The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Australia's laws on Embryonic Research are outdated.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
missgallagher1 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/10/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 266 times Debate No: 104370
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




As research is conducted in other countries, they have identified genes in zygotes with could prevent miscarriages from occurring. However, if this research was conducted in Australia, the scientist behind this groundbreaking research would be put in jail for 15 years. Does Australia need to re-think its policies/laws about this research? Does it prevent us from moving forward in this field of research? what about the future of our country? how could this research benefit/harm Australia?

This is an example debate used for a lesson plan for a year 12 biology class. However, feel free to comment your ideas.


The fact of the matter is, the role of the State is to maintain a monopoly on the use of force, or in otherwords, prevent actors from imposing their wills upon nonconsenting parties.

There is no principle, no dividing line that is empirically justified as establishing "humanity", other than having Homo Sapiens DNA.

Does having an autonomous heartbeat make one human? No, because otherwise killing people on pacemakers would be acceptable.
Does having a fully-functional brain make one human? No, because killing the handicapped would be acceptable.
Does being sapient make one human? Hardly, otherwise people would cease to be sapient as they slept, or fell in comas.
Does the fact that the fetus is a burden on the woman make it acceptable to kill? Hardly, because women aren`t allowed to kill their born children because they are burdens, nor withhold their support from them on this basis.

Repeat this exercise ad infinitum. There is nothing that you could make an objective case for being definitive of humanity in the first place, and even if you could the principle would apply to adults who find themselves in similar circumstances and you would thus be guilty of special pleading.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Arganger 9 months ago
I'd say 75% chance of forfeit.
Posted by Emilrose 9 months ago
I'd take this debate, but there's like a 99% chance of forfeits from brand new members such as yourself.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.