Debate Rounds (5)
First of all, some definitions for the purposes of the debate.
a. PERSON: noun
1. a human being, whether an adult or child.
5. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.
6. the actual self or individual personality of a human being.
While this does fit definition as simply 'human being', it should be noted that this is (at least somewhat implied, given the nature of further definitions and the fact that we do not consider eg. sperm cells to be 'persons' despite the fact that they have their own unique DNA and exist 'independently' in the same manner that embryos do) likely for purposes of ease of use; all humans barring severe brain damage or crippling defects, are also persons, and we do not know of any persons who are not also humans, so the two words *can be used interchangeably* despite the fact that they do not mean the same thing. It is important to look at what 'Personhood' is and what it constitutes, in this instance.
b. & c. PERSONHOOD: noun
1. the state or fact of being a person.
2. the state or fact of being an individual or having human characteristics and feelings.
So, as we know that foetuses prior to ~26 weeks gestation, do not demonstrate higher brain activity (1) (which, scientifically and medically, is what causes living humans to demonstrate the quality of personhood, such as their ability to think, to actually feel, experience, act and so on; without higher brain activity and therefore the demonstrated quality of personhood, a human is medically and legally considered to be dead(2))
d. DEATH: noun
1. the act of dying; the end of life; the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism.
Compare brain death.
2. an instance of this
This is the big one. The clear and undeniable comparison to 'Brain Death' as being synonymous with actual death is flatly not arguable. Current neuroscience tells us that it is a simple fact that cessation of meaningful brain activity is what 'death' even is.
And now I'll respond to the opening argument by my opponent. Terms defined above will be assumed to be correct for this response.
"Murder does not only mean if the HUMAN has Personhood it means the killing of a Human not just a Human Person, this said abortion is the Premeditated killing of an innocent."
This is a very simplistic reading of what the act of murder actually constitutes. Surely you aren't going to inference that ejaculation constitutes an act of manslaughter? I'm certain that you aren't, but from a logical inference point you have to in order for your argument to remain coherent; sperm cells and unfertilised eggs are just as 'human' as fertilised eggs are.
This position also ignores the definition of the term 'death', specifically with it being synonymous and interchangeable with 'brain death'; if brain activity never existed to cease, it seems nonsensical to argue that any 'death' has occurred in terms we would use when a human person has been killed. Unless of course you are denying that death is synonymous with brain death, and that the assumed legal and medical definition is incorrect.
"...once a woman willingly has unprotected sex, they have given the right to the child that may be created because of that choice. also if you are raped its called go to the hospital that night, get the morning after pill and don't wait for weeks up on weeks, and you should have to PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that you were raped not just say you were raped."
Even using multiple forms of protection perfectly, every time, can still result in impregnation. Even if this were not the case, your argument simply smacks of punishing people for having unprotected sex, which is arrogant moralising for the express purpose of harming others, and seems somewhat at cross purposes to the assumed anti-abortion sentiment of saving lives. It also disregards that consent to have sex =/= consent to become pregnant, give birth and/or raise a child. Consent is explicit; the mere fact that, for example, people regularly and often choose to engage in intercourse whilst taking precautions against becoming pregnant demonstrates that it is simply not reasonable to equate consent with one to consent with the other out of hand.
In an enormous majority of cases, it is not possible to 'prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt' that one has been raped. Most rapists never face conviction or go to prison. If such a law as this existed, this would simply encourage women to lie about having been raped, and potentialy land innocent men in prison, in order for them to seek abortion in case of an unwanted pregnancy. This would effectively serve only to punish victims of rape and result in innocent people being accused of rape. Women do not stop seeking abortions simply because the law attempts to punish them for doing so; anti-abortion laws are simply means to punish pregnant women for attempting to utilise their rights over their own bodies, and more broadly to punish women for having sex.
"...anyway That being said blaming the innocent for your mistake in not being protected is cruel and should be banned,"
Nobody is 'blaming' the foetus for anything; it is not being 'killed' to attempt to punish it in stead of the rapist (leaving out that abortion is not exclusively done in instance of rape, and in fact such abortions are a strict minority), the pregnancy is aborted in order to abort the pregnancy. Attempting to insinuate that abortions occur to punish rapists is nonsensical.
"...also Husbands or whoever the father is of the baby( unless it rape of course) should have a say in it too and if they both don't agree it should not be able to be done as the baby does not only belong to the mother just cause its in her, the father of it is part of it too"
The father is not the one who is pregnant, and whose rights to ownership over ones own body would be violated should the attempt to have an abortion be denied. Why should he get a say? Of course, assuming a pre-existing healthy relationship the issue should be talked over, but the simple fact of the matter is that the father does not have any rights to the womans body, and for that matter neither does the government, or the foetus. Why should others get veto rights over how one is 'allowed' to use their own body? Is that a universal standard, or do pregnant women simply not have ownership over their own organs?
Personhood at conception is a strictly religious notion and has absolutely no backing whatsoever in science. For one thing, the fact that it is an undeniable fact that brain death and actual death are synonymous, means that it is a flat non-sequiter to claim a totally unrelated beginning point to life having nothing whatsoever to do with brain activity. Modern neuroscience tells us that you *are* your brain, or at least that it creates whatever 'you' are. Even disregarding that, it is self-evidently more reasonable to claim a related starting point to the undeniable end point, using presence of meaningful brain activity as a benchmark for whether someone is 'alive' or not. Else we would be forced to conclude that, so long as even a single cell with your DNA still exists, 'you' are still alive in the same sense you are now, and that keeping a culture of your cells and then shooting you in the head thus does not count as 'murder'.
Claiming that this standard is false and that 'you' begin existing well before your brain has even begun to form, let alone demonstrate the activity that we associate with being a 'living person', is an extraordinary claim and I simply will not accept your word for it. Please provide evidence for this claim.
This is also ignoring that, as I have already stated, sperm cells and unfertilised eggs are also 'human' in the sense of having human DNA which differs from that of the person they came from. That they are haploid is irrelevant; that's discriminatory, by your own standards of treating non-persons as though they were.
This also disregards utter nonsensicalities shown with even a cursory examination of "HUMAN means you have unique DNA, and that's it" argument; identical twins share literally identical DNA, but you are flatly wrong if you go on to claim that this makes them 'the same person' as each other. This literally isn't even a debateable point.
"...also I'm sayin abortion shouldn't be used simply as a form of birth control,"
For one thing, most people do not use abortion 'just' as a form of birth control because previous birth control failed; most women use it because it is simply not possible, whether physically, financially or emotionally, for them to be pregnant or to have & raise a child at that time. You are assuming that giving birth is the 'responsible' choice to make when pregnant, but that is literally just your opinion. If the woman will not be able to effectively care for the life she would be bringing into the world, it is completely irresponsible for her to do so, or for you to force her to.
Contemporary data shows that legality does not affect abortion rates, and that increased access to birth control (something that 'pro-life' organisations are strictly against at the highest level, demonstrating clear lack of respect for rights and lack of effort to actually prevent abortions from occurring, instead focusing on punishing women for having sex) invariably results in a notable drop in abortion rates (1).
On that note, many people do not have easy access to contraception, and forcing them to remain pregnant and give birth for not having used it is simply punishing them for their socio-economic status. As well, contraception is not '100%' effective even in the most ideal circumstances; claiming that merely by choosing to have sex, women become 'responsible' for having a child, has nothing at all to do with the value of life and everything to do with your personal opinion on the woman's behavior.
Even leaving this out.... Why? Why should pregnant women not be allowed to use abortion as a form of birth control? Forcing them to remain pregnant and to give birth is a clear violation of their bodily rights.
Even if we *did* assume that foetuses had a 'right to life', this does not and cannnot imply a 'right to use someone else's body against their will', else it would be perfectly acceptable to kidnap random people off the street, steal their organs and sell them to sick people who need them. Unless you are going to argue that there is nothing wrong with this, it is a non-sequiter to claim that foetuses are different just because you say so. Or that pregnant women somehow don't have a right to their own body.
"it is wrong and can have dangerous effects."
Why is it 'wrong'? You must substantiate your claim that foetuses are 'persons' who have rights, your claim that any such 'right' they have allows them to lay claim to someone else's body and organs against their will, and your claim that life does, in fact, objectively and verifiably begin at conception (the science behind the issue simply does not back this religious belief up, FYI), in order to be making such a claim with any real weight behind it.
As for the 'dangerous effects' abortion has, would you care to go a bit deeper than that? Abortion has been demonstrated to have no adverse psychological effects in and of itself (quite the opposite, in a large majority of cases), has not been shown to have any correlation with breast cancer (as often claimed, but never substantiated), and even the most dangerous abortion is at least 13 times safer than even the 'safest' full-term pregnancy.
For that matter, literally every pregnancy and instance of childbirth carries a significant and real threat of death, in terms of the 'mother's' life. It is the sixth most common cause of death in women aged 20-34 in the US (2). Why should pregnant women not be allowed to refuse to consent to serious risk of *dying*?
"..abortions should ONLY be used in a matter of safety if neither the mother or child would survive the birth."
Why? You have not yet demonstrated any reason for ANY restriction on access to abortion, merely claims that foetuses are HUMAN and so shouldn't be 'killed' despite the fact that you have not substantiated the claim that they are 'alive' in the same sense living persons are, or the claim that they are or should be protected by rights, OR the claim that any such rights they did have would override the rights of the pregnant woman herself.
Why should it be used only when *both* of them are going to die? If the foetus is not going to survive anyway, it is completely nonsensical to force the woman to have to carry it anyway; if the mother is going to die, you are literally forcing her to *DIE* in order to save the 'life' of someone who does not yet even have one. Why should pregnant women not be allowed to not give their consent to *dying*? What right do you, or anyone else, have to force them to *die* for the sake of someone else who is not yet alive themselves? You harp on about abortion being 'murder' whilst completely disregarding that forcing a woman to be pregnant and give birth when you know that doing so will kill her is itself literally murder.
You should also take not that, as stated above, literally every instance of pregnancy and childbirth carries a very real and significant risk of death to both the pregnant woman and the foetus.
"..it should never be used as a form of revenge against the man who got the woman pregnant."
Pregnant women do not use abortion as a form of 'revenge', and it is simply insulting to claim that they do. Please substantiate this statement.
"as long as it has Human DNA, Has been conceived and is in any form of development it is human and subject to protection."
No, only persons have rights and as such can be subject to legitimate legal protection as though they had them. Your claim is simply not backed up by science whatsoever. Life beginning at conception is a religious belief which is not substantiated anywhere by real evidence. Whereas the belief that life begins when meaningful brain activity begins is substantiated by current understanding of neuroscience. Unless you are willing to claim that brain activity is irrelevant to human life, and that 'brain death' is not a real phenomenon, you are simply wrong on this point.
Please also see my statements regarding the fact that sperm cells and unfertilised eggs also have human DNA differing from the person they came from. Please address that point.
"having an abortion is no different than taking a child you already have and snapping its neck."
Yes it is. This is a non-sequiter and an unsubstantiated claim. Please provide evidence proving that foetuses at all stages of pregnancy are qualitatively identical to born children.
"but anyway as I said it should never be used simply because a child is unwanted. I think anyone who has an abortion should never be allowed to have any children whatsoever especially if they use the abortion simply for Convenience"
Personal opinion based on unsubstantiated claims. And vitriolic bile aimed at anyone who has ever had an abortion for any reason, at that. Why should a woman who had an abortion to save her own life not be 'allowed' to have children later on, when she's ready and when doing so won't end her life? That's ridiculous. Please see: every argument regarding 'abortion as contraception' and 'risk of death w/regards to pregnancy' above.
Biologically living, yes. Same as sperm cells and unfertilised eggs. Are you stating that sperm cells and unfertilised eggs are people, and that male masturbation and the natural human menstrual cycle are 'murder'? Your second point is simply not correct. Brain function is literally how 'human life' is defined in legal and medical terms. This has already been stated, addressed and sourced. If you take issue with said source specifically point it out and provide your own legitimate, valid, scientific source stating that brain function is actually irrelevant to human life. As it stands, causing the brain death of a person is the same thing as killing that person. Brain death is synonymous with actual death in legal and medical terms. You are wrong.
"also when I said convenience I didn't mean if it would kill the I just mean that if they say* oh I'm just not ready for the baby I wanna have a party life first* bit thats just irresponsible to do that."
Unsubstantiated personal opinion. Demonstrate how deliberately choosing to bring a life into the world that you are simply not prepared or able to care for is somehow a 'responsible' choice to make just because you say it is. Also, implication that all reasons for not having an abortion equate to 'I only care about me, I want to have a good time' are not only insulting, they're wrong. I have already stated this. Address the actual points I am making, not a caricature thereof.
Also, as stated, literally every single pregnancy involves a very real, statistically significant threat of death. This is relevant in every single instance of abortion ever. You cannot get around this just by ignoring it.
"and condoms are not that expensive so the idea of people not having access to contraceptives is BS."
For example, many countries are not first world countries and there does not exist easy access to birth control in those nations. This is not an argument exclusive to the 21st century US. Even if it were, in many states birth control access is restrictive, such as minors (who, believe it or not, do actually tend toward having sex later in their teenage years whether or not they're 'allowed' to) not being allowed to buy contraceptives, which simply leads to them having sex without them. Again, you cannot get around this argument by simply ignoring it.
"I say if you don't want a baby, don't have sex without a condom, and if you can't get condoms, don't have sex unless you are ready to risk becoming pregnant and thus giving a child the right to live."
Already been addressed. This is not only just your personal opinion, it is simply punishing women for having sex, deliberately and explicitly harmful to those women when actually given legal weight, and ignorantly and arrogantly equating 'consent to sex' with 'consent to become pregnant and have a child', despite the given arguments against this being the case (and despite that you make the same arguments even when specific mitigating factors are involved, ie. birth control, use of which specifically demonstrates lack of intent & consent to become pregnant). This argument has already been addressed, and you have not adequately responded or introduced any new points, so this argument is simply extended as-is.
"the fetus is still developing, and as stated before, growth, development, these all require one simple thing, LIFE. and if it is alive and has HUMAN DNA and is developing which requires life, it is Human."
This has already been addressed. Please respond to the actual points I am making. Do not parrot previous arguments you have already given and which have already been addressed.
"to have an abortion for selfish irresponsible reasons such as wanting a party life first should be wrong, there should be a Health Reason first, not just cause you don't want a baby."
All abortions involve explicit 'health reasons', as every pregnancy is potentially life-threatening. It has already been pointed out that implying that women only go out and get abortions because '[they] want[ing] a party life first' is not only insulting, and flatly wrong, it's also an unsubstantiated straw-man.
"if you become pregnant due to irresponsible actions such as Unprotected sex, you should have to take responsibility for your actions( that doesn't include killing an innocent life) as abortions are just punishing another life for your irresponsible actions, if you know you don't want a baby use protection"
Again, this is simply punishing women for having sex, it has nothing whatsoever to do with 'protecting innocent life'. All of those points have already been addressed; actually respond to the actual points I am actually making.
Specific comments aside, all arguments extended.
No, not wrong. Such 'changes & development' in a fertilised egg can only come to pass given an ideal environment for them to occur in. In the same manner that, given an ideal environment which includes one another, a sperm and an unfertilised egg will 'change & develop' into a fertilised egg. Not giving them access to this 'ideal environment' is not murder in one case, so it is a non-sequiter to assert that it is in the other case merely because you want it to be.
"also alot of women do not use HEALTH reasons for abortion"
We have been through this. EVERY pregnancy is potentially life threatening. Even if not explicitly pointed out, all abortions inherently have 'health reasons' as part of why they are done due to the fact that pregnancy & childbirth inherently have the serious potential to kill the pregnant woman. There is no such thing as a pregnancy where potential for death is not a 'thing'.
"alot of times they do it simply to not have to take responsibility for their actions which if your actions result in a pregnancy you should have to follow through with it."
We've also been through this. This is simply your personal opinion, nothing more to it. It has nothing to do with saving lives and everything to do with punishing women, in an inhumane, degrading and potentially life-threatening manner, for having sex.
"do not punish a separate life for something that was your fault not theirs."
We've also been through this. Nobody is 'punishing' foetuses for anything. That they typically do not end up surviving the abortion of a pregnancy is irrelevant.
"to put into A religious sense, which explains my moral belief only god has the right to take a life that he created within a woman no one else not even her."
Irrelevant. For one thing, this only matters at all to people who share your religion. Religious belief such as this is flatly not backed up by actual science to even the barest degree. If God cared enough, he would save the foetus without forcing the woman to suffer loss of her inherent rights and potential threat to her very life. But then, you need to prove that God even exists for arguments based upon the assumption that he does to be relevant. Attempting to enforce your religious beliefs upon those who do not share them is also itself immoral, and illegal in all reasonable countries.
"just like we would get punished for ending our own lives or someone elses, Life does not begin at birth but at conception."
Life beginning at conception is a strictly religious belief, and one not backed up by science at all. As far as can be reasonably seen, life begins when meaningful brain activity begins. Unless you are willing to source a valid, scientific source which states that brain activity is irrelevant to human life as regarding persons such as you or me, and therefore that 'brain death' is not a real thing despite being THE medical and legal standard for actual death, then you do not have anything to stand on in this regard.
"and don't mention the separation of church and state as there is no law of separation between church and state and Morality should play a roll in law."
All reasonable secular countries strictly abide by complete separation of Church and State. Religion does not and cannot play any part whatsoever in governing Law in any reasonable country. Enforcing your personal religious beliefs on others, in the process demonstrating complete and utter disrespect for their own religious rights, as law is immoral and illegal according to international law, and local law in every decent country on the planet.
"you say a pregnancy is a punishment for having sex I don't I say its a known expectation of unprotected sex besides disease. Life is Life it does not matter when it begins thank you"
You are the one stating that you are against abortion in part because "women should take responsibility for their actions", despite the fact that this has NOTHING to do with the foetus whatsoever and is LITERALLY simply the opinion that women ought to be punished for having sex by having their rights taken away and potentially threatening their lives. You also appear to have NO understanding of certain facts regarding access to contraceptives &/or sex education sufficient to know to use them in many parts of the world outside your own country, and no understanding of the fact that you can get pregnant even if you use multiple forms of contraceptives perfectly every single time you have sex.
But then we've already been over this point, and you haven't actually introduced any new information or arguments.
you say ending a life isn't a punishment, Purposley ending a life is a punishment to the life you are ending.
if you end the life of a fetus then you are punishing that fetus and that fetus is a human fetus which the main word is Human not Fetus . to prove that god exists all you have to do is look around, all of creation cannot exist without a creator. you don't have to be able to think to be alive, there are species all over the world that can't think cause they don't have a brain but they are alive, all a fetus has to do is be HUMAN for murder to take place, it is alive or it could not Grow and develop and a Human fetus is still a human it doesn't change to a human just because it leaves the womb
This argument relies on several assumptions regarding the nature of that life, which are, for the most part, verifiably not true and you have made no effort to demonstrate otherwise. 'Human life', as defined in a meaningful term rather than a flat biological one, requires the presence of meaningful brain activity, and it is not physically possible for foetuses to have this activity until at least 26 weeks of gestation. In order to demonstrate that I am incorrect you would have had to demonstrate that the phenomenon of 'brain death' isn't or, scientifically, 'shouldn't be' synonymous with actual death, which it is.
"if you end the life of a fetus then you are punishing that fetus and that fetus is a human fetus which the main word is Human not Fetus ."
The word 'foetus' isn't just there to give people an excuse to kill them, it's there because it is the correct descriptor for what they are. Nobody has ever denied that foetuses are, biologically & genetically, human. It simply isn't relevant; You need to prove that foetuses are PEOPLE, or at least that it is somehow reasonable to accord them rights as though they were (and to *also* demonstrate how those rights could 'override' those of the mother, whilst also addressing why this isn't the case for everyone, in which case the organ theft example I mentioned would have to be legal).
"you don't have to be able to think to be alive, there are species all over the world that can't think cause they don't have a brain but they are alive,"
And could you please point out which, if any, of those species we consider to be people, or to have rights? You will, of course, note that lack of a central nervous system fundamentally and inherently means that no 'individual', from the point of view of something that itself has a point of view, exists at all. Those things are not and physically could not possibly be sentient, let alone sapient. A mould spore does not have 'rights'.
"it is alive or it could not Grow and develop and a Human fetus is still a human it doesn't change to a human just because it leaves the womb"
No, it doesn't. It changes to a PERSON because its brain develops to the point of functionality. In order to fault this you would have to demonstrate that the fundamental idea behind the phenomenon of 'brain death' is flawed and that the broad medical (& legal) community is simply wrong. At the very least you would need to demonstrate how it could be considered 'reasonable' to state that, rather than the equivalent starting point as opposed to the verifiable end-point of brain-death, it is instead conception when 'human life' begins. Despite the fact that we know that biologically human life which differs genetically (even if 'just' by being haploid) from its progenitor has to exist in order for conception to occur, & your position not accounting for the existence of this 'human life' *at all*. Despite this meaning that 'brain-death' would then have to not be synonymous with 'actual' death, and therefore theoretically allowing for me to shoot you in the head and get away with it so long as someone still has a culture of cells with your DNA. It simply stands to reason that if you are asserting that mere genetic existence, rather than presence of meaningful brain activity, is when 'human life', in a meaningful and specific term, begins that you must remain internally consistent in your assertions and thus be asserting that cessation of genetic existence rather than cessation of meaningful brain activity is when that life ends. You have specifically refused to address any of those points in detail despite multiple prompting for each.
I have also noted your inclusion of a 'source' in comments. While this is strictly speaking not part of your argument, & while I thus do not 'need' to address it at all, I will at least humour you with its inclusion.
Firstly, 'lifenews.com' is a *very* heavily biased (towards pro-life/anti-abortion) site, so anything put forth by it with regards to its bias must be taken with a grain of salt. The article itself is little more than several dozen one-or-two sentence quotations, taken completely out of context, regarding the status of conception as when 'human life' biologically begins. You will, I hope, note that *I have never stated that this is not the case or argued that it isn't true*; I've stated that it isn't relevant. Conception as the beginning of *MY* life in a distinct, meaningful, and philosophical sense, rather than merely when 'my' genes started existing and began the blind, unthinking work of starting to create 'my' body and the brain that actually constitutes 'me' as a person, is strictly a religious belief.
You have merely demonstrated what is already known to be biological fact, you have not actually linked it to your postion on abortion in a meaningful or relevant manner. The fact that conception results in a novel combination of human genes, and that given an 'ideal' environment the cells those genes are present in will tend toward creating a human body which will give rise to a human brain and therefore a person, has never been argued. What I *have* been arguing is that you cannot call the mere fact of novel genetic combination to be considered a 'person', and as has been clearly seen with your refusal to address any one of several relevant points regarding the inconsistency of this belief itself and of how it is applied, demonstrates that your position is not, in fact, internally consistent and is not actually congruent with the reality of the situation.
You have refused to address the existence of a (at least technically) novel genetic combination, and thus by your own terms a 'HUMAN LIFE', that is demonstrated by sperm cells and unfertilised eggs. Technically you did address it but you merely asserted 'no, that isn't right' without evidence and without regard for how it is relevant to your position.
You have refused to address how your terminology regarding what constitutes a 'HUMAN LIFE' means that according to a consistently applied model of your position it could theoretically be legal, and more than that potentially objectively 'okay' and fine, for me to shoot you, lethally, in the head and keep a culture of your cells alive, as this would not constitue me 'killing' you so long as at least one cell with your DNA remained alive.
You have refused to address that your apparent assertion that the foetus has a right to its mothers body, and that this apparent right flatly overrides the pregnant woman's fundamental, inalienable right to her own body, is not at all consistent with how we tend to see and enforce human rights as operating. My example regarding kidnapping random people off the street and stealing their organs to give to sick people who need them *must* be permissible and able to be legal, according to a consistently applied model of your position, else you are asserting that foetuses are a 'special case' merely because you say so, which is an unjustified bare-assertion. Or else you are asserting that pregnant women do not have rights at all, which not only flies in the face of both international law and local law in almost every country on the planet, but is also barbaric, ludicrous and ethically unacceptable.
You have refused to address that a large part of your position being entirely based around 'women having to take responsibility for their actions' leaves out that it is simply not reasonable for them to have to 'take responsibility' for having sex, as it is simply not reasonable to assert that consenting to have sex somehow necessarily equates to consent to become pregnant and give birth, with or without use of contraceptives. You also made no differentiation in your argument between when such measures were or weren't used, and expressed incredulity that all people don't always get them for free and magically 'just know' exactly how to use them in all parts of the world at all times. You have also failed to address that this entire segment of your argument fundamentally has *nothing whatsoever* to do with the foetus or its 'life' and *everything* to do with your arrogant, moralising opinion regarding the womans behavior, that women should be *punished* in a degrading, inhumane and potentially life-threatening manner for having had sex. Which again is barbaric and ethically unacceptable.
You have *also* refused to address the invariable life-threatening nature of pregnancy, which is the case in *every* instance of pregnancy ever. You did not address that even a late-term abortion is several times safer than even the 'safest' full-term birth and therefore that pregnancy is ALWAYS a health concern sufficient to have good cause to abort, whether or not you personally agree with it. You are also on record as having stated that you would 'only allow for abortion when BOTH the mother and baby are going to die anyway', and have not provided responses to criticisms towards this position. You flatly disregard that refusing to allow pregnant women to attempt to save their own lives when continuing with the pregnancy will result in their deaths is *literally* MURDER by your own definition, given that causing the death of humans through inaction is literally directly counter to your own asserted positions of 1. 'valuing human life' and 2. that refusing to give foetuses access to their 'ideal environment' for growth counts as 'murder'.
I.... don't think there's really anything else to say. I think that covers everything.
I hope that this debate has been enlightening, educating or at least amusing. I would encourage you all to vote PRO (of course I would), and that will be all the self-advertisement for today.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Emma.Leah3 2 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:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and Grammar go to Pro for self-evident reasons. Pro advanced arguments that were more convincing because they were substantiated with information linked and available.
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.