The Instigator
a_janis1
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
TheGoldMustache
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

Abortion

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 3 votes the winner is...
a_janis1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,278 times Debate No: 72869
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (60)
Votes (3)

 

a_janis1

Con

Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, the right to life is an inalienable right given to every innocent human being, therefore, abortion, as the direct result of the killing of an innocent human child, violates the inalienable right to life. Thus, abortion is wrong.

I would like to argue against abortion. There is no layout other than that my opponent should first provide a retort to the paragraph stated above in round one. This is just a free discussion in a relaxed manner. Also, I would like to mention there is one case where abortion is permissible, and that is under the circumstance that the mother and/or child will die. I could argue why it is permissible in the debate, if my opponent so chooses me to do so. Thank you, and remember, let us remain respectful and courteous.
TheGoldMustache

Pro

(note: I am not debating at what point in development is it a baby. If they abort within first three months, it's not. If they do it within the last 1-2 months, it is. I am not debating the "gray area") If abortion is murder, so is abstinence. Having an abortion is the equivalent of not getting pregnant in the first place. A fetus is not yet a human being, and thus is not "killing a child". The fetus has not developed feelings. To say that a fetus has rights is the equivalent of saying that semen and sperm have rights.
Debate Round No. 1
a_janis1

Con

Thank you for accepting the debate.

Now, we are going to have to argue when the fetus becomes a human being. Because since you say "a fetus is not YET a human being..." you mean that at some point in time the fetus will become a human being. And you would say a fetus at 1-2 months left is a baby. There are two things wrong with this:

1. You would be arguing that what it means to be human is based on length of life. There is no magical moment somewhere between the time period of 3 months and 8 months when a fetus becomes a human being. No where has biology defined a human being based on the length of time that the human being has developed. Therefore, giving months is irrelevant as it does not prove whether the fetus is a human being or not.

2. Since the time argument of months has been eliminated, we are left with development. You would be arguing that the developmental stages of the fetus determine when to call the fetus a human being. There are many things wrong with this. First of all, you are now limiting what it means to be human by development. That would mean a 15 year old child is more of a human being than a 6 month old baby because the 15 year old child is more developed towards a biological human complexity than the 6 month old child. Since clearly we we would never say anyone is more of a human being than someone else, development does nothing to determine whether someone is a human being. And now I will show why the fetus is a human being.

In order to do this I will also eliminate your argument that "giving a fetus rights is equivalent to giving sperm and semen rights."

Here are the scientific differences between a fetus and a sperm cell:
1. The sperm cell is not a unique human DNA. The sperm cell has the same DNA as the father. On the the other hand, the fetus has a completely unique and new set of DNA that is different from both the mother and the father. This is the genetic reason why the fetus is a new human.

2. The fetus grows towards biological complexity and reproduces through cellular division which proves the fetus is also alive. The sperm cell does not grow nor does it reproduce in and of itself. A sperm cell simply is a cell while a fetus is a new being.

3. Actually the fetus already has rights. The laws of Double Murder protect the fetus when a pregnant mother and fetus are murdered. Thus the fetus has rights to life given to it through that law because the law would consider the fetus a human being with rights. However, what is so messed up is that the law in America contradicts itself. Either the fetus has a right to life or it does not. I will argue that the fetus has the right to life. So it is not the same thing to give a sperm cell rights as it is to give a fetus rights.

I will now support why the Double Murder Law makes sense in saying that a fetus is a human being with rights.

The fetus has entirely unique human DNA that is unique from the mother or father. The fetus also grows towards biological complexity and cellularly divides from the moment of conception proving the fetus is alive from the moment of conception. Now nothing is conceived in its full potential, rather everything is conceived with its full potential. This means that just because a fetus is not fully developed does not mean it is not a human being. A 6 month old baby isn't fully developed but it is a human being. Because of this logical reasoning, we have to look at potential of the fetus. The fetus is a human being with potential to grow towards greater biological complexity. The fetus is a human being because of its unique human DNA, for the fact that it is living, and also because the fetus was conceived with all the fundamental human genetic potential of every other human being to ever exist.

Here is another way of viewing this:
Do you think a child is as fully developed as you? No. But you still think a child is human being. Do you think a fetus is as developed as you? No. However, why would you be able to claim then the fetus is not a human being when here are the equivalents between the child and the fetus:
1. Both have unique human DNA
2. Both are still undergoing the early stages of development towards human complexity
3. Both are dependent on other beings for survival

You see, the development of the fetus really makes no sense in arguing that the fetus is not a human being. Development means that the the thing developing had to have a starting point. Its not that a random sack of cells chooses to develop into a cat or dog or kid. Rather, development only occurs once the genetic code of being has already been written out at the moment of conception. Therefore, the fetus is a human being at the moment of conception and just continues to grow/develop from that point on. So actually whenever people argue that the fetus is not yet human because the fetus is not yet developed enough, they are ignoring the fact that development can only occur once the fetus has already been conceived AS a human being.

I now have shown that the time of the pregnancy does not matter in determining whether or not the fetus is human. I also have now shown that development of the fetus does not matter in determining whether or not the fetus is a human being. I now have shown the fetus is scientifically a human being. I also have shown the fetus has lawful rights to life as shown through the example of the Double Murder Laws. Let us put this all together.

The fetus is a living human being from the moment of conception with the right to life, therefore, abortion, which infringes upon the right to life of the fetus, is wrong.
TheGoldMustache

Pro

TheGoldMustache forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
a_janis1

Con

Arguments stand without refutation
TheGoldMustache

Pro

TheGoldMustache forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
a_janis1

Con

Arguments stand without refutation.
TheGoldMustache

Pro

TheGoldMustache forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
a_janis1

Con

arguments stand without refutation
TheGoldMustache

Pro

TheGoldMustache forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
60 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 4God 1 year ago
4God
Sorry, I messed up my vote. Supposed to be a tie with the sources and spelling and grammar.
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 1 year ago
elvroin_vonn_trazem
(Comment #59)
It is not necessary to prove aliens exist. The most relevant facts are (1) it is POSSIBLE for aliens to exist, and (2) BE PREPARED, the Boy Scout Motto. The Stupid Prejudice that abortion opponents want to inject into the definition of "person" simply means they are NOT preparing--worse, REFUSING to prepare--for ANY future that could include humans interacting with aliens. Meanwhile the United Nations exhibits more intelligence than abortion opponents; it has an "Office of Outer Space Affairs", partly in order to Be Prepared for any such future.

Looks like I have space to talk about something else. You wrote in Comment #54:
"So for the sake of this argument, lets say the fetus is not even a person. But now you have to admit the fetus is a human being."
IT CAN BE IMPORTANT TO SPECIFY WHAT DEFINITION OF "being" IS GETTING USED, FOR ACCURATE COMMUNICATION. As mentioned elsewhere, it is Forbidden in Formal Debates for any participant to do "definition conflation", like calling something a "human being" in one breath, because it exists, and then calling it a "person" in the next breath, because "human being" can mean "person". SO, in this case (your text I quoted above), we could ensure accuracy, and prevent definition-conflation, by changing the phrase "human being" to "human exister" --why not, when THAT is the definition of "being" that is getting invoked here?

We now approach a crux: You want to claim all "human beings" deserve rights (and ONLY when the phrase means "persons" do I AGREE). But you know some human entities, like muscle cells, hydatidiform moles, and the brain-dead on full life-support, DON'T deserve rights, even though they exist and could be called "human beings". WELL, if you simply call them "human existers" instead, then you can avoid that problem! The above nonperson fetus is ALSO a human exister undeserving of rights, unlike "human beings"--THAT phrase is reserved for human entities that ARE persons. SIMPLE!
Posted by a_janis1 1 year ago
a_janis1
Why do you continue to use alien analogies to explain an event that is happening on earth right now. Please refute the hard evidence that we already have based on earthly biology. I am not talking about aborting aliens, Im talking about human beings on Earth. So lets stick just to things that are happening on this earth.

Unless you can proves that aliens definitively exist, then all I have to do is argue how there is no evidence that they even exist thus your entirely hypothetical argument hinges on a statement that has no hard evidence making your argument unbelievably weak. Any basic debate and logic class will teach you that. All I have to do as of right now is say that aliens aren't known to exist, thus making your argument irrelevant. Prove it before you preach it. Once you prove aliens exist then I will take the time to determine whether they are persons or not. But as of right now, Im not going to spend time on a argument that is so far based entirely in sci-fi.

(Even though I do believe it is possible for alien life to exist, I cant use that in an argument because I cant even prove aliens exist)
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 1 year ago
elvroin_vonn_trazem
(Comment #57)
"If you can prove to me why non human beings are persons ..."
Why should I do any such thing? Your statement implies that the proof must apply to ALL non-humans, and I've never claimed that all nonhumans were persons. I've indicated that dolphins MIGHT qualify, but the matter is still being researched. I've also mentioned a few special cases, Washoe the Chimpanzee, Chantek the Orangutan, and Koko the Gorilla, who appear to qualify as much as persons as the average 3-year-old human. I'm sure I ALSO indicated that most OTHER chimpanzees and orangutans and gorilla would NOT qualify as persons, because they never received the appropriate Nurturing that turns a human animal into a person (human being).

Next, didn't I mention a scenario a while back, in which YOU are a member of Earth's first exploratory star-ship? In that scenario your job is to determine whether not any of the alien entities you meet might qualify as persons. I asked you how you would make that determination --yet here what you wrote sort-of implies that you think it is impossible for any non-human entity, ANYWHERE IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE, to qualify as a person, so, for you, there is no need to try to distinguish a non-human person from the average alien pure-animal organism.

Well, turn that around; if some alien exploration ship reached Earth and abducted you, to find out if YOU qualified as a person, how would you prove to the aliens that you are a person? I'm pretty sure they won't be impressed in the slightest with your human DNA....
Posted by a_janis1 1 year ago
a_janis1
Death penalties have been allowed because some human beings have been proven to be guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. The fetus on the other hand, is entirely innocent as I have proven before. Therefore, it is wrong to take the life of any innocent human being, a fetus included in that.

The brain dead human being on life support is still a human being. Only once taken of life support, then does the human being die. But this doesnt have anything to do with a fetus because the fetus is entirely alive beyond any doubt. The only issue is whether the fetus is a human being or not.

A muscle cell is not on the same level as a zygote. Will a cell coming from your bicep turn into another one of you? Does it have all the genetic potential to biological grow using cellular division into a new human being? Of course not.
Posted by a_janis1 1 year ago
a_janis1
Now for the biology:

At conception, biological science knows the zygote has every genetic make up for the entire future as a human being. This makes the zygote human. The zygote also grows towards biological complexity and is therefore alive. In that one cell, the entire human being is encased in what is called a zygote. Nothing else is added to it. For the rest of that zygotes life, he or she now cellularly divides using what it already possesses (the genetic material of a complete human being). Thus the zygote is a human being. Granted not a dependent human being, but a human being none the less.

Now for introspection:

Were you once a zygote? Yes. When did you come into existence? At conception. No other zygote ever had the same genetic makeup for an entire future as you did when you were a zygote. As a zygote, every biological thing about your life as a human being was already created. That zygote was a stage in your life. You as a zygote possessed human DNA unique to you alone. The only thing left that you needed was time to grow up. Just like a kid grows up, a zygote grows up. And now lets us look at killing/murder again. Why is murder or killing wrong? Not only because it removes the right to life of a human being but also because it removes the potential of the human being. So because you as a zygote was destined to look as you to right now and to be everything you see in yourself (biologically) then killing you as a zygote would be removing that potential which you are now freely using to debate. Thus since your potential was removed, aborting you as a zygote would've been wrong. Every human being starts as a human zygote being, just as yourself.
Posted by a_janis1 1 year ago
a_janis1
If you can prove to me why non human beings are persons then fine. It really doesn't matter if you can prove a snail to be person, a flower to be a person, or a rock to be a person. There is nothing prejudiced about distinguishing ourselves from a carrot or a bird. We are human beings. We are persons. Every time you mow the lawn are you torturing thousands of persons?

But this is still irrelevant because once I prove a fetus is a human being, then nothing about the person debate matters. In fact I will still use your quote when you admit that "But if the word "being" is NOT equated with "person" I have no specific objection to calling a zygote a "human being""

So for the sake of this argument, lets say the fetus is not even a person. But now you have to admit the fetus is a human being.

But we can look even beyond this. I will show why the fetus is a human being by using biology, law, and introspection. Lets start with law.

The law of non contradiction and excluded middle, as a philosophy, states that either something is true or it is false. Either the door is open or the door is closed. Either a fetus is a human being or the fetus is not a human being. Current legal law is breaking the law of non contradiction. Abortion laws allow for the killing of the fetus without any criminal charges. Abortion laws claim the fetus has no rights. The Laws of Double Murder allow for the killing of a fetus with criminal charges. Laws of Double Murder give the fetus the right to life and protects that. Only human being are given inalienable rights therefore, only one law can be correct. Either you hate abortion laws and rejoice in Laws of Double Murder or you love abortion laws and hate Laws of Double Murder. Now I will support the laws of Double Murder and hopefully reveal why that is the TRUTHFUL legal law which accurately defends the right to life of the fetus.
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 1 year ago
elvroin_vonn_trazem
(Comment #53)

"I believe the whole phrase "human being" must be used when referencing a person"
Which automatically excludes non-humans from being referred-to as persons, see? Which is Sheer Stupid Prejudice, and THAT'S why I keep talking about how the word "being" all by itself can be used to refer to a person; human-ness need not matter in the slightest; OTHER things are GENERICALLY associated with personhood.

All persons should have equivalent rights, such as a right to life. However, the word "inalienable" would imply that a serial/mass slaver/rapist/torturer/murderer/cannibal should not be given the death penalty. Well, perhaps arguments against the death penalty are explicitly based on the existence of that word "inalienable" in the Declaration of Independence, but the Constitution, the Law of the Land, DOESN'T include the word "inalienable", and therefore death penalties for various persons have been allowed.

We may now be at the point of noticing that IF the phrase "human being" must refer to a person, THEN just CALLING some organism a "human being" cannot by-itself prove that the call is accurate. A human muscle cell is a totally human organism that exists, but it is NOT called a "human being" because it does not possess any of the generic characteristics of personhood --and CALLING it a "human being" won't give it any personhood characteristics, either. Ditto with respect to a hydatidiform mole, but the most interesting case is the brain-dead adult human on full-life-support. The Law allows the "plug" to be pulled because the PERSON is DEAD. So: Even though the brain-dead adult human BODY is very-much alive, it cannot be called a "human being", meaning "person", because the call is not accurate!

So, why call a zygote, or a morula, or a blastocyst, or an embryo, or even a fetus, a "human being", eh?
Posted by a_janis1 1 year ago
a_janis1
When "being" is combined with the word "human" to form the phrase "human being", only then are we referencing a person. I will concede to that as I do believe every human being should be a legal person, hence why I despise the 3/5 Compromise. The 3/5 Compromise was a lie. So for the sake of the debate, I will agree with you.

However, the only difference we actually have is that I believe the whole phrase "human being" must be used when referencing a person, but you only believe the word "being" is necessary. This is merely a minor issue. So I will agree with you as the issue, to be honest, does not matter.

This is the actual issue:

Does every human being have inalienable rights to life or not?
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 1 year ago
elvroin_vonn_trazem
(Comment #51)
Saying you understand is not the same thing as actually understanding. You are apparently continuing to insist that the word "being" means "exists" even in the phrase "human being", EVEN THOUGH EQUIVALENT OTHER PHRASES ALMOST NEVER GET USED, such as "turkey being". I OBSERVE that when the phrase "human being" is used, the word "being" is equated with "person", simply because we DON'T consider a turkey to be a person, AND we don't use the phrase "turkey being". AND because we also use the word "being" in other equivalent phrases like "extraterrestrial being". I'm simply interpreting the Consistency Of Common Usage. We consistently use "being" in phrases that refer to entities that are persons, and we consistently don't use "being" when talking about entities that are not persons.

It Is Very Simple, and I don't know why you refuse to accept it. but instead wrote:
"by saying the word "being" HAS to mean personhood you would be ignoring all the other definitions."
IT ONLY HAS TO MEAN PERSON IN THE RELEVANT PHRASES, such as "human being", extraterrestrial being", "intelligent being" etc. When the word "being" appears elsewhere, it can mean an appropriate other definition. I most certainly have NOT claimed that the word "being" means "person" all the time!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 4God 1 year ago
4God
a_janis1TheGoldMustacheTied
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:43 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. @a_janis1 made more convincing arguments. Both did not use any sources so that's a tie.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
a_janis1TheGoldMustacheTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
a_janis1TheGoldMustacheTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture