The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Veridas
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

Artificial fertility treatments should be banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 4/12/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,445 times Debate No: 11683
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Artificial fertility treatments are blasphemous and an abomination in the eyes of G-d and those so-called "doctors" who perform evil deeds using so-called "advances in medical science" will be struck down and cast into the pits of Hell to burn for all eternity. Hallelujah! Praise the Lord!

Actually, that's not really my argument - I just thought I'd put that in at the beginning in the hope that some devout Christians might vote for me without reading the rest of the debate!

No, my real objection to artificial fertility treatments is based on the global sustainability of the human race.

Only a generation ago, infertile couples wanting children would have had to either adopt or split up and find fertile partners to start families with.

These days, however, selfish, thoughtless infertile couples in the West are using artificial fertility treatments to bring yet more children into this chronically overcrowded world, thus adding to the suffering of hundreds of millions of malnourished kids in undeveloped countries by depriving them of their fair share of the world's finite food resources.

Given that the planet cannot sustain the population as it is, we must conclude that, in the interests of the sustainability of the human race on a global basis, artificial fertility treatments should be banned.

Thank you.

Source: http://datafinder.worldbank.org...
Veridas

Con

Praise Thor.

Sorry, thought I'd try your logic, I figure there has to be at least one Viking on this website.

Your argument rests on three key points. Firstly that the world is too overcrowded as it is, secondly that infertile couples create a substantial addition to the number of prospective parents for each generation, and thirdly that individual people do not deserve to be happy.

Well this is going to be fun.

For the first point I would ask you to consider the fact that Earth is far from overcrowded. There's plenty of space and resources, the only problem is the fact that people are packed so tightly together and politics plays such a vital role in the collective movement of mankind that the spaces that are left are generally undesirable (I'm looking at you, Somalia, The Middle East, and so on) due to cultural or physical differences and resources are stockpiled and dished out as per political will. It's nothing personal, it's just business.

Imagine, for example, taking half the population of India and sticking them in the farmable but generally not-too-friendly regions of Africa. Some of them would get along fine, I'm sure. Some of them would adapt and grow and provide additional resources to the country and people. Others wouldn't, others might be vilified for their cultural differences, or their difference in faith, or just the fact that they weren't born African.

People don't want to take that chance. Generally they feel more comfortable at their home, so that's where most people stay.

Aggressive expansion programes are needed, don't get me wrong, but to say the whole planet is overcrowded is a bit like packing four lions into a 3X5 cage and then claiming that the whole zoo is full.

For the second point, lets examine the actual number of infertile people currently alive, according to a source I'll post at the bottom, infertility rates are rising but are currently at about 15% in affluent countries. If we assume that's a standard and known it down by maybe a third if we include non-affluent countries then I think maybe 10% should about do it.

There are currently roughly 6.5 billion people living on this planet. 10% of that is roughly 650 million.

Of those, I would think that not everyone would have access to the earlier mentioned infertility treatments. If we assume it depends on the poverty line and factor in the earlier-included non-affluent countries then I reckon maybe a third would actually have access to these treatments, so just over 200 million.

that's 100 million couples, if we say that each couple has an average of two kids each, that's 200 million people born per generation.

But remember, that's only 10% of the spawn output of the total human race, because we're talking about 10% of the population.

The spawn contribution made by infertile people who aren't infertile anymore is at best negligable compared to the spawn output of people with fully functioning dangly bits.

For the third point, shame on you, Thor smite your genitals with the wrath of a menstruating serpent. If you want to help combat global overpopulation, I have a pair of shears and a shedload of painkillers you can borrow. I recommend laying down a towel.

Sources:

Infertility rates rising, says Scotsman: http://news.scotsman.com...
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I extend my thanks to Veridas for accepting this debate, but at the risk of invoking the wrath of Thor, I'm afraid I must contradict the points he made.

It is true that most people are concentrated into certain countries for geo-political reasons but it doesn't follow that there are large tracts of land in places like Africa that could be used to cultivate crops.

Indeed, Africa is commonly associated with famine and desertification and there are very few opportunities to cultivate unutilised land in order to feed the world.

The fact is, the situation is desperate and desperate measures are required to cope.

That's why in China, where 84% of the land is unsuitable for agriculture, couples are only allowed to have one child and artificial fertility treatments are not permitted. (1,2)

I agree that artificial fertility treatments are not the main driver of world population growth but it is significant and the suffering it causes to innocent children in the third world is real.

For this reason I reaffirm that artificial fertility treatments should be banned.

Thank you.

(1) http://www.fco.gov.uk...

(2) http://english.gov.cn...
Veridas

Con

My opponent's argument is that with all the farmable land in the world, why not farm it?

The very reason for that is due to the geopolitical problems that he agreed existed. You simply cannot force people to go somewhere, spend a hard life farming surrounded by people who may or may not reject you socially for arbitrary reasons and honestly expect them to be happy.

My opponent spoke about China and it's state regulated birth control, what my opponent did not speak of was the fact that China now looks like Japan has done for what? 20 years?

Japan has simply dealt with the problem that China is now facing, as a result of overpopulation, some Japanese urban homes are similar in design to apartments or flats here in England, but they're simply smaller and more functional. Admittedly there isn't much room for luxury, but it doesn't infringe upon the right to make the wife start walking funny either. Below you will find a link to a series of photographs of a house developed by Japanese Architects who had room to play with, and they simply used the room vertically rather than horizontally, their entire architectural perspective has changed from wanting to be more vertical than more horizontal because lord knows you can always just make something taller.

India's approach to their overpopulation seems to be to ignore it, though having said that, India is a rapidly developing country so I sincerely doubt it's main concern is it's people in these rough economic times.

China's is to infringe upon a few basic human rights and hope the problem goes away.

Globally speaking, each country is dealing with the problem of overpopulation in their own way. So how can my opponent claim that there is a global overpopulation problem?

Japanese architects do their thing: http://www.trendir.com...
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Brian, looks like you actually attracted a religious nutcase with your opponent argument! And, to counteract this... Praise be to Veridas! Thor will give you a special place in Asgard for your constant vigilance to Valhalla!
(lol)
Posted by brian_eggleston 6 years ago
brian_eggleston
Fair comments from Roy. I will accept that.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro had the burden of proof and did not provide adequate support for his case. The UN says the population of the world will stabilize in about 50 years. Currently, the population of the developed world, where infertility treatments are used, is stable or declining. Con point out Pro's burden of proof. Con could have done a better job of building counter-arguments to Pro's claims, but what was done was adequate to win the debate.
Posted by Puck 6 years ago
Puck
Ah well. Looks like I'm too late anyway. :P
Posted by brian_eggleston 6 years ago
brian_eggleston
No serious one for a change Puck...
Posted by Puck 6 years ago
Puck
Serious debate or no, Brian? If you are looking for a light hearted one I'll decline, otherwise I may take this. :)
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
Ha ha ha, I was wondering if Godsands finally got to you.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
brian_egglestonVeridasTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
brian_egglestonVeridasTied
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 Pwnu059 6 years ago
Pwnu059
brian_egglestonVeridasTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
brian_egglestonVeridasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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