The Instigator
imabench
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Valladarex
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

If Abortion = Murder, then Masturbation = Genocide and B***jobs = Cannibalism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 6 votes the winner is...
Valladarex
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,986 times Debate No: 34516
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (6)

 

imabench

Pro

Tweaked the Resolution slightly due to a good comment in the comments section.

Can now be accepted by anyone.

3 rounds, 4000 characters

First round acceptance only
Valladarex

Con

I accept, and thank my opponent for allowing me to debate such an interesting and controversial topic.

I will attempt to prove that if abortion is murder, then masturbation doesn't necessarily = genocide and b***jobs don't necessarily = cannibalism.

I assume that the burden of proof will be shared between me and imabench.

I hope for a great debate. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Pro

Alrighty then, lets get to work.

Claim #1) Killing a 2 month old baby is murder, even if the 2 month old baby really deserved it. I think the con would agree with that claim

Claim #2) A 2 month old baby is just about the same as a baby thats been in the womb for 8 months minus the fact that the fetus is still in the womb, so killing an 8 month old fetus still in the womb is murder. I think con would agree with this claim as well since hes against late term abortion (according to his profile)

Claim #3) An 8 month old baby in the womb is considered alive and human since it consists of human dna, human cells, develops in the womb into a human, yatta yatta yatta. Look there isnt really a clear and universal definition of why or when exactly a fetus is considered human and alive.

Claim #4) In order to make a baby, you need sperm, an egg, a good amount of alcohol, and poor self control.

Claim #5) Sperm cells consist of human dna, they are human cells, they develop in the womb into a human when combined with an egg.

Claim #6) By claim 5, Sperm cells are human.

Claim #7) If Sperm Cells are human, then masturbation kills millions of humans and is therefore genocide, while eating millions of humans is considered cannibalism.
Valladarex

Con

"Claim #1) Killing a 2 month old baby is murder, even if the 2 month old baby really deserved it. I think the con would agree with that claim"

I agree

"Claim #2) A 2 month old baby is just about the same as a baby thats been in the womb for 8 months minus the fact that the fetus is still in the womb, so killing an 8 month old fetus still in the womb is murder. I think con would agree with this claim as well since hes against late term abortion (according to his profile)"

I agree

"Claim #3) An 8 month old baby in the womb is considered alive and human since it consists of human dna, human cells, develops in the womb into a human, yatta yatta yatta. Look there isnt really a clear and universal definition of why or when exactly a fetus is considered human and alive."

First, there such be a differentiation between the meaning of human and person. Human is a much broader term. Individual cells, DNA, and our interactions with other people could all be considered human. When thought in this manner, not all things human should be given rights. Does a single cell deserve the same rights of a person? Of course not.

That brings me to what a person is. A person, as defined in the Merriam Webster dictionary, is one that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties. So at one point does a growing human become a person? In my opinion, the best determiner in when someone becomes a living person is brain activity.

Today, a person is considered legally dead when that person becomes brain dead. This means that if a human body is still on life support, and there is no brain activity, then the family of that individual could decide to take that person off of life support, effectively ending that body's ability to function. If brain death is the determiner of when someone is dead, why not be the determiner of when someone is alive?

When we consider a person alive at the moment of brain activity, then a fetus becomes a person at a certain point, as brain activity occurs during a certain point of the pregnancy.

In this view of abortion, it is wrong to kill a fetus, but it is okay to masturbate or get blowjobs. One would be murder, and the others aren't.

Back to you.
Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Pro

" When thought in this manner, not all things human should be given rights. Does a single cell deserve the same rights of a person? Of course not."

Well thats just your opinion now isnt it? Corporations and businesses are given human rights sine they are classified as people, and if businesses are considered people/human then I think that human cells should also be considered people/human since apparently the bar to be classified as a person s pretty low.

"A person, as defined in the Merriam Webster dictionary, is one that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties. So at one point does a growing human become a person? In my opinion, the best determiner in when someone becomes a living person is brain activity."

Aha, another opinion!

A person is one that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties, and fetuses at all stages are the subject of rights and duties in numerous states. and we're talking about whether or not sperm and eggs are human, not just people.

"If brain death is the determiner of when someone is dead, why not be the determiner of when someone is alive?"

Because being brain dead doesnt necessarily imply that someone is dead, there are brain dead pundits on fox news/msnbc (whichever one you hate more) all the time, and they are still considered to be alive!

===========================================================================

I know people get touchy on the subject but the simple truth is that sperm and eggs do have rights since they are a lot like people..... No brains, no balls, but still human and still alive. They certainly meet some of the most basic criteria to be considered people/human, which means that aborting them is indeed murder, that masturbating is indeed genocide, and that b*** jobs are indeed cannibalism.
Valladarex

Con

Rebuttals


"Well thats just your opinion now isnt it? Corporations and businesses are given human rights sine they are classified as people, and if businesses are considered people/human then I think that human cells should also be considered people/human since apparently the bar to be classified as a person s pretty low. "

The claim in this debate is: if abortion is murder, then masturbation is genocide and blowjobs are cannibalism. The fact that my idea of personhood is just an opinion is irrelevant, as it still shows that there is a way that abortion could be considered murder, but masturbation and blowjobs wouldn't. If there is one instance where these two ideas of murder don't necessarily correlate, then pro's claim fails.

You may very well think that human cells should be considered people, and that's perfectly fine. Under your idea of personhood, it is true that both abortion and masturbation/blowjobs are murder. But, this isn't the only idea of personhood. Under my idea of personhood, abortion would be considered murder but masturbation/blowjobs aren't. This shows that there is an instance where pro's claim isn't true.


"A person is one that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties, and fetuses at all stages are the subject of rights and duties in numerous states. and we're talking about whether or not sperm and eggs are human, not just people. "

Fetuses having personhood in numerous states is irrelevant to the claim. The claim calls for there to be no instance where killing a fetus is murder, but killing sperm cells isn't. I have demonstrated that there is a marker where this is entirely possible and even reasonable.

I also disagree that we are talking about whether or not eggs and sperm are human, since murder applies to persons. If all things human were considered persons, then it would be different. For example, destroying the DNA in a single human cell is legal, despite it being human.

"Because being brain dead doesnt necessarily imply that someone is dead, there are brain dead pundits on fox news/msnbc (whichever one you hate more) all the time, and they are still considered to be alive!"

Jokes aside, brain death is still how we determine whether someone is alive or not. "All fifty states and the District of Columbia have adopted the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA). The UDDA also recognizes whole-brain death -- irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain -- as a legal standard of death. A person can be legally dead even if her cardiopulmonary system continues to function. If a patient's entire brain is nonfunctioning, so that breathing and heartbeat are maintained only by artificial means, that patient meets the whole-brain standard of death."(1)

Conclusion

Because pro has not demonstrated that, if abortion is murder, then masturbation is genocide and blowjobs are cannibalism, the resolution is not affirmed. There are instances where abortion could be considered murder, and masturbation/blowjobs are not. This includes the method of determining personhood that I advocate. If brain activity is the requirement for personhood, then abortion is murder, but masturbation and blowjobs aren't.

Vote Con.

Source:

1. http://definitions.uslegal.com...

Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by watevas808 4 years ago
watevas808
Its so amazing how we are what we are. I'm glad to be alive. We are the one special sperm that reached that one special egg at the right time to be just us. The possibilities in otherwise is amazing.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
"So at one point does a growing human become a person? In my opinion, the best determiner in when someone becomes a living person is brain activity."
Posted by Valladarex 4 years ago
Valladarex
@ClassicRobert,
"I'll give Pro arguments because Con's claims revolved around whether or not things could be "considered" to be so. However, there is a difference between is and considered. Con gets reliable sources, because since Pro didn't use sources, Con's were by default more reliable."

My arguments revolved around whether or not the claim is true in every instance. I gave times where abortion is murder, but masturbation/cannibalism isn't. There was no evidence presented that this claim was always true. Since the claim is an if-then statement, then it means that it could be proven false if there are times where it isn't true. I looked at it in a mathematical view. Pro's claim would be like calling all quadrilaterals squares, when only in some circumstances are quadrilaterals squares.

@Ragnar

"He spent a lot of time on abortion not equaling murder, when the argument is not about abortion itself; it's in fact a slippery slope setup pre-assuming that "abortion = murder," and then arguing two additional points on that slippery slope; therefore proving that abortion is not murder, fails to disprove pro's arguments."

Where did I spend time proving that abortion isn't murder? The whole debate, I supported a stance where abortion is murder, but masturbation/blowjobs aren't. I never tried to disprove pro's argument by showing that abortion isn't murder.
Posted by TheDarkMuffin 4 years ago
TheDarkMuffin
And the people taking it seriously don't seem to be very reasonable in their arguments, either.
Posted by shamama 4 years ago
shamama
I thought it was a troll, but people actually use this argument in debate questions, and they're serious about it. Also, this is a serious human rights issue.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
lol at people taking this debate seriously.... Its a troll debate guys
Posted by shamama 4 years ago
shamama
This argument is illogical, mostly because of the simple fact that a sperm is not a human. A sperm cell carries genetic information from the father, towards the goal of fertilizing the egg. It is not a complete human in any way. A sperm and egg must unite before a human is formed. Abortion is, by definition, the terminating (killing, murder, whichever verb floats your boat) of an embryo or fetus, which is a human being, albeit in a more young form.

I believe that human life matters when it is present. Therefore, when the embryo has developed a brain, it is a human, with what we could assume is some form of thought or comprehension, albeit not entirely 'rational'. Yet, a one month old newborn does not hold much capability for rational thought either, or independence from its mother.

I'll leave you with a quote from Ann Furedi, the chief executive of the largest independent abortion provider in the UK: "We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it. It"s clearly human in the sense that it"s not a gerbil, and we can recognize that it is human life" the point is not when does human life begin, but when does it really begin to matter?"
Posted by JacobAnderson 4 years ago
JacobAnderson
Your argument that bjs are cannibalism and masturbation is genocide does not make much sense. Every time a man ejaculates in a woman, there are thousands of sperm cells that enter the woman's body. Out of all of those thousands, only one has the potential to enter the egg and start a new life. So, basing off of this, you would have to make an argument for having sex and ejaculating inside the woman's body. Would that be called genocide since the other thousand's that did not make it to the egg are then pointless? This whole argument doesn't make sense. Especially because men make tens of thousands of sperm cells a day and masturbation helps regulate the amount in the body.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
blowjobs.... but I had to censor it otherwise the debate might get me in trouble with the mods, and im on thin ice already
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Wait, how are boobjobs cannibalism?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 4567TME 4 years ago
4567TME
imabenchValladarexTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Fun, the most lighthearted "debate" over abortion I've seen in quite some time. While I agree with Pro in that calling all abortion murder is an overreaction, Con did have the most convincing case.
Vote Placed by TheDarkMuffin 4 years ago
TheDarkMuffin
imabenchValladarexTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con clearly had the more convincing argument, notwithstanding the humor of Pro and the fact that this is a troll debate. Con had Sources. Pro made a couple of Spelling and Grammar mistakes, while I didn't catch any from Con. It seems like Con nearly won in every aspect.
Vote Placed by MattHarrison 4 years ago
MattHarrison
imabenchValladarexTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was a lot funnier. Shouldn't b***jobs be considered genocide too, because it doesn't necessarily mean swallowing?
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
imabenchValladarexTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: TROLL DEBATE! ... Con was really hampered by not understanding the resolution. He spent a lot of time on abortion not equaling murder, when the argument is not about abortion itself; it's in fact a slippery slope setup pre-assuming that "abortion = murder," and then arguing two additional points on that slippery slope; therefore proving that abortion is not murder, fails to disprove pro's arguments. Also... The whole argument about personhood, really ended up arguing that it wouldn't be murder to terminate braindead news anchors; which is the only time con got into the spirit of the troll debate. Oddly pro had a really clear argument as seen in round 2, as much as claim five could have been worded a little better to favor his frivolous notion. Sources: Had con linked and properly quoted the dictionary, I think these would be more in his favor. However a single final round source which cannot be defended against, is just too late to the party.
Vote Placed by HeartOfGod 4 years ago
HeartOfGod
imabenchValladarexTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: imabenches arguments were much more convincing. con had better sources
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 4 years ago
ClassicRobert
imabenchValladarexTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: I'll give Pro arguments because Con's claims revolved around whether or not things could be "considered" to be so. However, there is a difference between is and considered. Con gets reliable sources, because since Pro didn't use sources, Con's were by default more reliable.