The Instigator
double_edged_words
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
lazarus_long
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Abortion is wrong

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2007 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,580 times Debate No: 1171
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (13)

 

double_edged_words

Pro

Abortion. It is the killing of unborn baby's. In this debate I will call it the fetus. Killing a fetus is murder. You would not kill your friend if you coulld not take care of him. All humans are born with the inatwe trait of intelligence. Humans are sentinel beings. We can think. A fetus si still a human being meening that it is sentinel, it can think, it is alive. If you saw a baby alone, on a dark cold night would you not take pitty on it or would you kill it? Abortion is the worst scapegoat I can think of. The fetus is alive. It fills the qualifications for life: it has a metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and cell reproduction. Can life be human? I believe so. the facts clearly point to it. A fetus is of human beginnings and was caused by humans so therefore it is human. Also, this fetus is unique. It has its own DNA that it will keep for the remainder of its life, It has its own characteristics like eye color and even skin tone. It is unique. There has be no baby born like him before or ever will be again.

to except the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a mater of taste or opinion.. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contension, it is plain experimental evidence. (Jernoe L. LeJeune) You were once a fetus.
Before the first month a fetus has a nervus system so it can feel and even control movements. By the end of the month the cerebral cortex ( controls thinking and the nervous system) is developed. Consequently brain waves are being sent out. All qualities of a sentential being.

By the second month the fetus is able to feel pain like us. This is also the time when most abortions accur. The pained expressions on the baby's faces, The known ability to feel, and the current methods for abortion = pain for the fetus. It will only get worse the longer the fetus grows. Just because woman, even those aware of the circumstances, will do it any ways does not make it right. We should not allow them to choose if it fits there ethics. If that happened World War 2 would have been good and the Germans would have been right. Woman should not irresponsibly put themselves in the position to get pregnant if they could not suport or car for a baby in the first place.

I look forward to your response.
lazarus_long

Con

My opponent has made the claim that "killing a fetus is murder," and attempted to justify that claim with a number of well-worn, but still quite invalid, assertions. I will show why these are invalid, and why abortion per se is not at all "wrong" and should by no means be considered "murder" - that it is a difficult choice for anyone to make is certainly true enough, but the right to make that choice needs to remain with the individual and must be protected by our society's legal system.

My opponent makes numerous comparisons of the fetus to other individuals who clearly could not be legally or morally killed: e.g., "you would not kill your friend if you could not take care of him," or the question of what you would do if "you saw a baby alone, on a dark cold night..." But no reason is given as to just why we should consider the fetus, especially in the early stages of pregnancy, as the moral equivalent of a friend or a baby.

We are told that humans are "sentinel beings," and the claim is made that the fetus is also "sentinel" and "can think." Assuming that the intended word here was "sentient," making this claim for the fetus is highly questionable. We should note that the unborn is not technically referred to as a "fetus" until approximately 8th-10th week of pregnancy (prior to this, it is an "embryo"), but even at this point it is approximately an inch and a quarter long and weighs perhaps 4 or 5 grams. By the 14th week, average fetal mass is perhaps 40-45 grams, about the same as a first-class letter - and roughly the same as the brain mass of, say, an ostrich. The mass of the fetal brain alone is, of course, considerably less, comparable to that of a large rodent (but, of course, the fetal brain at this point is considerably less defined and developed than the adult rat's). So if the fetus is alleged to "think," at least up to this point (well into the second trimester), it's rather hard to imagine what it's thinking WITH. There is simply no evidence of sufficient brain development or organization to support anything that could be remotely considered "sentience" until a very good deal later.

My opponent also makes the assertion that the fetus "has a nervous system," a cerbral cortex, and "brain waves are being sent out" by the end of the first month of development. This is a myth which has been presented as fact by any number of anti-abortion groups, but the reality is quite different. The claims are based on the misinterpretation of several medical research papers, and the errors of these claims are detailed here:

http://eileen.250x.com...

Note in particular that the only claim which can be supported by the cited research is that fetal brain-stem cells are shown to be alive and functioning at approximately 70 days into the fetal development - but that this is a far cry from "brain waves," and is no more significant in terms of the development of a conscious mind than noting the functioning of muscle cells through similar electrical signals.

That the fetus is "alive" and is of the human species cannot be denied, but then the same can be said of any of the cells of my body. They live, they can reproduce (for instance, a culture of cells grown in a medical laboratory), and they are clearly "human" in nature. But we do not consider the disposal of a petri dish containing cultured liver cells, for instance, to be "murder." The fetus is undeniably a POTENTIAL human being, but so is any cell from which the genetic material required for cloning could be obtained. The question is not whether or not the fetus is genetically human, but whether it warrants moral consideration as a PERSON.

But, we are told, the fetus has "unique DNA." If this, though, is the defining quality of a person, we would have to consider identical twins to be only one person. We do not, so there must be something more to "personhood" than simply having one's own unique set of genes.

My opponent concludes with the unfortunately all-too-typical and ludicrous comparison of abortion rights to the ethics of Nazi Germany. Complete nonsense, and a desperate attempt at a "guilt by association" argument. The facts speak for themselves; no evidence whatsoever has been given to suggest that the fetus, especially during the first trimester (which is the period in which abortion cannot be restricted by the state, per Roe v. Wade), is worthy of moral or legal consideration as a person, and no justification has been given for the state interfering in what clearly must remain a very personal decision.
Debate Round No. 1
double_edged_words

Pro

What is the defining character of any person? Is it enough to just be human or is there something else. Do you have to look human? Do you have to be alive? Is it just DNA? What changes from when a baby is right about to leave to when it is born? Of course it is still developing and growing but aren't we all? My opponent compared the fetus's brain to the brain of a rodent. This fact is well known and has been known for a while but its brain does not characterize whether it is a person or not. A person who is brain dead is alive and sends out minute pulses from its brain but it is still a person none the less. The main difference is that a fetus has the potential to have a fully developed brain. How can something be a product of two people and not be a person? You were once just some small fetus with a tiny brain. You are and were still a person would you want me to kill you because I was to irresponsible to care for you or did not want any one to find out. My opponent gave no actual evidence that a fetus is not a person. He only stated that it would be a stupid person yet a person none the less. So with that in mind is it survival of the fittest, kill the weak? What changes from when it is born to when it is still alive and well in the mother's womb.

What is the defying characteristic of a human? It is a conscious. Why should a bunch of atoms have thinking ability? (Micheal Ruse) It is not just the ability to compute but to think. Even now you are agreeing or disagreeing with what I am saying. If there were no consciousness then an apple would still be red but you would not be aware of it being red or have any sensations of it being red (J.P. Morelan). There is a difference, though, between the brain and the mind. Were is the conscious is in are brain? No one seems to have found it; the reason is because it is not there. The mind although interacting with the brain is separate. There is no equation or formula for this but if this was not true and there was nothing but physical then we would have no free will because everything would be guided by the laws of nature and there for we would have no real choice. No madder how much scientist probe the brain there will not be a place that they can stimulate and make the person change there opinion or decide.

Without a conscience we would act like computers. We could not think. The defining character that makes a human a person is a conscience, the ability to have feelings. There has never been a human that did not have a conscious. A embryo/fetus/baby must have a conscience. When it is born a conscience is not zapped into him. Nothing has changed. No, it is an innate quality all humans have deffing the fetus as a person. My opponent claims that a 1 month old baby does not have a primitive nervous system and cerebral cortex. This is a known fact and not a myth. The baby would not be able to function without it. I stated this in my last argument and I will state it again. The women should not put themselves in the position to get pregnant in the first place. If you mess up you suffer the consequences. Abortion should not be used as some scapegoat for women. My opponent is reasoning that a fetus is not a human being and therefore it is okay to be killed. Think back on history. When was this also said? It was said about African American slaves or people who had dark skin. That's absurd. A fetus is not a slave but you are giving it the rights a slave once had. A fetus is a person and killing a person is murder. Abortion is therefore wrong
lazarus_long

Con

Once again, my opponent has posted a very confused and confusing set of "arguments," but we will try to make sense of what we can and show how little support for the proposition has been presented.

Regarding the argument about "consciousness" (at least this is what I THINK was intended; my opponent seems to repeatedly confuse the notions of "consciousness" and "having a conscience," two things which I hope at least are clearly separate concerns in the minds of most people): My opponent writes:

"A person who is brain dead is alive and sends out minute pulses from its brain but it is still a person none the less."

Again we need to clearly distinguish between two concepts here: the question of being "human," and the question of being "a person." The latter state implies a set of legal and moral rights, whereas the former has to do with simply being an individual of the species Homo sapiens. They are NOT identical, especially when it comes to questions of law. Individual cells, for instance, can rightly be labelled as "human" (e.g., "these are human skin cells") but clearly are not "persons," either morally or under the law.

And, both morally and under the law, a "person who is brain dead" is NOT a "person" at all; brain death is widely recognized as the primary criteria which distinguishes a living person from a corpse. A body which has been declared "brain dead" but is being maintained by artificial means is most definitely not a "person" - life support may be terminated, again with no legal or moral repercussions, and the "person" is no longer considered as being present. So in fact we DO regularly consider both consciousness and brain activity in determining the "personhood" status of individuals. That a given mass of living tissue possesses human DNA is not relevant to this question; to be considered a "person," a living consciousness has to exist. The brain-dead body is still clearly "human," but we no longer see it as a "person" or deserving of the full legal or moral consideration that goes with that status.

And this is precisely what is lacking in the embryo or fetus during at least the first trimester of pregnancy. There is no consciousness, no mind present, nor is there even the possibility of one, given the state of development of the nervous system at this point. You would be more justified being concerned about the consciousness of a mouse than worrying about that of a 8-week-old human embryo. That it has the POTENTIAL for further development is not in question here - but then, many with this potential will never see this potential realized.

One fact which is routinely overlooked by the anti-abortion camp is that a very large number of conceptions terminate in "spontaneous abortion" (also known as "miscarraige") - actually a greater number than are terminated through artificial means. It is estimated that up to 50% of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort, generally before the woman even knowns she is pregnant; in known pregnancies, at least 10% similarly end in spontaneous abortion (Source: U.S. National Institutes of Health). If one is arguing that abortion is "wrong" on moral or religious grounds, it would seem that leading the list of offenders would have to be "Nature" or "God" himself/itself. And yet we do not hear anything of what, if we are to accept my opponent's position, would have to be considered a huge moral tragedy.

If we again ignore the apparent confusion between "person" and "human" on the part of my opponent, we also find the following two arguments being made simultaneously:

"You are and were still a person would you want me to kill you because I was to irresponsible to care for you or did not want any one to find out. My opponent gave no actual evidence that a fetus is not a person. He only stated that it would be a stupid person yet a person none the less. So with that in mind is it survival of the fittest, kill the weak? What changes from when it is born to when it is still alive and well in the mother's womb."

and

"What is the defying characteristic of a human? It is a conscious. Why should a bunch of atoms have thinking ability? (Micheal Ruse) It is not just the ability to compute but to think."

From the latter, again assuming that the word that was intended was "consciousness" (are you actually reviewing what you write before submitting it?), I have no choice but to conclude that my opponent agrees that the defining quality of a human being, that which qualifies them for moral and legal consideration as a "person," IS in fact "consciousness" or the "ability to think." But we also appear to be agreeing that there is no possibility of thought or consciousness in the fetus until very late in fetal development. Given this, the first quoted section makes no sense whatsoever - we have agreed that the fetus is NOT a person, by my opponent's own definition, and yet it is claimed that I "gave no actual evidence that the fetus is not a person."

My opponent goes on to assert the following:

"Without a conscience we would act like computers. We could not think. The defining character that makes a human a person is a conscience, the ability to have feelings. There has never been a human that did not have a conscious. A embryo/fetus/baby must have a conscience. When it is born a conscience is not zapped into him. Nothing has changed."

Here again, it is difficult to determine whether my opponent means "a conscience" or "a consciousness" - however, since possessing a conscience implies that one is conscious, I will assume the latter as it pushes the bar back the farthest in time, re being a possible support for my opponent's position. We agree that nothing especially "magical" happens at the moment of birth; a consciousness is not, at that point (and to use my opponent's terms), "zapped into him." But then we are faced with a troubling question - exactly when DOES "consciousness" enter into the picture? If we are to follow my opponent's arguments to their logical conclusion, he seems to be claiming that "consciousness" IS somehow "zapped into" the embryo at the moment of conception. But there has never been a case of "consciousness" found to exist in organisms whose complexity is on the order of a single cell or even a mass of dozens of cells, so it seems to be quite a stretch to claim that the fertilized egg possesses consciousness. We have also never seen a case of "consciousness" existing independently of a certain degree of brain development and activity, neither of which exist at this point or for quite some time to follow. So apparently, consciousness must be "zapped into" the new human at some time later. Exactly when is unclear, but we seem very same in concluding that it cannot be prior to the existence of the structures and activity necessary to support it.

My opponent also raises the old question of mind/brain duality, something which has certainly plagued philosophers for years (and which I doubt we will resolve here), but it is interesting to see what, if any, implications this has on the subject at hand:

"There is a difference, though, between the brain and the mind. Were [sic] is the conscious is in are brain? No one seems to have found it; the reason is because it is not there. The mind although interacting with the brain is separate."

That's an interesting assertion, but if the mind IS separate, then why does it seem to be so very dependent on this physical structure we call the brain? Going down this path would seem to be taking us toward a question that apparently my opponent does not wish to raise directly - the question of a "soul." But that, of course, would take this debate away from questions of morality and law and into the field of religion. I suspect we will likely get there in round 3, but for now space limitations will force me to conclude this round here.
Debate Round No. 2
double_edged_words

Pro

Finally, my opponent and I have come to the same conclusion. What makes a human a person is a consciousness. I agree that if a person had no consciousness then he would not be a person. This would, of course as my opponent asserts, imply a soul. Sadly, I can take this only one argument at a time I will not argue this as my opponent assumed. My opponent clearly states as quoted from his previous argument

so apparently, consciousness must be "zapped into" the new human at some time later. Exactly when is unclear".

He says that when this happens is unclear so I would make the assumption that he nor anyone else for that matter knows. He justifies abortion by saying that a embryo does not have the brain power to "hold" a consciousness. He is also stating that I agree with this statement. On the contrary I would posit that, as I said before the mind and the brain are not the same. Although they are closely intertwined the mind is separate from the brain. Again, this would suggest a soul and even religion but I will focus on what is at hand. I do not agree that a fetus has no consciousness and never said that I did. I am saying that you do not require a large brain or even a brain to have a consciousness. This fact is shown by the many heart attack/ near death experiences. The person is claimed clinically dead but is revived. Many stated that what happened to them wasn "out of body experience". They saw themselves in third person view. One lady even knew that there was a tennis shoe on the roof of the hospital. Sure enough when they checked there was. How cold she have known that being clinically dead?

I am not suggesting God or a soul but I am stating that a fetus/embryo does have a consciousness and does not require the brain power to have one. That would be like arguing that if a computer got the brain power of us it to would get a consciousness. This would not happen which would suggest what I am saying. There is no formula or rock solid evidence for this meaning we will never come to a solid verdict on the subject. If you consider you do not need a big brain to have a consciousness then my opponent does not know when the embryo/fetus will actually get a conscious. Considering this it could happen before abortion so you would be killing a person. We do know that nothing changes when it is born, there is no flash of light. Logically I would posit since it does not gain a consciousness at birth then it would gain one at the very begging because it does not make sense that it would just randomly gain it sometime in the womb. It makes more sense. My opponent also speaks of miscarriages. This is tragic and does not answer our questions about life but proves nothing for abortion. It is how the world works. I enjoyed the argument and learned much. This would be my first time on debate.org so I apologize for any grammar errors that made what I said confusing. May the best man win.
lazarus_long

Con

It appears that yes, we HAVE reached the same conclusion. I think it's safe to sum up the question, at this point, with just two sentences:

1. It would be wrong to abort a fetus IF the fetus should be considered, either legally or morally, as a "person."

and

2. The primary defining characteristic of a "person" is consciousness; we may argue other requirements for personhood in addition to "consciousness," but it is at least agreed that if a given entity does not possess "consciousness," (ignoring, for the moment, temporary loss of consciousness as in sleep), then that entity cannot be considered a "person."

So it all comes down to a simple question - is there any reason that we should consider a fetus to be "conscious?"

My opponent clearly thinks so, but I would have to say that he's given little reason for this - he has offered only the assertion, repeated several times that this is so. He has said that the mind and brain are separate things, and that the mind does not depend on the brain - but has given no evidence that this is so. He (correctly, in my opinion) notes that there is no "flash of light," no clear, defining moment at birth or otherwise, when we can clearly say that consciousness arrives or "is installed." We seem to agree that, in fact, no one can point to a particular moment in time when it IS clear that consciousness somehow "arrives." If it DOES happen prior to the point when abortion can be restricted (and currently, this would mean in the first trimester of pregnancy), then despite its legality abortion would clearly be morally objectionable.

But is there, in fact, any reason for believing in even the POSSIBILITY of fetal consciousness in this period? I would submit that there is none. The notion that the mind exists apart from the brain is certainly an old one, a closely coupled to the idea of a "soul" - but do we actually have a REASON, one which would be persuasive to all regardless of religious orientation, to believe that this is the case? I know of no such reason or evidence, and in fact the evidence that we DO have would appear to argue quite the contrary.

If the mind is not so strongly dependent on the brain, then why does damage to certain areas of the brain clearly and instantly eliminate any detectable "mind" - even in those cases where enough of the "automatic" functions of the brain remain to sustain the rest of the body in vegetative life? We know of no case - not one - in which cessation of the brain activity which has been linked to "consciousness" has not meant exactly that. "Brain death," as indicated by just such loss of brain function, is just that. We legally and morally consider the brain-dead person to BE dead, and there have been no documented examples where a person recovered from this state.

The "out of body" or "near-death" experiences cited by my opponent are not acceptable evidence to the contrary. First, we are in those cases talking about individual who already (and quite recently) demonstrated the full capacity for consciousness; there is no question that their brains are functioning and capable of supporting conscious thought. Further, the supposed "out of body" aspects of these situations have never been documented; there is, as far as I have been able to determine, not a SINGLE documented case in which a person reported something while supposedly "out of body" that could not have been known to them through other means. The "tennis shoe on the hospital roof" example my opponent cited would certainly be such an example, IF it can be adequately documented. (If it can be, I'm not the only one who would find this interesting; the James Randi Educational Foundation, or JREF - www.randi.org - has a long standing offer of $1 million to anyone who can show evidence of just this sort of "paranormal" phenomenon.)

Every shred of objective evidence we have today suggests very strongly that consciousness IS a function of the brain, that a certain level of brain complexity is required to support it, and that there are detectable signs (brain waves, etc.) which can reliably indicate whether or not there is at least the potential for consciousness to exist. And, unfortunately for my opponent's argument, NONE of these signs are present in the fetus.

This even agrees with personal experience, if one stops to consider it. What is "consciousness," if not the continued thought, memories, and sense of self on the part of the individual? I cannot truly "prove" ANYONE else to be conscious - for all I know the rest of you could all be clever automatons! - but I KNOW myself to be conscious because I directly experience this state. But having said that, I have to acknowledge that my consciousness has not, to my knowledge, always existed. There is a point in the past beyond which I have no memories whatsoever, and so it is meaningless from my perspective to speak of a "consciousness" that is "me" existing beyond a certain point in the past. And clearly no one has ever reported from their own experience "consciousness" on their part as a fetus. We don't generally remember our own birth, either, but I am not going to try to go so far as to argue for a complete lack of consciousness in the newborn infant - just that it is clear that at SOME point in the past, and almost certainly long after my own conception, "my" consciousness arrived at least to the point of a dim awareness.

If anything, our mutual experiences would suggest that consciousness does NOT, in fact, simply "arrive" - that you are not conscious at one momment, and fully conscious the next. It seems far more likely that consciousness, like the structure of the body or brain itself, is something which develops at a relatively slow pace. Just as there is no "flash of light" at the moment of birth, there is none at conception or at any other particular point in either fetal or post-partum development. There is no point at which we would suddenly be able to say "ah, NOW consciousness has arrived!" In any event, there is certainly no reason whatsoever to believe, or even to consider the possibility, that the fetus is "conscious" to a degree even remotely comparable to a person.

The only justification for assuming "consciousness" (or - since we may as well use the word here - a "soul") at conception would be certain religious beliefs. But in this case, my earlier comments regarding miscarriages are, unfortunately, quite relevant. If "souls" arrive at conception, then whoever set this system up is doing so with full knowledge that up to half of those souls will soon be leaving their new bodies. There seems to be no escaping this conclusion.

The other objection my opponent raises to linking consciousness to brain function is that if this is the case, then a sufficiently complex computer might become conscious. Actually, there is no reason for thinking that could not be so; clearly, we have not had to deal with conscious artificial intelligences to date, but that is no reason to think it impossible. In fact, this examples gets to the very heart of the basic question of consciousness itself, and has been a matter of considerable interest to the AI community. It may make for an interesting debate in itself - and perhaps I'll start that one next. In the meantime, I will thank my opponent for an interesting and well-conducted debate, and turn this one over to the membership here for their votes.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by reconcharlie 3 years ago
reconcharlie
TrueBass is apparently relating thought to being and inferring that they are one and the same.
Based solely off of the Law of Continuity it is easily distinguishable to see that a human being is made at the moment of conception. Truebass, if you'd like to debate this topic so that I am able to use other sciences to further my stance (religion, biological science, physics, mathematics, ethics, morality), then feel free"I'm waiting :)
Posted by TrueBass 7 years ago
TrueBass
You're saying that humans can think from the point of conception?

Yeah, I don't think so. I'm not sure of the actual numbers, but I'm going to say that for the first week of life, humans have to nervous system at all. While I realize that this is entirely unhelpful to either side, I felt the need to say that.

Oh, and it's not your place to decide whether I want an abortion or not. Abortion is a woman's choice, thank you very much.

Even though I'm not pregnant, but whatever.
Posted by Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
Double, would you say that men shouldn't have sex unless they are ready for fatherhood?
Posted by lazarus_long 9 years ago
lazarus_long
Double - sorry, but if you can't "prove" - or at the very least, show compelling evidence in support of - the "paranormal," then citing the paranormal really has no place in a debate, does it? After all, an argument has to be more than mere assertion, does it not?
Posted by lazarus_long 9 years ago
lazarus_long
Capt. - once again, the "personhood" of the fetus was the whole issue here. Simply asserting that the fetus is a person does not make it so. If you'd like to give reasons as to WHY you think the fetus should be considered a person, then by all means, please feel free to do so. You could even start a new debate if you like.
Posted by double_edged_words 9 years ago
double_edged_words
Lazurus, You cannot prove the perinormal. Thats wy it is the perinormal. If you could, there would be no argument in the first place.
Posted by double_edged_words 9 years ago
double_edged_words
Miserlou, I am not being sexist. I am saying that women are obusing there rights. I am not saying that we should take away there rights. I am saying that if they can not make the right choice the choice should not be given to them.
Posted by Capt.Herp 9 years ago
Capt.Herp
"Ummmm..Capt.? That's kinda the whole point, isn't it? If the fetus isn't a person, then it doesn't have the rights you claim for it."

Ummmm..Lazarus? A fetus IS a person. It's people who are pro-abortion who claim it's just tissue so that they don't feel as guilty about blenderizing it. I think you missed MY point.

They call anti-abortion people "pro-life;" it's always puzzled me why they call themselves "pro-choice" instead of "pro-death." But then again, pro-choice sounds oh so much more palatable and reasonable.
Posted by Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
I know RMK is way down at the bottom there, but I feel it should be said that women should have the same rights as men, and that includes sex in a big way.
Posted by magpie 9 years ago
magpie
Lazarus truly believes that a point is made that skin and liver cells - so well as all cells with complete ( or completed)sets of chromosomes are POTENTIAL human beings. With a mild extention of this logic it can be argued that a test tube containing sufficently diverse dna, rna , and cells from a chimp could be assembled into a human cell and from there, a fully developed human. Ergo, the contents of the testtube is a potential human. But potiality is realized when the entity is a unique organism. Skin, liver and brain cells are not organisms unto themselves. They are specialized cells, no more. The scientific fact that it is theoretically possible to cause one of these cells to become a unique organism, suggests that they, like the contents of the testtube are potential human life. The ZEF is a unique individual. The human potential has been achieved. There is no difference in consequence whether the enity that began with your conception is killed in 60 minutes or 60 years. You no longer exist. 'Personhood' is a ploy to substitute an arbitrary criterion to justify the intentional death of a human. There is absolutely no fundamental difference to killing, whether 5 months before birth or 5 years after. Either way Lazarus or Magpie would no longer exist.
BYW:
The same excuse was used for justifying the killing of slaves.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
double_edged_wordslazarus_longTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by SCOTTMILLER66 9 years ago
SCOTTMILLER66
double_edged_wordslazarus_longTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by JOE76SMITH 9 years ago
JOE76SMITH
double_edged_wordslazarus_longTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
double_edged_wordslazarus_longTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Avalonjohn44 9 years ago
Avalonjohn44
double_edged_wordslazarus_longTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by HempforVictory 9 years ago
HempforVictory
double_edged_wordslazarus_longTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by darwinfish 9 years ago
darwinfish
double_edged_wordslazarus_longTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by afeinberg 9 years ago
afeinberg
double_edged_wordslazarus_longTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by double_edged_words 9 years ago
double_edged_words
double_edged_wordslazarus_longTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
double_edged_wordslazarus_longTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03