The Instigator
JasperFrancisShickadance
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
socratits
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Endangered Species are protected more than Humans (A Debate about 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,433 times Debate No: 56045
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

1st round acceptance.
Pro=against abortion
Con=for abortion

Argument:
At this point in time America's society is so messed up. The public thinks it's OK to have sex with anyone and that they can do that outside of marriage. There are so many cases of abuse and neglection and men who don't treat women right (vice versa). This is not good because it this is where abortion comes in [like a wrecking ball]1 But is abortion really fine? How about fair? Does abortion affect anything?
Now take a look at the beginning of this video.
President Nixon, upon signing the Endangered Species Act law, did not realize how [later] presidents would ALSO sign legalization laws such as...well, all it really is is a law letting you kill babies! That's all!! Roe vs Wade started in his last year of being president. Not to put blame or put scapegoat on him but did he really go that deep into endangered species yet didn't do anything about his country's legalizing of abortion? Sorry for the bad usage of words here. Bear with me, please!
You can tell, from yard signs that say things like 'save the grey wolves,' that our society is messed up. Those same people who have the yard signs advertising their "sympathy" for endangered animals probably one voted for the legalization of abortion, which in my opinion is most definitely murder. For example, many times I have seen these words: the howl of the wolves is emblematic of our country's last wild areas, a reminder of strenght and beauty of our natural world. What about the human world? Aren't babies more valuable than animals, or have we changed our mind about the propering of a country? Isn't the next generation more important than our wild areas?!
Be prepared for a heated debate because this such a big issue :)
socratits

Con

Hi I accept. Please be more specific about your argument rather than ranting about the endangered species act and whatnot.
Debate Round No. 1
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

By accepting, I assume you know that this means you are arguing as a defender of abortion. If you see the title it says at the end "A Debate about Abortion." Now, I propose that endangered species are more protected than new born humans in America's society.

Please [rebut] what I said to begin with, and we can get on with things!
socratits

Con

To begin, Yes, I do understand your argument and again, I will restate what I said earlier is that you needed to clarify your argument. The way I see this debate turning out to a tie because you wasted one round by failing to address the issue I stated earlier.

The reason why I wanted you to clarify your defense is that I believe abortion is permissible under certain circumstances. However, the endangerend speicies act is irrelevent to this debate. Please explain to me how protecting animals has anything to do with the human race and our moral standards. The endangered species act was signed as a way to protect animals from dying out. Roe vs. Wade was about abortion. If you don't know what abortion is, I will give you the defintion from Merriam-Webster:

: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: asa : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriageb : induced expulsion of a human fetusc : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy — compare contagious abortion

So again, please tell me how Roe vs. Wade, a court settlement on abortion has anything to do with saving animals?

Moreover your talk about being fair and to the human race again is irrelevant because under the Social Contract Theory, one can state that animals do not have the same rights as humans.

Aren't babies more valuable than animals, or have we changed our mind about the propering of a country? Isn't the next generation more important than our wild areas?!

So I'm not even gonna address this statement for this is an absurd comment. Buut as a fun fact, you gotta realize that humans are OVERPOPULATING the earth. As in, humans are using the earth's resources at a faster rate than the earth can maintain. If we continue at this rate, scientists predict a large drop off in population, i.e. another endemic will happen that will kill off a huge percentage of the population.
Debate Round No. 2
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

JasperFrancisShickadance forfeited this round.
socratits

Con

Extended.
Debate Round No. 3
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

Basically if you are for abortion than you don't believe every human is equal...it is unfair that a baby must be killed. What if Einstein was aborted? Not KILLED, mind you, but ABORTED. (Not that there's a difference...)

Endangered species is not irrelevant because it is the topic to this debate! What we are talking about here is the society. The general people in America have put more money into killing babies than helping them, and they have put more money into protecting endangered species than into protecting babies. Let me ask you: which is more important, endangered animals who don't do anything important to help us, or humans? If you said animals DO help us and, besides, humans are over-populating, that would be equal to saying that not every human is special, am I not correct?

in what way is abortion "permissible"?

I can't understand how anyone can possibly think killing humans is OK.
socratits

Con

Again, I was hoping that in R2 you would make your argument clearer but clearly you did not forsee the problems addressing with abortion. If abortion was such an easy topic then society wouldn't have this problem to begin with.

Basically if you are for abortion than you don't believe every human is equal...it is unfair that a baby must be killed.

To start off, you used "then" wrong. It is not "than" but "then."

In no way have you proven to me why a fetus (at any stage) is considered a human. From this statement alone, you are suggesting that it is wrong for me to kill mold, because they are composed of cells too. Additionally, if I was working with cells for research, it would be wrong for me to dispose of yeast cells because they are considered human.

So if your argument was valid then I would agree, human life is not equal. I find my life as a person with mental capacity to be of higher value than an insect or an epithelial cell, whose only function in life is to sit there in media. But of course, what I'm doing is wrong. When it comes down, I should give the same respect to myself as I would to others, especially to that epithelial cell that is just sitting in my petri dish.

Endangered species is not irrelevant because it is the topic to this debate! What we are talking about here is the society. The general people in America have put more money into killing babies than helping them, and they have put more money into protecting endangered species than into protecting babies. Let me ask you: which is more important, endangered animals who don't do anything important to help us, or humans? If you said animals DO help us and, besides, humans are over-populating, that would be equal to saying that not every human is special, am I not correct?

Seems to me that you are getting confused between animal rights and abortion. I'm pretty sure these are separate topics. Philosophically though, you can address both issues with certain moral reasoning, but the argument you make does not hold any weight. Moreover, in R1, the first sentence you state that it was an abortion issue? So how is being an endangered species an abortion issue? Are you suggesting that animals have the same rights as humans? If so, I will refute that argument with social contract theory (I'm not gonna digress.)

Your rhetoric is useless so I will fire back with another useless question, which do you like more, a lamp or a lamp post?

I cannot fathom at what goes on in your head as you wrote your rebuttal. Please explain to me how animals helpping us and human overpopulation equals not every human is equal in terms of rights?

In my opinion, abortion is permissible up to the third trimester of pregnancy. After this stage, it is believed that the fetus will have some normal brain and heart function. Before the 3rd trimester, you have a ball of cells. It literally cannot do anything but be a ball of cells. While I do agree with you that those cells are considered living, but the problem is that they have no reasoning, they cannot feel pain, they cannot be independent, their only function is to be a ball...of cells. Nothing else.

Anwyays like I said earlier if you don't define your arguments clearly then it's a big waste of time. As you can see, I was right because we did not debate about anything. It really was me asking you to clarify your arguments and showing you why your reasoning was flawed.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by socratits 2 years ago
socratits
lemme guess, youre a vegetarian jasper.
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
About the video I posted, it is a point of reality that I hope more people will see: Gosnell killed babies after they were born, which is utterly awful at it's worst, but that's really no different than abortion INSIDE the stomach. Hopefully people will realize how abortion is the same thing as murder.
Posted by socratits 2 years ago
socratits
I never said ability, I said function. As in having any form of brain function.
Posted by ericanddianna270 2 years ago
ericanddianna270
Socrotits certainly you do not believe that the first neurological function starts one second after the fetus comes out of the mothers womb and becomes born do you?

If neurological ability is your only point as to who is human and who is not.... does this meen we should kill the less intelligent people?

Hitler would have loved you.
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
No neurological function? Well tell me if they have one in 6 months. IS THERE A DIFFERENCE? No. It doesn't matter what/who qualifies as a "human" but taking their later life away from them is murder, no better than shooting someone with a gun.
Posted by socratits 2 years ago
socratits
Well I hope that you're under the age of 18. I would be surprised if you were any day older.
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
wow you actually believe my age number? If you look a little bit more you see that I wrote it's NOT my real age. I told you my definition of a human too. Again, a person's a person, no matter how small.
Posted by socratits 2 years ago
socratits
I have given my reason why fetuses are not human, like i said, they have no neurological function. What is YOUR defintion of a human?

You're only 14, it's OK if you don't understand fully the morality behind this argument. I shouldve looked at your profile before taking up this debate.
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
What I meant to finish the sentence with:

Abortion takes away any human rights and by allowing things like abortion to be legal we are letting innocent and (VERY) important humans be killed.
No votes have been placed for this debate.