The Instigator
Marshall-Abarca
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
RegretNothing
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Is abortion really a moral thing?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Marshall-Abarca
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,989 times Debate No: 35450
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (32)
Votes (3)

 

Marshall-Abarca

Con

There are many who believe that abortion is something that should be promoted or at least tolerated. These proponents of abortion usually use the guise of women's rights to support abortion and put the defense of logical fallacies such as perhaps the famous ad hominem fallacy, that if you are against abortion you are against women's rights. I would first like to make as clear as possible that I am against this mentality that abortion is in support of women's rights, and would like to have the first round be solely a round of establishing viewpoints. If my opponent whomever he/she may be can tell their views on abortion specifically before engaging in this debate. Thank you in advance to anyone who accepts this challenge.
RegretNothing

Pro

As it was asked for, i'll establish my viewpoints. Let it be known i'm not a feminist, but i value equality among both males and females disregarding sexuality. Now, the reason many pro-abortionists use women's rights as a way to support abortion is completely feasible. 410 U.S. 113, Roe v. Wade. The landmark case on the issue of abortion; the right is to be balanced between protecting prenatal life and protecting a woman's health, but if the woman sees her unfit for mothering a baby, why force it on her? My viewpoint is that women should be granted the right to have an abortion,and i see it completely moral to do so. Roe v. Wade states a woman's right to choose abortion as an alternative to giving birth is a fundamental right recognized by the Supreme Court. Another viewpoint i stand on is that the inception of a human begins at the physical birth itself; not at conception. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not the execution of a human child. Now that we've created viable viewpoints, i'd like to elaborate a little on mine. Even if the fetus has a right to life, abortion is morally permissible because a woman has a right to control her body. Forcing a woman to carry a baby she has no desire to is like [an analogy], forcing a person's body to be used as a dialysis machine for another person suffering from kidney failure. It would be permissible to just 'unplug' and cause the death of the person who is using another's kidneys, as it is permissible to abort a fetus that has no right to use another's body against one's will.
Debate Round No. 1
Marshall-Abarca

Con

Firstly, I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting the challenge. Now then to look at my opponents arguments one at a time

First I'd like to quickly address the idea that abortion is supporting women's rights, I don't need a link from a biologist to tell me that 50% of all unborn children are female, that being said depriving them of Life doesn't seem to be respecting their rights as a woman. The argument can be made that the unborn are not human yet, however I'll now go through those point thoroughly.

-->"My viewpoint is that women should be granted the right to have an abortion"abortion is morally permissible because a woman has a right to control her body."
I absolutely agree that people have the right do what they want their own bodies, however in the case of abortion that isn't what's happening. Abortion isn't a woman doing something to her own body, it's her taking the life away from an innocent child. This whole argument is based off of the simple question "is there any proof that an unborn is biologically a human being?" I will now prove that this is the case.

The pro-life side claims that life starts at the process known as fertilization where the male sperm and female egg come together. One biological example is the fact that once the two gametes come together the gender is determined almost instantly due to the X and Y chromosomes in a the father's sperm.[1] It is also a unique argument of the pro-abortion side that the unborn are not human due to the fact that they have no conscious thought, however that is also false not only do newborns have conscious thoughts[2], but there's proof that the unborn have conscious thought themselves to various degrees. All one has to do is look at how the unborn construct the complex system that is the human body, the embryo almost instantly begins to create the bone structure, the muscles, the organs etc. and though the process takes a long time, it's still worth noting that a being with no conscious thought can make such a complex system.[1]

Other biological points are also available to show how the unborn constitute human life. For example there is the basic definition of what defines a living being based on the standard science book definition. There are five points and they show how unborn are also living beings as well.

1. Living beings are highly organized.[3]
2. They have the ability to acquire materials and energy.[3]
3. They have the ability to respond to their environment.[3]
4. They have the ability to reproduce.[3]
5. They have the ability to adapt.[3]

^^^All of those points show how the unborn are living beings I'll now show the relationship.

1. It's common knowledge that the human body is incredibly complex, from the blood, to the bones to the muscles and organs and to all the other parts of the body as well. Then when you add man's natural ability to think on levels other animals can't it shows how complex humans are, even at such a young stage.
2. This is also true that they gather materials from the mother, there is the argument of consent but I'll answer that one further down.
3. They do adapt to their environment in the sense that they feel what their mother's feel.[4]
4. The unborn are constantly reproducing more and more cells just like we do.
5. They have the ability to adapt which again proven by the fact that when the mother feels stress or other types of emotions the unborn do as well.

My opponent then goes on to make an analogy.

-->"Forcing a woman to carry a baby she has no desire to is like [an analogy], forcing a person's body to be used as a dialysis machine for another person suffering from kidney failure"
To be plain that analogy falls short of supporting my opponents argument because of the fact that one's kidneys are meant for that person alone, and should only go to another when the consent of the original owner has been shown. Then add the fact that it's logically impossible for two people to use the same kidney at the same time, while using the energy stored in the mother's body due to the mother eating is not logically impossible since it's biologically natural. This is different from a woman's womb because of the fact that the womb is meant to house a child, by my opponents logic a child conceived through consensual means also has no right to be in the womb without the mother's consent, but that argument along with many other pro-abortion arguments has been debunked very thoroughly.[5]

I hope this proves without a shadow of a doubt that whether looking at the biology or the ethics of abortion that it is the murder of an innocent human being that is unable to defend itself.

Links: Please note if the links don't work then let me know I'll try and get them to you.
[1] http://www.spuc.org.uk...
[2] http://health.howstuffworks.com...
[3] http://www.prolifephysicians.org...
[4] http://www.theepochtimes.com...
[5] http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz...
RegretNothing

Pro

So we'll debate when life begins, and then route back to the original question; which seems fit.

[Side question: Are you pro-birth control allocation?]

I, for one, believe the fetus is not a human being until physically conceived. Yes, the pro-life claims the life process to be at fertilization, but as pro-choice, I believe it starts at birth. It is not anyone's business to determine when life begins. Ultimately each patient determines the value and definition of life and the definition life within her own morals. We do not even really know when human life ends; as the Terry Schiavo case reminds us. If it's difficult to know whether someone's dead or alive when she was around her family, how much harder is it to be certain when life begins, especially when we can't see it with our own eyes?

Would an unborn person be included in the census [and shift seats allocated for the House of Reps]? Would a pregnant mother be able to drive in the HOV lane solely with her unborn child as a passenger? Would businesses charge a pregnant woman and additional entry fee for her unborn child?
More importantly, for US citizenship, does the child need to be born in the US or conceived in the US? Now these may seem like ponderous questions, but the underlying foundation is whether or not there's viability in an unborn.

Par. 4, Sen. 2: "Abortion isn't a woman doing something to her own body, it's her taking the life away from an innocent child." What I'm proving is abortion isn't of an innocent child. It is a woman's property [property = fetus; not a tangible human life] until physical birth.

Your points are valid for living beings, but a fetus cannot have the same rights as a woman in whose body it resides. She's in charge of the fetus. Her life and what is right for her in her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Also, fetuses are incapable of feeling pain when an abortion is performed. That takes out Points 3,5.

"To be plain that analogy falls short of supporting my opponents argument because of the fact that one's kidneys are meant for that person alone, and should only go to another when the consent of the original owner has been shown." Yes, one's kidneys are meant for one self, and there was consent of the person whose body was used as a dialysis machine, but what I'm trying to prove in the analogy is, what IF that person didn"t have a choice? What if the person was FORCED to be the dialysis? That's the point of the debate in which a woman is forced to carry an unwanted fetus in her uterus.

To elaborate on pro-choice, it is supporting the woman's right to choose whether or not to agree to an abortion. Abortion is NOT about having sex.
Viable Reasons:
1 - rape

2 - incest, google the fritzl case in austria

3 - molestation of a child

4 - molestation of a mentally incapable female

5 - domestic abuse, man wants ex, woman says no, man slaps her around and rapes her to teach her a lesson.

6 - contraception is NOT 100% effective, shouldn't the woman who took the pill EVERY day have the right to choose?

7 - early teen pregnancy (12,13), their parents didn't take the time to have a sex talk with them so they were unaware of the consequences of their actions.

8 - how many more newborns would be left to starve and freeze to death - isnt it a little more humane to terminate at 6 weeks?

9 - does a young girl deserve to die from a botched backstreet abortion because it is outlawed?

10 - pro-lifers who jump up and down and say adoption, but only in an ideal world. the truth is there are many kids in care without prospects of adoption in the near future.

Down to the real question: if the woman doesn"t want to have her baby, why force it on her; human or not? She'll be stuck with the burden of caring for something -- physically, emotionally, AND financially; and frankly, finances isnt the easiest asset right now. If babies are kept unwantedly, they're forced into adoption centers. Adoption centers are drying up on funds; no one's taking in kids, and kids are left uneducated and unprivileged.

--

DEBATER'S ANNOTATION: Wow, you really rolled up your sleeves for this debate. Kudos for that! Keep at it; this is the first debate I've ever been in after months of lingering on this site. Also, I'm terribly sorry this is long.

--
Debate Round No. 2
Marshall-Abarca

Con

Yes I am for birth control; however I do not support it being given to women under the age of 18, just as I don’t support men under the age of 18 getting condoms. I also do not think either of these things should be provided for, if someone wants to buy it then let them so long as they are 18+.

You have made some points; however these points ignore biological facts, and instead rely on arbitrary beliefs.

"I, for one, believe the fetus is not a human being until physically conceived. Yes, the pro-life claims the life process to be at fertilization, but as pro-choice, I believe it starts at birth."

Here you basically say that you don’t care about what biology says, that is like saying even if a mathematician proves to you that 2+2=4 you’re still going to say "in my opinion 2+2=5”. That is a very poor argument; it has no weight to support it. You also say

"Ultimately each patient determines the value and definition of life and the definition life within her own morals.”

Again this is a arbitrary way of looking at things. This is why we need to define life based off of what scientific studies have shown and there’s again enough biological evidence shown that it’s reasonable to believe that an unborn no matter what stage he/she be at in development.

If it's difficult to know whether someone's dead or alive when she was around her family, how much harder is it to be certain when life begins, especially when we can't see it with our own eyes?

I’m having trouble understanding the point of the quote above. If someone is dead biology shows it when the skin becomes pale due to almost all the cells dying. Could you please elaborate.

You bring up more societal issues, which I’ll be more than happy to address but I’d like to get pass the ethical and biological arguments first.

Par. 4, Sen. 2: "Abortion isn't a woman doing something to her own body, it's her taking the life away from an innocent child." What I'm proving is abortion isn't of an innocent child. It is a woman's property [property = fetus; not a tangible human life] until physical birth.”

Sorry to say but you have not provided any sources to prove this point; while my sources are mostly pro-life you can’t deny they make very compelling arguments based off of biological facts. The only reasoning you have for calling the unborn “property” is due to your own arbitrary beliefs, none of which are based on biology.

”Her life and what is right for her in her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her

I failed to mention this in the first round when I should’ve but I do support a woman having an abortion should the situation arrive where both her life and the life of the unborn are in danger, and it’s only possible to save one life. I could understand abortion in this case, I apologize for neglecting to mention this viewpoint of mine.

“fetuses are incapable of feeling pain when an abortion is performed. That takes out Points 3,5.”

By the logic of this quote though anyone who does drugs that nullify pain and die from something (overdose or shot) and it can be proven that they were on these pain nullifying drugs, then that means they weren’t human because they felt no pain. Then there’s the fact if someone dies in their sleep they also weren’t human because they most likely didn’t feel pain. Then there’s a disease known as SIDS, or Sudden Infant Death Syndrome which is where an infant who’s already taken a breath literally just dies, however this destroys your argument as there’s no evidence of the child having suffered any pain. By your logic any child who dies from SIDS isn’t a human being.

To answer your quote of me, I explained that 2 people can’t use the same kidney at the same time; therefore it’s not the same as a mother who houses a child. And also like I’ve said the kidneys of one person are not made for anyone else, they are made for the person they were created in. A woman’s uterus was however made to house a newborn child.

You bring up 10 topics some of which I don’t see how they have any relationship to abortions. Regardless I will address ones that do have relevance.

Rape – This is one of the biggest issues here, if a woman is raped does she have the right to defend herself? Absolutely, any woman who finds herself a victim of rape has every right to defend herself, from the rapistß that is the key point. However, the child at no point ever committed a crime; he/she is completely innocent of all events that have occurred. Therefore it illogical to blame and punish an innocent child for a crime he/she has not committed. Incest – As repulsive as I personally find incest, that is again no reason to blame the child, the child didn’t commit incest his/her parents did, which again goes back to the same argument under the rape piece, that children shouldn’t be held responsible for the crimes of their parents.

Molestation – I apologize but I see no relevance molestation has to this argument as I’m pretty sure it’s impossible to become pregnant from being molested. Don’t get me wrong I in no way condone molestation; however it is a separate issue of itself and holds no relevance to the topic at hand.

Molestation of mentally incapable female – look to point 3.

Domestic Abuse – This topic holds some relevance but not a whole lot unless it results in rape. If that is the case then I’ve already answered it above, however in an instance where that isn’t the case then the arguments for points 3 and 4 would apply here as well.

Contraception – I’ve already mentioned this.

Teen pregnancies – while it is unfortunate a child is not educated about sex by their parents we can’t take ignorance as valid excuse. Perfect analogy, say a young teen is driving when they aren’t supposed to be and they run a red light which leads to an accident, though fortunately only a minor one. Would it really be plausible for the teen to then say “but I didn’t know that red lights meant stop” we can’t take ignorance as an excuse in that case and even more so in a case where someone’s life is on the line.

This argument is more evolved around economic factors revolving around abortion not so much moral factors; unfortunately this argument holds no relevance.

Backstreet Abortions – There’s unfortunately no way to stop abortions 100% just like with murder we can outlaw it but people will still do it, that doesn’t mean the answer is to make it legal.

Adoption – look to point 8.

“if the woman doesn"t want to have her baby, why force it on her; human or not?”

Because no one has the right to make decisions that would take someone else’s right to life just so they can be comfortable. As for adoption centers that’s a topic more influenced by other economic factors as much as legalization of abortion.

“Would an unborn person be included in the census [and shift seats allocated for the House of Reps]?”

If newborn infants are then yes the unborn should be as well.

Would a pregnant mother be able to drive in the HOV lane solely with her unborn child as a passenger?

If she has proof of pregnancy yes.

“Would businesses charge a pregnant woman and additional entry fee for her unborn child?”

That would be up to them, for example my highschool when I graduated charged for children as young as 1 yr old for tickets. So yes if a business held events that would be their choice, personally I wouldn’t do that for kids who were even 3 years old but that depends on the business and the current situation.

“More importantly, for US citizenship, does the child need to be born in the US or conceived in the US?

You obtain U.S legal citizenship when you are born, as you need a photo ID and it’s hard to take a photo ID of someone inside a stomach. If you are born here you are a citizen regardless of where you are conceived.

Running out of space please refer to round 2 links, will put link for Sudden Infant Death at bottom.

This will probably be the only exception http://en.wikipedia.org...

RegretNothing

Pro

You"ve shown me scientific fact about how the fetus matures, but I still don"t see it as a human life. It's the beholder of the facts who determines if it's a life or not. The topics I brought up are 10 which have led or have reasonable belief to lead to an abortion.
Rape: Common! the male who has mens rea to rape a woman would have had the knowledge to know he was stronger than her. If he doubted it for a second, why would he attempt to rape? Contraception may fail, which is why I included it. What if the couple was trying to prevent life [or is that murder too?] and was forced to harbor a child in return? I agree parents should take a bigger role on their childrens' sexual tendencies. Kids are ignorant, teen pregnancy makes sense; which is why they cant legally hold up an end of a contract. They are ignorant, and that's their legal defense.

Anti-choice wants to outlaw abortion. They use these such tactics:
Violent tactics to intimidate doctors and patients
Restrictions on low income women's access to abortion and health care
I know someone who needed urgent care for an abortion and went into a "crisis center", or so she thought, and they tied her up, vocally forcing her not to have an abortion. She ran outside the 'clinic' without pants. The fake crisis center was right next door to the real center. Now if that's moral, I don"t know what is.

Last year, Dr. George Tiller was brutally murdered for performing late-term abortions on women with life-threatening health conditions. Ross Douthat wrote in the Virginia-Pilot:
Tiller did abortions in the third trimester, when almost no one else would--which meant, inevitably, that he handled the hardest of hard cases. He performed abortions on women facing life-threatening complications, on women whose children would be born dead or dying, on women who had been raped, on "women" who were really girls of 10.

Tiller was killed by a pro-life activist who believed that saving the life of women as young as ten years old was murder. In most of the cases the child would have died with the mother. Tiller bravely underwent abortions where two lives were at stake; he was able to save one. What about victims of incest or rape? Rape is already an emotionally traumatic experience. Should women be forced to raise the child of their rapist? The emotional effects of such could seriously hinder the relationship between a mother and her baby. Another reason that abortion is an important option for young mothers is because being pregnant in high school can be socially crippling. Physiologically, teenage girls are not mature enough to emotionally handle a pregnancy. According to"The National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy, only one third of pregnant high school students receive a high school diploma; 80% of them end up on welfare (par. 1). Teen pregnancy also contributes to mental health problems, such as depression, which sometimes leads to suicide. All of these things could be avoided by providing the girl with the opportunity to choose abortion, thus resulting in a happier and more successful life.

A child being born to an unfit mother can also cause the child problems in early and later life. According to the"FSU Center for Prevention and Early Intervention, the children of adolescents are more likely to be born prematurely and 50% more likely to be low-birth weight babies. Children of adolescent mothers grow up with more health problems than children of mothers who are twenty and above. Surveys of parent"s reports on their children have shown that 38% of children born to adolescent mothers had "excellent" health, as compared to 60% for children born to mothers over twenty. Of all ages, children born to young mothers are at the greatest risk for being the victims of child abuse or neglect, including foster care. These children have a higher risk of growing up with aggressive behavior. Being born to a teen mother also has effects on the cognitive growth of a child. A study of children ages four to fourteen showed that the children born to the youngest teen mothers did worse on tests and were more likely to be held back a grade. Only 77% of children born to adolescent mothers complete high school, as compared to 89% of children born to mothers over twenty-one (pars. 1-9). The facts do not lie; children born to young mothers are at a disadvantage from the onset of life. These children do not choose this, and it is not their fault. Aborting the mass of cells developing into a child could prevent a lot of misery for both the mother and child alike. How would it make you feel to be an unwanted child? No child deserves that.

Many children born to mothers of unwanted pregnancies grow up with less than ideal conditions. Children born as a result of unwanted pregnancies often grow up in mother-only families, in poor neighborhoods, and under conditions of poverty. Teenagers in particular often do not have the resources available to raise a child. Raising a child in poor conditions only contributes to a poor quality of life for that child (Maynard 54). It is not fair for a mother to be forced to raise a child whom she cannot support. Imagine how the mother feels when she cannot feed her child, or cannot put presents under the Christmas tree for them. Imagine how the child feels growing up with barely what they need to survive, knowing nothing more than canned foods and a poor neighborhood. This world already has a population problem, and more poverty than there needs to be. Mothers without adequate means to support a child should have the option to abort.

A baby takes its first breath when it exits the womb. Air is the very essence of life, without which we would not be able to survive. During the 9 months of the development of the child, it is completely reliant on its mother for survival. If the mother were to die during that time, so would the baby; unless the mother was in labor, and the baby was ready to exit the womb. The baby could only survive without the mother after it left the body. Even then, the chances for survival are very low. Thus the baby is a part of the mother, and she has the right to do with her body as she wishes. People also argue that it is the killing of a person. According to United States law it is not. United States law states that personhood begins at birth, thus aborting a fetus is not killing a person. Religion also says that abortion is morally wrong, but not everyone has the same belief system. People who believe that it is in God"s will to allow the baby to live, may do just that. The problem is that a lot of people do not believe in God, and a lot of people feel that God"s will is to do what is best for both the mother and child. It is not right to force religion, or God"s will on anyone. Humans also have the power of will, and thus can believe whatever they want. There is nothing wrong with choosing to keep a baby, but the choice should be left to the mother and only the mother. Not God, not the father, and not the family.

SUMMATION: When it comes right down to it, abortion is an important option for all mothers to have the ability to exercise at their own will. The people that are against abortion have the choice to not abort. Those who differ in religious and moral beliefs, like we all do, should have the freedom to practice what they think is right and moral; they should not have to live based on the belief systems of others. If a mother feels that it is harmful to her health mentally or physically, the babies health, or that by carrying the pregnancy that the child would have to grow up in poor conditions; she should have the choice to do what she wants with her baby. It is not fair for anyone to tell a woman what to do with what is rightfully hers.
Debate Round No. 3
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GEIxBattleRifle 3 years ago
GEIxBattleRifle
Looking back at this, your arguments were pathetic and have been dealt with here.

Read it all and comment here please.

http://fightforsense.wordpress.com...
Posted by Marshall-Abarca 3 years ago
Marshall-Abarca
"These were the only points I could find, as your opponent made even poorer arguments, and you probably felt no need to bring up more points. Or you simply had no more arguments."
- Actually I had plenty of other stuff too say but being this was my first debate I didn't realize how to extend the rounds further when I initiated the debate itself. So that was lack of experience on my part, though I could've continued to address some other points as well. For example the idea that if we have legalized abortions we'll be able to cut crime which is false, I have at least 3-4 different sources debunking the Donohue and I think Lowitz study which supports this idea in "Freakonomics."
Posted by Marshall-Abarca 3 years ago
Marshall-Abarca
Point 3

3a: "You say that since 50% of abortions result in a female death it inflicts upon their female rights. However this is completely irrelevant because you trying to prove that they have these rights in the first place."
- And I've proven biologically that embryos, zygotes, fetus' are all human beings, no matter how you spell it. All the links supporting this are in the debate though I'll look to see if I have any others as well, though now the burden of proof is on you to prove biologically that embryo/fetus/zygote is NOT a human being.

3b: "Also you are slandering by saying that pro-choice somehow promotes abortion. This is not true, pro-choice says we have no right to stop it if a woman wants it, whether we like it or not."
-It isn't slander though, if you're pro-choice you're pro-abortion, if you say otherwise then answer these questions.
1. Are you morally for abortion?
2. If no, then can you explain to me what moral issues you have with abortion that make you support someone going through with it but at the same time not liking the procedure itself?
2. If yes, then can you give me any reason as to why someone would support a woman having an abortion despite them disagreeing with the procedure?

And also please refrain from saying "I disagree with abortion because I think it's wrong." This is the most in depth reason I've seen a "pro-choicer" give for being against abortion. I've yet to see anyone say that despite being pro-choice they're against abortion because "blah, blah, blah." I know they won't say "it's because it's a human being" because that would mean they support the murder of innocent human beings.
Posted by Marshall-Abarca 3 years ago
Marshall-Abarca
Point 2 - I'll now address your statements from this point

2a: "You reason that since embryos show all tue signs of life we should not kill."
-what are "tue" signs of life? I'm assuming that's a typo but I can't figure out what you mean by this. Please elaborate.

2b: "This argument cpuld be used to say that absolutely nothing can be killed. Which also means we'd die of starvation."
-This point seems to directly correlate to the last point but I couldn't understand what you meant, so I can't address this point properly. I'm not usually one to do this, but if you're going to make arguments please make sure that your spelling at the very least is how you want it to be.

2c: "Embryotic cells do not "feel" what their mothers feel. Cells cannot experience happiness, or sadness."
-This link goes into detail somewhat about how young embryos or I guess at this stage fetus' can actually "feel" when they hit the age of 8 weeks. http://www.abortionfacts.com...

2d: "You also prove in point 2 that embryotic cells gather sustenance from food"
-Yes they do because that's what the mother's womb was made for which directly contradicted my opponent's analogy of kidneys. Now the argument can be made that since the unborn takes energy from the mother without her consent she has reason to kill the child. That argument is blatantly false, because even in situations of rape the child did not come into the womb to create discomfort for the mother, plus someone just causing discomfort doesn't justify killing them, I mean you could say I cause you discomfort do you think you have the right to kill me? There's more details here in this link

http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz...
Posted by Marshall-Abarca 3 years ago
Marshall-Abarca
Point 1 - You made quite a few statements here so now I'll address all of them and then move on to point 2

1a: "It is not conscious."
-Why should it have to be? Are you conscious when you sleep? How about in a coma? Or when you're dead, you can make the argument that you were once conscious therefore you're still "alive", but what about when you're dead? You were once living, but now you're dead and have no conscious are you still human deserving of rights? Or does your family have responsibility for you? If you want a more detailed, debunking of this argument please refer to this website.
http://www.firstthings.com...

1b: "It has none of the structures that define an animal being,much less a human one."
-It has DNA, that's something ALL ANIMALS HAVE, and it has human DNA...so I'm not seeing how your point is viable here, please elaborate.

1c: "It is comparable to another one of the bacteria floating around in your body."
-Can you name me any type of bacteria that floats around with a DNA schedule that is unique from your own DNA schedule?

1d: "Your point about cells being able to specialize is conscious thought is false. It is similar to blood clotting. Blood clots because that is its reaction to a cut. You blood goes through no conscious reasoning behind the decision."
-Well this again unique cell goes about creating things on its own without the direction of the mother, that seems pretty conscious to me. I don't see how it's comparable to blood clots since blood clots are a reaction to something while the embryo is initiating a process entirely on its own accord.
Posted by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
These were the only points I could find, as your opponent made even poorer arguments, and you probably felt no need to bring up more points. Or you simply had no more arguments.
Posted by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
3. You say that since 50% of abortions result in a female death it inflicts upon their female rights. However this is completely irrelevant because you trying to prove that they have these rights in the first place. Also you are slandering by saying that pro-choice somehow promotes abortion. This is not true, pro-choice says we have no right to stop it if a woman wants it, whether we like it or not.
Posted by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
1. Fertilization makes it a cell. Said cell has no qualties about it that make it human, except for it's DNA. It is not conscious. It has none of the structures that define an animal being,much less a human one. It is comparable to another one of the bacteria floating around in your body. Your point about cells being able to specialize is conscious thought is false. It is similar to blood clotting. Blood clots because that is its reaction to a cut. You blood goes through no conscious reasoning behind the decision.
2. You reason that since embryos show all tue signs of life we should not kill. This argument cpuld be used to say that absolutely nothing can be killed. Which also means we'd die of starvation. Also points 3, and 5 are not true. Embryotic cells do not "feel" what their mothers feel. Cells cannot experience happiness, or sadness. You also prove in point 2 that embryotic cells gather sustenance from food
provided by the mother.
Posted by GEIxBattleRifle 3 years ago
GEIxBattleRifle
But yeah it's been nice talking to you.

I am done posting here I got better things to do

See ya
Posted by GEIxBattleRifle 3 years ago
GEIxBattleRifle
'It's exactly because of the above statement that your standards are arbitrary and inconsistent'

Your mere say so doesn't make it true

The point of personhood is to separate entities that are mere animals like the unborn are from entities that are person class intelligent beings which include most of humanity nothing arbitrary at all about it since all of it can indeed be measured. Maybe it would've been arbitrary maybe 200 years ago but now it isn't since science has advanced way more

You can keep on saying it's arbitrary all you want but it's not. Those traits are what would separate something from your mere animal like a cat or dog and something that could be considered a person like a human with mental capabilities surpassing that of your average ordinary animal like a cat, dog or pig. Like I said the moment you want to work outside of my criteria the animals I listed to you can count as persons with the right to life and most of society does not want that but under your position they would since you want to grant the right to life to entities that have NONE of these present in them until they grow the mental capabilities to accommodate those abilties and that isn't until some time AFTER birth not while in the womb

'That means that they would have to meet ALL of these terms in order to become human'

Actually I did not say any where you needed them all only some of them are needed in order to be giving consideration and personhood has nothing to do with the biological term human you continuously keep bringing up.

'you can't just decide when and which terms are important that's what I mean by your standards are inconsistent.'

It wouldn't make it inconsistent at all. Having any or some of those traits would give us an obligation to preserve it's life. You should wonder why non human animals are giving more consideration then the unborn because your non human animals have MORE person class traits then the unborn do
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by JustinAMoffatt 3 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
Marshall-AbarcaRegretNothingTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con sourced. And Pro conceded abortion's immorality.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
Marshall-AbarcaRegretNothingTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I must say, the Con sourced his arguments, and providing a solid and structured argument for his side. He answered the Resolution well.
Vote Placed by Fictional_Truths1 3 years ago
Fictional_Truths1
Marshall-AbarcaRegretNothingTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate was about morality, not practicality. Pro argued for keeping it legal, but acknowledge that it was a moral wrong . Con argued that it is a moral wrong. Con wins the debate.