). The unlawfulness of murder, has nothing to do with intrinsic value for human life, but rather what is good for our society. Governments, like people, rationalize death and killing every day. The world is overpopulated, so adding another unwanted life is not the answer to our problems. If you can prove that it is better that women should bear children, regardless of their volition, the circumstances surrounding conception, or their health, this would be a quality argument. Also if you believe that a life has value/purpose, wouldn’t it be more appropriate that the life created arrive with that purpose in mind and not as an impediment to the purpose the parents feel it has for them? Your view that the reproductive rights are just a loophole for people who want to kill their children is an attempt to impose a responsibility on the unwilling simply so that you can forward your view of what you believe to be right.

Debate Round No. 3
Samcoder1

Con

I say that it is not scientifically provable because so many people appear to be ready to claim 'This is NOT human yet, and so I have the right to kill it' which I don't think is logically sound. If we cannot scientfically deduce whether the foetus is human or not, in order to avoid bias, we should say that human life either starts at conception or at birth. To say any point inbetween is simply to give your own personal opinion (if I can turn it around on you) and say 'This point in time is good enough for me' which is not a logical point. I think that my values are better than yours because if we are to say, without exception, that human life has value, then it would eliminate the possiblity of the slippery slope developing.

It would prevent governments ever saying that one life is worth less than another, and so we can get rid of it. You ask why murder exists, they exist because murderers cannot grasp a socially compatible morality. If everyone murdered, there would be no society, and so society deems it wrong. Murderers simply disagree with this morality, that I would argue, if we want social cohesion, is a worse morality than my own. You'll notice that wars that are not justified are often condemned by the general public and murders are put in prison. Humans perhaps don't typically think human life has value, however I think it is in the best interests of society if such an idea is taken up. This would lead to punishment for murder, and avoiding wars at all costs.

Ultimately this comes down to your next, and arguably most important, point which is 'So on whose authority do you say claim a certain typr of nurure or unwiilngnes to nurture is wrong?'. If we take this position and say to each their own, it means that there should be no discouragement or punishment for child abuse, murder, torture and all the other things that we generslly deem unacceptable. Nurture is subjective, but surely you'd agree child protection services should step in if a child is being abused? Even if this is simply the parent's way of bringing up their child? The law is not always right, and a short time ago child protection services didn't exist. However I think the law should change as we start to recognise better versions of right and wrong. I think that introducing child protection was a good idea, which you may disagree with, but I feel very strongly that parents should not have ultimate control of their children, including the right to kil.

If a fetus must depend on the life of the mother, then the mother has the right to allow it to persist or not.

Again this is an arbitrary point in time, why is this the case? What is the logical argument for if the life depends on her, it can be killed?

I probably would go to extremes to ascertain the cause of death of a child

You would personally? Are would you prefer to have a police system that investigates these matters? Because by your logic, this kind of system is trying to inforce what you consider right and wrong, and so is unjustified. After all, some parents do kill their children, so not every agrees with you. See what I mean?

It is part of her body, if it is separated, especially in the first trimester, it will wither and die, like a kidney or a limb!!!

Here we come to the enormous problem I have with this. A foetus is not a kidney or limb. It is a human life. It is so easy to dehumanise the cells in the womb to make it easier to kill. In Nazi Germany, the untermenschen were killed because they were sub humans. It is the same argument we hear from murders all across the world, you dehumanise it before you kill it, because that way you don't have to feel bad about it.

If you can justify imposing a lifelong responsibility, for an unintentional result of a very natural act

Easy, whether its intentional or not, murder is murder, and murder is wrong. If murder is not wrong in certain conditions, why not extend those to killing the disabled. You mentioned earlier that over population is a problem. Why not kill all the old who aren't being productive, and all the disabled who can't function as well as ourselves.

So you are willing, in the case of rape (emotional/psychological) or risk to the life of the woman (physical), to back off your pro-life position

Nope I don't back off, I said you could only argue such a thing in the case of rape, and I still would not budge. Rape is very unfortunate, but I don't think killing a child is an appropriate response. And if mother and child are at risk I would back off a little as I'm pro-life in general not just of foetuses, and so if its two lives gone or one, I'd go for one.

The unlawfulness of murder, has nothing to do with intrinsic value for human life, but rather what is good for our society.

Nothing has intrinsic value except for what we say it has. Water has no intrinsic value considering the universe doesn't care if life exists or not. However it is important to us, hence intrinsic value. We decide what has value because it is good for our society.

I forward my view because I think that life has value. If you saw a child being beaten death by they're parent, would you not intervene? Because if you did that would be imposing your beliefs, which is big no no in your books. We think the holocaust was awful. But thats just our opinion, Hitler didn't share it, and so the holocaust shall continue. Horrible things happen every day, and it is the duty of everyone to raise their voices to challenge such things. I am doing it with abortion. If I had complete control of the world, it would be bad if I imposed my values, but I don't. I can only make my points and try to convince others to join me. If enough people think abortion is bad, it will be banned and there you go. I impose my beliefs only to the extent of convincing others that my view of human life is the right one.
Aguilajoyce

Pro

"I say that it is not scientifically provable because so many people appear to be ready to claim 'This is NOT human yet, and so I have the right to kill it' which I don't think is logically sound."

I'm sorry, let us begin again. If its not a right to not refuse an entity that is not you (as you claim it is a separate life with its own value) to attach and feed off of you for survival, I wonder what you perceive self-ownership or bodily integrity to be? Foetuses cannot claim bodily integrity/ or even selfhood because they cannot live independently until they are 22-28 weeks. These are the principle behind the abortion argument. So we claim to have the right over total control of our bodies (tattoos, surgeries, sex, clothing etc, ...but when it comes to the choice of whether we want another being to use our bodies to sustain life, all bets are off because of someone else's (scientifically unproven or undetermined) claims of human life, value and right and wrong? Please see link:
http://www.newsweek.com... ;

"To say any point inbetween is simply to give your own personal opinion (if I can turn it around on you) and say 'This point in time is good enough for me' which is not a logical point. I think that my values are better than yours..."

My claim about the first trimester is not my own opinion, because it is scientifically evidenced that foetal viability is only 25% at 22 weeks, and that figure is seen as promising!!! And this is according to a recent study, prior to that it was 24-26 weeks, which is why the cutoff for abortions is around this time. But until then, it must take its nutrients from the host (lol), I mean mother. So if it cant survive on its own then the whole right to life becomes questionable, because that right does not include the infringement on the life of another. If a person sees this
physiological relationships as undesirable, they have a right to sever it, because they have a right to bodily integrity.

Also your claim, "it would eliminate the possiblity of the slippery slope developing." I must point out that the slippery slope argumeny is a textbook, logical fallacy. I tried to ignore it but you keep repeating it. Lol:

SLIPPERY SLOPE: (sometimes called a snowball argument or domino theory) suggests that if one step or action is taken it will invariably lead to similar steps or actions, the end results of which are negative or undesirable. A slippery slope always assume a chain reaction of cause-effect events which result in some eventual dire outcome.

Examples: "It would prevent governments ever saying that one life is worth less than another, and so we can get rid of it." (Abortion leads to the govt taking away the equal right to life of all citizens)

Or "If everyone murdered, there would be no society, and so society deems it wrong." (Assumption that Society believes if one murders all will murder) The murder is addressed because it encroaches on an individuals right to life, which our govt must protect in order for us to give it authority to rule. It does not assume we will all kill each other if murderers are not punished...

"Humans perhaps don't typically think human life has value, however I think it is in the best interests of society if such an idea is taken up."

That's commendable, but where's your proof for this best interest?

"If we take this position and say to each their own, it means that there should be no discouragement or punishment for child abuse, murder torture and all the other things that we generslly deem unacceptable."

Ummm...not so. I never said to each his own, I believe I've made a few pleas for us to appeal to a common authority. Lol. I am saying according to what we commonly regard as true/rational (the law, nature, science, logic), the right to life does not yet apply to human beings who cannot self sustain that life. This is why it is not murder to disconnect people from life support. So to each his own... okay, but only if his life is his own (not directly dependent upon others), and only in as much as his own does not encroach upon the own of another (murder, violence, child abuse, etc. ) Lol.

"Are would you prefer to have a police system that investigates these matters? Because by your logic, this kind of system is trying to inforce what you consider right and wrong, and so is unjustified."

Well I did not specify "extremes", so I take your point, but I meant in a -leave-no-stone-unturned way, not in a murderous vigilante kind of way...lol

"Easy, whether its intentional or not, murder is murder, and murder is wrong. If murder is not wrong in certain conditions, why not extend those to killing the disabled. You mentioned earlier that over population is a problem. Why not kill all the old who aren't being productive, and all the disabled who can't function as well as ourselves."

Ummm...Murder is not murder whether unintentional or not...that's kind of the point. It is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Lol

And my point of overpopulation was not to forward eugenics ...lol. I am saying that considering the current state of the humans that are here, why incriminate those who choose not to bring forth a life that they do not want responsibilty for?

"Nothing has intrinsic value except for what we sayn it has. Water has no intrinsic value considering the universe doesn't care if life exists or not. However it is important to us, hence intrinsic value."

Nothing has intrinsic value, period. We cannot intrinsic value to things. The value we give things based on what is important to us is arbitrary. Intrinsic means that the value is inherent/ built-in/ inborn.

"I forward my view because I think that life has value. If you saw a child being beaten death by they're parent, would you not intervene? Because if you did that would be imposing your beliefs, which is big no no in your books."

Again, a parent beating their child is not an abortion. The child in your example has met the qualification for self sustaining life i.e., he will not perish if he is separated physically from his parent. So he is covered by the right to life, which is what makes the parent's actions unlawful. I would not be imposing anything, because my intervention (reason for doings so is preestablished) i.e.,the parent, child and I all have this right according to the law of the land. So though my personal view might condemn him, i cannot intervene without reasonable/ rational justification (common authority thing, again).
Debate Round No. 4
Samcoder1

Con

I wonder what you perceive self-ownership or bodily integrity to be?

I would say bodily integrity is controlling your body unless it contains another life! I don't think of a foetus as a kidney up until it could survive 25% of the time outside the womb, at which point its value sky rockets. What is the logical step between survival outside the womb, and it being valuable enough to ban discarding? It appears to me to just be another arbitrary point in time. If you would accept that it is a human life in there, how can you say this life only gains worth when it can survive unaided (although not entirely unaided of course, most babies would die of starvation even after birth unless tended to reasonably often). What you appear to say is it gains worth when it can survive with aid only when that aid isn't given inside the mother, which doesn't seem like a logical point at all.

So if it cant survive on its own then the whole right to life becomes questionable, because that right does not include the infringement on the life of another.

To turn your argument on you, why does the right to life become questionable? Why does the right to life not apply if another's life is infringed? You appear to be making two points here: 1) Its right to life is questionable if it can't survive on its own and 2) it does not have the right to life because it infringes on anothers life. Two separate points that I think are a little confused here. Unless you mean it is only questionable if it infringes upon anothers life AND it cant survive on its own. Which seems like a personal opinion to me. (something which you have criticised me of).

I must point out that the slippery slope argumeny is a textbook, logical fallacy.

I did not argue that abortion leads to a slippery slope, I said that a limited view on human value leads to a slippery slope. The Jews in Nazi Europe were considered lesser beings and less worthy of their lives, which promptly led to their extermination. Blacks have often been killed due to their lives being considered less valuable than white lives. We already have Richard Dawkins claiming that 'not aborting a baby with down syndrome is cruel' or words to that effect. Why is it a logical fallacy that saying human life does not have value (or only has value in certain circumstances) will lead to ending human life? If we are to agree that it is thus best to say human life invariably has value, we must also apply that to foetuses.

the right to life does not yet apply to human beings who cannot self sustain that life.

And so it never should apply? Because blacks didn't have the right to life once, and thank God that idea changed. Morality changes, nothing is set in stone, and I think that using the whole 'it isnt against the law, therefore its okay' attitude isn't helpful with ethical problems.

Murder is not murder whether unintentional or not...that's kind of the point. It is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."

Ahh I see, true, it isn't murder. Although I'd argue that it is a bad definition, considering premediated implies a killing of passion doesn't classify as murder. But true murder is the wrong word, although killing still applies. My apologies.

considering the current state of the humans that are here, why incriminate those who choose not to bring forth a life that they do not want responsibilty for?

Bring forth a life might imply that a foetus isn't alive, which isn't true. They are alive as are all cells. And if you mean bring up a life, again what if a parent didn't want to raise their disabled child? Killing it doesn't justify it.

The child in your example has met the qualification for self sustaining life

Again what is this qualification? Why is self sustaining life just a milestone that it gives humans rights they did not initially have? Self sustaining also only means sustained by very careful attention by scientists in a lab. Hardly self sustained.
Aguilajoyce

Pro

So my conclusion/closing to this debate is as follows.

You state that your reasoning for the resolution which rejects abortion as a reproductive right is:

1. That it is your personal opinion that it is in best interest of society and that other humans should share it.

This is fallacious logic as it is unfounded and circular, thought you still offer it in support of your claim.

2. Your only attempt to back it up has been by relying on yet another fallacy, which is the slippery slope, in which you claims that if abortion (which you deem a violation of the right to life) is permitted, it will lead to the 'slippery slope' where the goverment can then value and devalue human life at will.

But this is also flawed reasoning. Taking a life is permitted (not unlawful) under certain conditions, (self defense, war, capital punishment, etc.) but that does not mean that all killing e.g, murder, manslaughter is, or will ever be lawful.

3. You acknowledge that there is no scientific proof for when a human is a human, yet still maintain that those humans that live within other humans should have an equal right to life as 'born' individuals.

My rebuttal has been that human rights, includes the rights of the individual to sovereignty, both physically and mentally, Because these rights are based on a functional definition of human beings (how human beings behave/exist), i.e., that a human life is self-sustaining/self supporting; or does not require that we place designs on the lives of others to survive; abortion is permissible because to deny it would give a foetus (a non-self sustaining life) the right to feed and thrive on another person against their will! So to permit this right, directly encroaches on the rights of another. This does not apply to foetuses who can survive outside the womb, which is why abortion laws have specified a point at which the termination is not legal, i.e., when the fetus can survive outside the womb.

Though it has been contentious at times, lol... I am sincerely grateful for your attention to this engagement!!!

.



Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Samcoder1 7 months ago
Samcoder1
What a lovely message, many thanks! Until next time...

Samuel
Posted by Aguilajoyce 7 months ago
Aguilajoyce
Well it was very much a pleasure....so many thanks to you also.
In response to retention of your opinion: It was never my hope/intention to reconstruct your values. Anyone who enters a debate with the expectation of producing some epiphany in their opponent is doomed to disillusionment...lol. I think you presented a cogent argument in a civil manner, which places you far ahead of many, in my opinion. I agree with much that you said, as I am not pro-abortion but pro choice...i think many people dismiss this distinction...lol.

I look forward to future engagements!!!!

Jaguilar
Posted by Samcoder1 7 months ago
Samcoder1
Many thanks for the debate! I have taken on board your points and will reconsider my stance although I think I'll probably still end up in the same place. Very much appreciated!
Posted by Aguilajoyce 8 months ago
Aguilajoyce
Apology not necessary...lol. I completely understand.
Posted by Samcoder1 8 months ago
Samcoder1
I'd like to apologise, I misread what you wroteand I do agree with your definition, and I apologise for any poor grammar. I should've read through it more carefully.
No votes have been placed for this debate.