The Instigator
Sitar
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SJM
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Do unborn babies have the right to live?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 293 times Debate No: 93267
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Sitar

Pro

Pro means yes, and Con means no. My opponent will start the debate.
SJM

Con

Omg so little characters

By definition fertilization, aka conception, is the initiation of human development. Now how could something develop as a human without being human? Therefore since it is established that they are human, they have as much of a right to live as the rest of us do.

Fertilization- the process of union of two gametes whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Sitar

Pro

You are on the wrong side. If unborn babies have the right to live, why did you take the con position?
SJM

Con

Oh fuk my life.

In that case I will refute my own comment. Now I provided the definition of fertilization which says the development of a new individual, not the development as a new individual, therefore it's not the case that the definition states it's developing as a human. A seed could be developing of a new flower, but it wouldn't be developing as a flower. Therefore the BOP is still on my opponent for why it should be considered human.
Debate Round No. 2
Sitar

Pro

If a woman does not want a child, she has the right to use contraception, but she does not have the right to murder her baby.
SJM

Con

You're begging the question here. You need to provide reason for what you're asserting. Plus I just gave you a counter reason to why it's not considered a human. You have the BOP for why it should be considered a human. So far it is not considered murder.
Debate Round No. 3
Sitar

Pro

You have no proof that I am begging the question, and you are guilty of the fallacy fallacy. The fact remains that "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unlalienable rights such as LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
SJM

Con

You're backing up why unborn children have a right to live with "she does not have the right to murder her baby". And you quoted something that doesn't explain why unborn babies should have the right to live. Plus I don't believe in a creator so that would just refute it.
Debate Round No. 4
Sitar

Pro

That's the way it is. All living creatures have the right to live. This debate is about babies having the right to live, not why they have that right. That would be a separate debate. You can obsess over why, but that would be a waste of time.
SJM

Con

.........

Um ok well I feel like if I forfeited this round the debate would still go to me. But I will help you understand why I win this debate. The resolution is "Do unborn babies have the right to live?", you say that's they way it is, and I say it's not. However I have given reason for my stance and you haven't. Therefore I have offered a valid argument and you haven't.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by SJM 10 months ago
SJM
Me arguing against something my opponent hasn't brought up would just give my opponent more of a chance to attack me.
Posted by Janerover 10 months ago
Janerover
And something else here that I've noticed: what exactly is 'murder' anyway? This should have also been discussed since someone used the phrase. Clearly this is not the legal use of the word, otherwise every medical professional that has been involved with an abortion is guilty of murder.

I've assisted a woman who was literally dying of internal bleeding because of an ectopic pregnancy. Am I a murderer because I saved the woman's life? Should I have let the woman (and foetus die) because I would be 'murdering' the mother, and subsequently 'killing' both anyway? Is the woman herself a murderer because her body rejected to foetus?

Please refrain from using such words to provoke an emotional response without much else to base this around.
Posted by Janerover 10 months ago
Janerover
Disappointed here on the arguments.

I wanted to see arguments relating to the high natural rate of miscarriage (almost 50%) and it's relevance here. This being that it's hard to make statements on 'right to live' when nature seems frankly ambivalent about the whole thing.

I wanted to see arguments on the rights of the mother vs the rights of the child. How does your opinion change when the 'unborn baby' in fact - puts the mother's life at risk? Will you put a mother's life before or behind something unborn? eg. mother refusing chemotherapy because of her pregnancy. Or preclampsia/eclampsia. Where do you stand when technically there is a foetus - but it will in fact likely kill the mother or die anyway? (e.g. ectopic pregnancy --> massive internal haemorrhaging for mothers, life threatening if foetus not extracted).

Where do you stand when a mother has no choice but to be a mother... where is her right to an abortion? eg. recent case in another state in Aus - a 12year old attempted suicide because medical staff would not abort the foetus.
No votes have been placed for this debate.