Debate Rounds (3)
I accept your challenge.
"You mentioned babies in the womb are human beings. They aren't. They are called a zygote. technically not even a fetus until 10 weeks. Their technically not humans in that state."
According to thefreedictionary.com human is defined as "A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens." Since a zygote is a single living cell with DNA we can look at this DNA to see if it is Human. If you were to take the DNA from that living zygote and give it to a scientist asking "what species did this DNA come from?" undoubtedly they would say Human, and as a Human they are guaranteed certain rights by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights like article 3 were it states "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Therefore, aborting a baby even before it is 10 weeks old is still killing another human against their right.
"I am pro choice for abortions. Which is a termination of pregnancy during a time period less that 27 weeks. I personally have a reverence for life. That is why I say 27 weeks. On the 28th week we are now talking baby viability."
According to thefreedictionary.com Viability is Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.
Why does Viability make you human? It doesn't what makes you human is your human DNA which you have at the moment of conception.
"But before that time this potential for life is an zygote and then embryo, non-human."
I explained how even if the baby isn't viable yet that it is still living and still made of Human DNA making it human.
"Looking back at your Article for human rights. Take at look at Article 1, it states all humans are BORN equal in dignity and rights. But this embryo is not BORN yet, so therefore has no rights, therefore its not considered human by law"
One, it does not say only those born have rights, but if you follow your reasoning here which is you have no rights until you are born then abortion after viability should be legal. Two, it basically says "you are born with the rights" not "you have these rights because you were born". Three, it also says at the beginning "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world," As I stated before they are human and they do deserve rights.
"My point I am trying to make in supporting pro choice is that there is a middle ground. We always have two extremes."
Middle ground logical fallacy which is "You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth." What you call extreme I call protecting life. That is not extreme.
"The liberals are irrational and thoughtlessness in their values; its a women's choice, its her body. And then the conservatives state inconsistency by saying abortion is homicide unless its rape or incest. And that person-hood begins at the point of conception."
I never claimed to have exceptions for rape or incest. In fact, I don't have those exceptions because they are still human and still entitled to their right to life.
"There is no right or wrong here. Its a choice, and the only one who can take into account the situation at hand, is the female who is pregnant."
There is right and wrong. It is wrong to kill humans. It is a choice and people will still try to abort babies even if abortion is outlawed, but those choices can still be wrong.
Being in the middle is the right state of mind. People who are completely for abortions are one extreme and people against it are another. With knowledge is where we empower the people. So where you state there is a wrong. Wrong is simply a feeling supported by ethical guidelines determined by the society you live in. If the person aborting the child is ok with their decision and is not causing harm, emotionally or physically to someone, then stated simply it is right.
Thank you for your response.
"you state. Well why is it wrong to to get rid of this DNA, but getting rid of sperm (Human DNA) is wrong? If the potential for life lies in DNA then everyone who ejaculates is aborting a human."
"Sperm and egg cells in themselves are not complete. If left alone they will die after a few days, never developing into anything other than what they are. The sperm shares the genetic code of the man, the egg shares the genetic code of the woman. It is only in combination, when the 23 chromosomes from the father join the 23 chromosomes from the mother, through fertilization, that a new, biologically distinct human beings comes into existence. This one fertilized cell, in fact, contains all the information necessary for a lifetime of human growth." Since they do not contain the 46 chromosomes like every human being it is therefore not human.
"Being in the middle is the right state of mind. People who are completely for abortions are one extreme and people against it are another. With knowledge is where we empower the people."
This is still a logical fallacy since you still assert the middle is right because it is between two extremes.
"So where you state there is a wrong. Wrong is simply a feeling supported by ethical guidelines determined by the society you live in. If the person aborting the child is ok with their decision and is not causing harm, emotionally or physically to someone, then stated simply it is right."
One, I have shown it does cause harm since it ends a human life; Murder is considered harm. Two, your definition of ethics of as long as it does not emotional or physical harm is too vague. People can experience emotional stress/harm for many things like giving a presentation, would making someone give a presentation be immoral?
My opponent provided no sources for any of his claims, and insisted on using logical fallacies.
I urge you all to VOTE CON!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||4|
Reasons for voting decision: I think that Con and Pro both had reasonable arguments,however the more convincing arguments I have to give to Pro as he rationalized his arguments with science. When Con said Pros middle ground argument is a logical fallacy (I agree) the problem is abortion is justified in circumstances and that is middle ground. The other points go to Con for better spelling and conduct as I feel Con addressed the points in a concise manner as well as maintaining a good manner throughout. The one thing I would ask is for Con not to say "Vote Con at the end of debates. The Sources point goes to Con as Con t least povided sources when Pro lacked to give them while quoting sources.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.