The Instigator
givemeliberty
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
KeytarHero
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

Newly revealed natural scientific laws govern the morality of abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/21/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 11,206 times Debate No: 17093
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (444)
Votes (7)

 

givemeliberty

Pro

Thank you for accepting this important debate. The law debated here could alter the way people think about abortion.

This debate will test a newly revealed natural scientific law that partially governs the impact that abortion has on society. If this law is valid, then the generally accepted conclusions of the pro life movement will need revision or become invalid.

Natural laws are self evident once brought to light and backed up with theory. Natural laws are not invented, they are revealed. This debate will be about one revealed natural scientific law and the theories that surrounds the law. (1)

There are obvious natural laws that govern the issues surrounding abortion. These laws are like other natural scientific law in that they are simple and obvious yet these abortion related laws have profound impact on the way society should judge the abortion issue.

The first law: "If a woman is forced to carry to term one fetus, then she cannot normally become pregnant with another fetus in the same time period."

This simple law leads to what I call "The Law of Hindered Birth". I shorten the law to say: "a forced birth precludes a willing birth." The theories surrounding the law lead to insight into the moral effect of forcing birth. One theory is that forcing birth of an unwanted child denies life to another potential child.

It is a fact that pregnancy occupies about 9 months time in a woman's life. If a woman is hindered in her options of birth and abortion by a law or action restricting the right to abortion and is forced to give birth to an unwanted child; then she is precluded from giving birth to a wanted child during that same period of time. For example if a married woman is raped and becomes pregnant and is forced to carry the child to term, then she cannot in the same time period have a child by her husband. In effect being forced to have the child of the rapist causes the woman to Lose the life of her wanted child during that period of time.
If the Family can only afford to raise one child, then they will be forced to live their remaining lives without ever experiencing a wanted birth with a child of the union of their marriage. Either that or they would be forced to give away a child that is conceived and carried for nine months. (2)

Also, in forcing birth, a violation of the "Law of Hindered Birth" occurs that condemns the woman to risk her life in pregnancy with a 13 in 100,000 chance of dying and also forces her to "lose" the life of her wanted child. The result of the anti abortion hindrance boils down to the fact that a wanted child is lost and an unwanted child is forced to be born without good reason, or the woman dies or is injured.

(1) The definition of "Law" used in by the author: http://chemistry.about.com...
(2) My notes: https://docs.google.com...
KeytarHero

Con

I would like to thank the Instigator for issuing this debate. It's not everyday I get to debate with someone who has actually written a book on the topic.

I can actually disprove the proposition right now. His proposition states: "Newly revealed scientific laws govern the morality of abortion." Number one, there is nothing new about this particular "law." On his own articles, for the "indisputable" abortion law in question, he states: "The 'Law of Hindered Birth' which states that 'A forced birth precludes a willing birth' certainly is and has always been a fact of nature." As you can see, even he admits that this is not a new natural law. It always has been. This disproves that a newly revealed law governs the morality of abortion.

I should also note that these alleged "indisputable" abortion laws are very disputable, and most of them are not laws but opinion. The rest are actually easily disputable.

But secondly, it doesn't govern the morality of abortion. The unborn are living humans, which is a fact backed up by science and reason. We are alive because we grow, we are humans because we have human DNA and are the product of human parents. Everything reproduces after their own kind: dogs have dogs, cats have cats, and humans have humans. To state that the unborn is anything other than human is to claim that humans have the inherent capacity to change their species from something non-human into something human. If the unborn are not human, then what are they?

Whether the unborn are human or not is at the crux of the issue. If the unborn is not human, then there's really nothing to debate. Abortion would be an acceptable procedure, free of any moral implications. However, if the unborn is human, then no reason to willfully take their life would be sufficient. Not only is the law in question not a new law, but it doesn't govern the morality on abortion.

-Rebuttal-

Let's look at his law.

"The first law: 'If a woman is forced to carry to term one fetus, then she cannot normally become pregnant with another fetus in the same time period.'"

Okay, I'm with you so far.

"This simple law leads to what I call 'The Law of Hindered Birth'. I shorten the law to say: 'a forced birth precludes a willing birth.' The theories surrounding the law lead to insight into the moral effect of forcing birth. One theory is that forcing birth of an unwanted child denies life to another potential child."

Okay, here's where you lose me (and I suspect, the vast majority of our readers). There's no life being denied here except the life of the already conceived child. Any other child hasn't even been brought into existence yet, so there's no other life being denied.

Now, considering that there's no other life at stake but the life of the unborn child already conceived, what right does this give us to take the life of the "unwanted" child in order to conceive one that's wanted? You have to answer the question of why it's acceptable to take an unborn child's life to conceive another child. Simply because the child is unwanted is not a valid reason.

Now, you seem to be assuming a lot here. For instance, 70% of healthy couples get pregnant after nine months of trying. [1] This means that you would probably be aborting the child in vain since it's not very likely she'll get pregnant in that nine month span she'd be pregnant with the unwanted child.

You are also assuming that after the woman aborts, she would want to get pregnant again in those nine months. If a woman aborts due to simply not being ready to have a child (a lot of women abort because they want to finish school, get a job, etc.), this situation is really not likely to change in nine months. Usually girls/women who abort for this reason are young and feel they have their whole lives ahead of them. They probably won't want to get pregnant for another couple years or so.

Rape is a horrible crime, one that no woman should ever have to go through. In fact, I think there should be stricter punishment for rapists. But should a child really be punished for his/her father's crimes? Suppose a woman decided to keep her child, believing she can handle it, but by the time the kid became two, he started to really take on the features of the rapist to where she couldn't even stand to look at the child. She now hated the child with her very being for looking like the rapist. Is she now justified in killing that child? Most people would say no. If not, then why? Why should it be acceptable to kill a child in utero for the same reason?

In the family who can only afford to raise one child, you're assuming the parents didn't grow to love the child. A lot of parents of unwanted children do love the child as if they were wanted. Also, they can gift the child to a loving family who wants to adopt. I know that can be hard, but isn't this a better alternative than having the child killed? Why would it be harder to give a child away than to have it killed outright?

"Also, in forcing birth, a violation of the "Law of Hindered Birth" occurs that condemns the woman to risk her life in pregnancy with a 13 in 100,000 chance of dying and also forces her to "lose" the life of her wanted child."

First, her potential wanted child's life is not being lost, because that life has not been conceived. The only life being lost is the one that's actually in existence. It just seems wrong to me to kill a life that's here to make way for a life that may or may not happen in the span of the next nine months.

Secondly, you are overstating matters. Death resulting from pregnancies is pretty rare, considering how many pregnancies are successful and don't result in death. In fact, you're more likely to be killed in a car accident, in which you have a 1 in 6,000 chance of being killed. [2]

I have successfully refuted the resolution on three counts: By his own admission, this is not a new law. Also, this "law" does not govern the morality of abortion, whether or not the unborn is human does. Finally, this "law" is simply speculation. Most sexually active couples take more than nine months to get pregnant. Also, keeping an unborn child to term does not take the life of a wanted child, because no wanted child has been conceived. The only life at stake is the unwanted one.

I look forward to the Instigator's response.

[1] http://www.babymed.com...;
[2] http://adventure.howstuffworks.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
givemeliberty

Pro

My response
The issue for debate is "Newly revealed natural laws" not "new natural laws". Con's first point fails. Con's third point fails because his citation does not support his claim.
The issue for debate was to have been the "Law of Hindered Birth" not what is life. However Con has moved in that direction so I will respond to Con. We should return to the agreed topic as soon as possible.

We are alive because our parents were alive, their parents were alive and so forth throughout history. If even one set of parents were not alive, then of course we would not be alive. Their life, their genetic heritage is brought to us step by step from the first human. Life is not created it is passed forward. One break in the chain and Con would not be here.
The fact is that humans become humans is a series of steps. There is no proof that at conception a zygote this size (.) is a human being. The actual proof is that it is human tissue. A human being has a fully developed body, a brain and is capable of controlling his environment. A human is not only visually different in size and organs but structurally different in non obvious ways. Human genetic material, a zygote and other early stages of human life, can be frozen with the use of controlled freezing and a living human cannot. So even at conception there is a difference between a zygote and a human being. The differences are structural all the way down to the DNA.
DNA is the "blueprint" or "Code" for human life. No person knows the mechanisms that operate in the reading of the blueprint or code that drives the DNA to divide in Meiosis and replicate in Mitoses. What we do know is that DNA is present in the living sperm and in the living egg prior to conception. We know that at conception the egg and sperm join, sharing DNA and that no new material is brought into the conception. Prior to conception we know that the DNA of the gametes were subjected to meiosis that created a different blend of DNA than the father or the mother. We know that the material that is in the DNA existed before conception and is a mixture of DNA of the parents. We know that the DNA at conception is subjected to complex processes we do not fully understand and "crossed" over, which generates a more fully divergent offspring. We know that no new human material is created out of new matter. The DNA of the parents is simply shuffled and mixed bringing out new characteristics from existing genetic materials.
To answer con's question of "what are they" is simple. At conception the zygote is a mixture of existing living materials comprised of existing DNA sequences shuffled and mixed to present new human tissue. All human life is plus or minus within a few percent of existing DNA structures shared by all living humans. We all are descendents of living humans and we are all human because of our DNA link.
Despite the fact that living material is comprised of DNA, the DNA is not itself generally believed to be alive. The DNA is believed to be simply a blueprint or code used by the gametes firstly and the zef to model the future living organism regardless of species. And the different types of DNA serve interlinked processes that occur. At this stage of scientific knowledge no person can say they understand what it is about DNA and Life that make the two linked. We only know that part of the plan is the code like properties of the DNA and the other part comprises Life like properties that possibly are brought into the cell from the living gametes. In short, we don't know what life is and we don't know the processes by which DNA supports life. For those reasons alone, it is clear that Con's arguments that it is life at conception and that the life that is there is human life and not human tissue cannot be true.
Con's argument makes several assumptions. First and foremost it assumes that the DNA is a total package that mediates and creates a completely new human life by some unstated method. He offers no proof to support his claims. Con does not take into account the obvious fact that the DNA could be a self writing program or a set of blueprints with hidden details. If" life" is a self writing program and DNA is simply the tablet upon which life writes, then the first instance of DNA may not contain the entire code of the human being. In effect this is why no person can be certain there is life at conception.
It is also true that no person knows what goes on inside the DNA at conception and how DNA works. How does DNA know where to open and splice, how does it communicate with other cells and how does it know when and where to assemble the parts of the conceptus. We don't know. The one thing we do know is that a small percentage of conceptions do in fact become babies. We also know that because DNA is like computer code it is impossible to know what will happen with the code until the code has run its entire operation. Are there flaws in the code? We know from studies that most early abortions are due to genetic factors that are caused by faulty DNA. We know that even late term fetuses have on occasion died due to faulty DNA. Therefore it is impossible to know if a conception will become a human life until the code is completely run and there is a live birth.
Nature shows us that most conceptions end in death. The numbers are as follows. Of all conceptions as many as 75 % die within the first two weeks, another 10% of the remaining conceptions die in the next 3 to 6 weeks and of those remaining another 5% percent die between week 6 and 12, and of the those living to the second trimester another 3 percent die and finally in the third trimester another 1 percent die. So a little less than 21 live births are netted from each 100 conceptions. Now if a person is honest he can see that even if one birth out of 100 was known to die then those 100 initial conceptions are in fact "potential" humans, not real humans. After all there is no way to know which conception does not live. But we are not dealing with a single death out of 100 conceptions we are dealing with 79 deaths compared to 21 live births for each 100 conceptions. So we truly are speaking of "potential life" when we speak of conceptions, embryos, fetuses or anything until there is an actual living human baby. It can't be life at conception if we don't know if it will live.
Con states: "Whether the unborn are human or not is at the crux of the issue. If the unborn is not human, then there's really nothing to debate. Abortion would be an acceptable procedure, free of any moral implications. However, if the unborn is human, then no reason to willfully take their life would be sufficient.
Of course we can't know if the unborn is human until it is born. Genetic flaws occur to most life and that flawed life may in fact be so flawed that it is no longer a part of the human species. Perhaps that is why most conceptions fail to live.
I think we have met the concerns of Con as it relates to whether or not we know for certain that any one specific unborn zef is or is not a human. Con admits that humans are born of humans and that there is no reason to believe that will not always be the case. I have demonstrated that we do not in fact know what DNA does, how it acts, and what processes must occur before a birth can occur. I have shown that if the DNA is flawed then birth will not occur and we have made the necessary connection between the species and possibility of birth. We can say with confidence that if the DNA is so flawed that a non human species would be the result, that species would not be born, but naturally aborted. So we have proven that it is impossible to know if a child will be born until the "code is run" , there are no genetic flaws and a birth occurs.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
KeytarHero

Con

My points stand. First, as I indicated, by Pro's own admission this is not a new law. Also, it is not a "newly revealed" law. It would be ridiculous to think that up until just recently, a woman actually thought, "it's okay! I can carry this kid to term because I'll just get pregnant with another kid and have them both!"

Also, my third point stands. It's conceivable that I misunderstood the link due to confusing language. However, as I indicated aborting the child wouldn't bring about a wanted child because most girls/women who abort an unwanted child do so because of life situations: she wants to go to/finish school, she wants to get a job, etc. These situations are unlikely to be resolved in the nine months that she would be pregnant with the unwanted child.

In the case of rape, this still isn't a good reason. If the child is a living human, then killing them just because they're unwanted is wrong. That's why the humanity of the unborn is such an important issue in this debate. You still haven't answered my analogy. If the woman can't kill her two-year-old child because she was a rape victim, why should she be able to kill the child in utero?

The "Law of Hindered Birth" rises or falls with the humanity of the unborn. If the unborn are not living humans, then they should be able to be aborted for any reason. However, if they are living humans, then the "Law of Hindered Birth" is not a good reason to abort because they should be protected like any other human. You must show why this "law" is a good reason to abort a human child.

Here, Pro asserts that "life is passed forward." If that is true, then by his very admission zygotes/embryos/fetuses are alive because there was never a break in the chain (hence why I am here), and they are human because the human life has been passed forward. So it seems this makes his following argument moot. Human life has been passed forward without a break in the chain.

However, what do noted embryologists O’Rahilly and Muller have to say on the matter? "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte." [1] These are embryologists (experts in the field) who place the beginning of life at fertilization.

"A human being has a fully developed body, a brain and is capable of controlling his environment."

Says who? This is just an assertion. I have just shown you an embryologist who says that life begins are fertilization. If space permits, I'll quote others. We say that a human being is a living entity of the human species with basic rights. Which definition makes more sense?

"Human genetic material, a zygote and other early stages of human life, can be frozen with the use of controlled freezing and a living human cannot."

Actually, with the development of technologies such as nanotechnology it may be possible to freeze adult humans in the future (some organizations already freeze humans who have died in the hopes that they may one day be revived and saved). [2] Even if they couldn't, however, that would just be one other advantage a very young human has over an adult human (they can also live without a heartbeat).

"So even at conception there is a difference between a zygote and a human being."
There are differences between toddlers and adults. You have not shown that these differences are sufficient in proclaiming them non-human (especially since you claim that life is "passed forward").

"At conception the zygote is a mixture of existing living materials comprised of existing DNA sequences shuffled and mixed to present new human tissue."

So at what point does the "tissue" actually become a "human?" Where there's a brain? What about the day before? How developed does the brain have to be? Why does the brain matter at all to being a human?

"...we don't know what life is..."

It is true that scientists are still trying to define life, but what they do for now is note different characteristics that all living beings have (e.g. growth, reaction to stimuli, metabolism, etc.). Your assertion that just because we haven't yet defined life means anything about the embryo is false. Besides, even if we're not sure, the benefit of the doubt should go to life. If you're a hunter in the woods and you hear rustling in the bushes nearby, do you fire right away or wait to make sure you're not going to shoot somebody? You would wait and make sure there's not a person that you're aiming at (Dick Cheney notwithstanding).

"Therefore it is impossible to know if a conception will become a human life until the code is completely run and there is a live birth."

This is simply ridiculous. I don't know about you, but if I have sex and get a woman pregnant, there is no doubt in my mind that the unborn child growing within her is human. Have you ever produced a non-human offspring? If every child who has ever came out of a human woman has been human, isn't it reasonable to understand that every human reproduces a human? In fact, it would be ludicrous to think that the child who will come out of the woman will be anything but a human. We don't have to "wait and see," especially since doctors can tell via ultrasound. They don't do ultrasounds to make sure the child within her is "still a human," they do ultrasounds to make sure the developing child is still healthy and developing normally. Virtually everyone agrees there is human life in the moments before birth (not to mention, months before birth).

"Nature shows us that most conceptions end in death."

Actually, all conceptions end in death. That doesn't say anything about the value of the being, nor does it mean we can kill them at will. Just because a tsunami kills people doesn't mean we have the right to nuke cities.

If the numbers you quoted are accurate (you give no sources, so I can't verify your numbers), then it seems that life that does implant and develop is special because it has beaten the odds. This life should be protected, not destroyed.

"...those 100 initial conceptions are in fact 'potential' humans, not real humans."

No, they were real humans that died young. They were potential toddlers and full humans.

"It can't be life at conception if we don't know if it will live."

So logically, it can't be life at birth if we don't know if it will get SIDS or not.

"Genetic flaws occur to most life and that flawed life may in fact be so flawed that it is no longer a part of the human species."

You have not given any reason to doubt that the unborn are humans at any point. However, could you please give some examples?

Just because there is some mystery to how DNA works doesn't mean that we can't know that the being is human or has human DNA. There was an article written in 1998, published in the Forensic Science International, titled "Multiplex amplification of mitochondrial DNA for human and species identification in forensic evaluation." [3] The scientist concluded, "In a first step, examination of the coamplified fragments on agarose gel allows for screening of human (two bands, 309 and 259 bp) or animal (one band, 309 bp) specificity." He was able to tell the difference between human and animal DNA.

As you can see, Pro's assertions are not backed up by science and are only conjecture to prove his views. My three points from the previous round stand.

[1] Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
[2] http://cryonics.org...;
[3] 8: Martin Bataille, Karine Crainic, Michel Leterreux, Michel Durigon, Philippe de Mazancourt, Multiplex amplification of mitochondrial DNA for human and species identification in forensic evaluation, Forensic Science International, Volume 99, Issue 3, 25 January 1999, Pages 165-170, ISSN 0379-0738, DOI: 10.1016/S0379-0738(98)00185-6.
Debate Round No. 2
givemeliberty

Pro

What came first, the human or the egg?
Con has wasted most of his debate space avoiding the issues of the debate.
This is the issue to be debated:
"The first law: "If a woman is forced to carry to term one fetus, then she cannot normally become pregnant with another fetus in the same time period."Con's assertion that the "Law of Hindered Birth" is not a newly revealed law is without proof or citation. Natural laws are self evident. For example a ball thrown upward has always fallen to earth. The fact that gravity has always existed does not mean that Newton did not discover the law of gravity. The fact that a woman has never been able to become pregnant with a second child while already pregnant with another child does not mean that the "Law of Hindered Birth" does not exist. Con's first point fails. And as the following sources prove, the "Law Of Hindered Birth" is new and has never been widely debated. The proof is that it is a newly discovered law.
http://www.religioustolerance.org...
Likewise Con's second point fails in that the "Law of Hindered Birth" as presented makes it clear that forcing the birth of one child stops the potential of another child. Rather than saving life, it simply trades the life of a forced birth for the life of a wanted birth. The "Law of Hindered Birth" changes everything, prior to the law it was unclear that a life was being traded for a life. But the law makes it clear that by forcing the birth of an unwanted child a wanted child is lost. Even if Con's point that it is not a real life is taken as true, and it is not true, the fact is that the option of a real life being denied creation is still a fact. The future child that women say they want is denied life. If Con can prove that all women are lying when they say they want a child by their lover and not their rapist, he may have a point. But if he cannot prove that women are lying when they say they will have the child of their lover, then the proof is that women can and in fact do have children with the man of their choice. So by forcing birth and denying them the opportunity to become pregnant for 9 months with their lovers child, Con would be denying life for at least that long plus the time it takes to conceive. The average length of time to become pregnant for women TTC is 4 months. http://www.babymed.com... So if a woman is forced to give birth to an unwanted fetus then she would not likely be able to become pregnant with a mate of her choice for at least 13 months. And during that 13 months she would be forced to give birth to an unwanted fetus and the life of a child of her choice would be denied. Saving the unwanted fetus causes a loss of the wanted fetus. Con states that the woman could still give birth to a wanted fetus; but that is an exaggeration, and untrue. If the man of her choice dies, the mate becomes impotent or for hundreds of other reasons she cannot become pregnant, then Con is wrong. Con also ignores the status of the woman that is forced to give birth. She may become impoverished and unable to afford another child. She may not be able to gain the love of her wanted mate because of jealously. She may not be able to take care of other children. She may be forced to go on public assistance and thousands of other reasons that will cause her to fail to have a child of her choice. In any of these situations the life of a wanted child is lost.
Con also is wrong about the future birth being just a chance. For example, all life is just a chance. There is nothing new in the formula here. If the woman aborts the unwanted fetus she will usually have an opportunity for another fetus. Women frequently abort then have multiple children.
Con claims that it is life at conception. And if everyone agreed with him, I agree that there would then be a balance that would need to be made between the life of the potential child that is unwanted and the potential child that is wanted. As it stands an unwanted fetus should always be aborted.
But the problem that Con must overcome is that not everyone agrees that life begins at conception. In fact it is generally accepted in the scientific community that life does not begin at conception. What is taught in all schools is that life is a cycle. In fact Con's quotation admits that life is a cycle. And some embryologist choose a time in the cycle that they claim is the beginning of life. But they cannot be serious, they are only choosing a point of reference. (What came first the human or the egg?) Others claim there is no point at which life can be said to "begin".
It is a common stated belief of the pro life community that if we are not certain if something is in fact life, then we should take the least harmful path. When the "Law of Hindered Birth" is taken into account, then the least harmful path is to save the wanted fetus.
The reason saving the wanted fetus is the least harmful path is because we know for certain that there will likely be a wanted birth and there is little chance that an unwanted conception will be born. Earlier we proved that only 21 percent of unwanted conceptions will be brought to term (we are aware that in other circumstances up to 50 percent of conceptions live). It is a fact however that a woman wanting to conceive will try over and over until she conceives. So the sensible thing to do is to save the wanted fetus and not let it be killed in the process of saving of the unwanted fetus.
It is a fact that life is a cycle. http://content.karger.com... Life does not begin or end in one sense; and life is continuous from the first human until today in another sense. And a new genetic individual does not start at conception:

"Modern genetics has revealed that fertilization is not the time at which a
pre-embryo's genetic identity begins to influence development nor is it even
the time at which a zygote's functional genetic identity is determined [5]. The
genomes borne by the sperm and the egg are chemically inactivated both
before and immediately after fertilization. This inactivation is accomplished
by adding methyl groups (a common organic molecule) to cytosine, one of
the basic components of DNA. When the DNA that codes for a gene is
methylated, the gene is ‘silenced' and the cell cannot use the information
contained in the gene.

Most scientist agree there is no consensus as to when life begins. http://www.sinauer.com... and in fact there are four major points at which life could begin.
It is of no minor importance that a woman that is pregnant with an unwanted child is at a disadvantage with regards to availability for mating with a male of her choice and that forced birth limits her ability to mate with that male. The male is also at a disadvantage if his mate is pregnant with the unwanted child of another man, in that it is possible that he will not be able to afford to support the woman and the child along with a child with his genetic material. Con makes multiple excuses including claiming that the woman would not benefit because she likely would not want to become pregnant again if she were allowed to abort. Of course if that is true, then she probably does not want to be pregnant with the unwanted child either. It is only a guess that if she is allowed to abort she will not want to become pregnant again. The fact is that women universally agree that a wanted birth is better than an unwanted birth. They agree a child with her mate is preferred to a child of rape. Most parents want their daughters to be able to choose their mate and not be raped and be forced to give birth. Most societies want their citizens to have planned births and not forced births by rape or accident. And most women throughout history have been able to find a mate and have children when they want
All of Con's points fail.
KeytarHero

Con

"Con has wasted most of his debate space avoiding the issues of the debate."

That's not true. In fact, I defeated your argument quite thoroughly. But let's recap:

The resolution that we are debating is "newly revealed natural scientific laws govern the morality of abortion." I have clearly shown that it does not. Whether or not a woman can become pregnant with a wanted child while pregnant with an unwanted one does not govern the morality of abortion. Whether or not the unborn is human governs the morality. If the unborn is not human, then abortion would be morally permissible. If the unborn is human, then killing them because they are unwanted is cruel and barbaric. Also, pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely rare. Most girls/women who become pregnant will become pregnant by their lovers. There is no reason to expect that if they are aborting their child because of other factors (i.e. job, school, etc) that their situation will drastically change in nine months and they would want to have a child then. Even in the case of rape, as I have indicated, this is not a good reason to kill the unborn child (as I have already made the case for).

I confess, I have no idea what you were trying to show me with your first link (from religious tolerance). Perhaps you could explain what I'm supposed to see?

Keeping an unwanted fetus does not "trade the life" of another fetus because as I told you before, the unwanted fetus has not come into existence. There's no life to trade. You are killing the life of a child already in existence for one that may or may not happen. You cannot give rights to potential humans, which is why abortion would be fine if the unborn were not human. Tell me, since life is "passed forward," do you believe that masturbation is mass murder?

Also, if wanted children's lives are being lost during unwanted pregnancies, do you think women should become perpetual baby-making machines, so that the fewest possible number of children will live?

It is not an exaggeration to say that she could still give birth to a wanted child with her lover. We can't just say that abortion is morally acceptable because her lover may be killed prematurely. Pro is simply being ridiculous now by stating that it is "an exaggeration and untrue" to say that she could have a wanted child with her lover. Pro apparently thinks that keeping an unwanted child will always result in not being able to have a wanted child with her lover. Hopefully you see how ridiculous his position is.

The girl/woman who keeps the unwanted child can always gift the child to a loving couple through adoption. This would help her in case of poverty because the adopting parents will pay the medical bills (this is why it's so expensive to adopt). If she feels she can't afford to raise the child, she can give the child to a couple who can afford to raise her.

Not everyone needs to agree that life begins at conception. You quoted a biologist. Please find me an embryologist (who is an actual expert in the field) who says we can't know when life begins. I have already quoted two embryologists who wrote the most-used textbook on embryology who disagree with you. Life begins at conception. Here, I'll quote a couple more:

"Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."[1]

"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)."[1]

"[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being."[2]

"Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive male and female gametes during fertilization... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."[3]

"Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive male and female gametes during fertilization... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."[11]

These are from modern teaching texts on the subject of embryology. These people know what they're talking about. Sorry, but I feel we should take their word over yours.

Now you're equivocating. The quotation about life being a cycle does not back up your claim that "life is passed forward." We are conceived, we grow into adults, we have children, we die; our children do the same; our children's children do the same. Life is a cycle, it is not "passed forward."

The "least harmful path", as he calls it, would not be to save the life of the wanted fetus because in order to do that, the already-conceived unwanted fetus must die. If Pro had his way, we would be killing unwanted unborn humans for another human which may or may not be brought into existence. Most conceptions happen through consensual means and it is unlikely that her situation will drastically change in the next nine months to where she will want to become pregnant.

Again, it's irrelevant that there's no consensus as to when life begins. Some people choose not to believe life begins at fertilization because it would mess up their views on abortion. Also, as I have asked already, please show me embryologists who do not believe life begins at fertilization. They are the experts.

If we polled the globe, you'd find a bunch of people who still think Pluto is considered a planet. But if you polled all the expert astronomers, you'd probably get 98% or more affirming they know about the updated IAU definition. It was the biggest news in astronomy in years.

I did not say the woman will not want to be pregnant again, only that it's unlikely she'll want to become pregnant in the next nine months she would have carried the unwanted child. You are assuming that all pregnancies are from rape, when in fact most pregnancies resulting from rape are rare. Most girls/women who become pregnant get pregnant from their lover in the first place. But again, this "law" does not govern the morality on abortion because if the unborn is human, then it is wrong to kill them for being "unwanted."

In fact, your entire argument is ridiculous because you are making the case that we are only valuable if we are wanted. The unborn in the womb is the same child that comes out of the womb. Yet no one would say it is okay to kill a toddler because the mother suddenly doesn't want them anymore. You are also assuming that there's no such thing as adoption. However, if the girl/woman is worried about poverty or any other reason, she can always gift the child to a loving couple for adoption, which is much better than having the child killed. All human life is equally valuable. This goes for the child as well as for the mother. My position that life begins at fertilization is much more consistent than your position that life begins at birth, because birth is an arbitrary event. Some children are born on time, some a few days late, some a week early. Some are born a month or two premature. However, the experts in the field of embryology tell us that life begins at fertilization. Pro has yet to find one expert in the field who has said otherwise.

I have sufficiently proven that this "law" does not govern the morality of abortion.

[1] Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
[2] Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
[3] William J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology, New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998. pp. 1, 14.

Debate Round No. 3
givemeliberty

Pro

Again, all of Con's points fail.
Con challenged "If the unborn is not human, then abortion would be morally permissible. If the unborn is human, then killing them because they are unwanted is cruel and barbaric."

---But no, that is not the point of this debate.---- The point as shown by the "Law of Hindered Birth" is that if the "future child" predicted by the law is human; then it is cruel and barbaric to kill the future child. The "Law of Hindered Birth" is in fact true. So the real issue here is if the future child predicted by the Law is a human. I have proven already that it is a real human. Lets review:
The "Law of Hindered Birth" is about what is possible, not what the results will be or if a wanted birth will in fact be realized. It only deals with what is possible. So any explanation of the law must only deal with what is possible.
Why is the wanted child a real living human?
If a woman wants to have a child in the future, she will likely find a mate and try intentionally over and over again to become pregnant with that mate until she is successfully pregnant. This is prima facie true as seen in all human populations.
If the woman conceives a wanted conception, then the odds of an actual born child coming from that conception is the same for her with a wanted child as the odds are for an unwanted child. Nature shows that only a small number of conceptions end in a pregnancy. So she will likely have some failed conceptions. Usually, she will continue to seek a wanted child and continue to attempt pregnancy. She will likely become pregnant. However as shown by statistics she can still have a miscarriage or stillbirth. Perhaps her pregnancy will fail again. She will likely try again for another wanted child. She will likely become pregnant again. Usually a woman will at some time in her life become pregnant with a wanted child and carry that child full term until birth. Prior to birth, there is still a chance that the fetus will die and be miscarried or stillborn. Once a woman has a birth that is successful then and only then has she proven the "Law of Hindered Birth's" theory that a wanted child is almost certain. So the proof that a future wanted child will be born is in the fact that people do in fact have wanted children that are born after several attempts. Because women will try over and over again in order to become pregnant, and actually give birth, a wanted and willing pregnancy will result in a real child even though it is called a potential child.

Why is the unwanted fetus only tissue?
The unwanted fetus is only tissue because we do not know if in fact it will be born. Unlike the wanted child the unwanted child is not likely to become a real human. One can never say prior to birth, that it is a living human, because we cannot know if it will remain alive. In fact the proof I have posted shows that the fetus may only have a 21 percent chance of being born.
Let's see how the "Law of Hindered Birth" controls the situation. In the law, a forced birth precludes a willing birth. Con believes that the unwanted fetus is a real human. So what happens if the forced fetus could for certain be called a real human? That would not in fact change anything. If the forced fetus is a real living human and is forced into birth, the wanted child would still not be born and would lose the opportunity for life.
But the fact is that the forced fetus is not in fact a living human because we cannot know for sure that it will in fact live to be born. It suffers from the same hardships as the wanted conception. For example, it is likely that the forced conception will never live past the first few days. And thereafter a person can never be certain it will not miscarry. And if it does not miscarry it may in fact become stillborn. So until the day of birth, if there is a successful birth, we cannot know for certain that the fetus will be a living human.
As explained earlier, DNA is like computer code, until the code is completely run, we cannot be certain that there is a living human.
To recap: The unwanted conception will only have one chance at life. People will not intentionally try over and over for an unwanted child. That one chance results in a birth rate of about 21 percent of conceptions. The unwanted fetus, though actually in place, has a small chance of being born.
The wanted fetus has the greatest chance of actually being born. Why, because if the first conception fails, the couple will try over and over until successful. Therefore if a person forces the unwanted fetus into life one can quite reasonably be assured that they have caused the demise of a wanted child.
Therefore choosing to be pro life is a barbaric and inhumane choice because humans -must- live under the "Law of Hindered Birth". There is no option. And there is no way around the "Law of Hindered Birth" any more than there is a way around any other laws of nature. The only moral and reasonable thing a person can do is to reject the ideas of the pro life movement.
Con asserts that the unwanted fetus is human, as in a human being. No one disputes that the unwanted unborn is human tissue. There is a large dispute that has existed for centuries as to whether the z/e/f is a living human being. There is no natural law that governs the issue of human tissue vs human being. It is simply unsupported opinion. It does not matter, the "Law of Hindered Birth" makes the point moot. It does not matter if the unwanted fetus is human tissue or human life, because saving either unwanted tissue or unwanted life leads to the death of an indisputably real human life.
Con admits the validity of the new "Law of Hindered Birth". The law is a natural law of nature and will always operate as shown. Con's ideas are not natural law and have only divided support. While some people may think Con's ideas are valid, most do not. And even those that agree with Con admit that the moment of conception is simply a part of the cycle of life. However natural laws like the "Law of Hindered Birth" are always valid, always operable and always have consequences.
- Logically speaking, if a natural law conflicts with a person's idea, then the law would always win out over the idea that is unproven.- Con's ideas are simply that, ideas. They are unproven even by Con's embryologists. Other scientists disagree with Con's ideas. No one can disagree with the "Law of Hindered Birth". And any idea that conflicts with the law is invalid.
Con's ideas are not backed by natural law. There is no natural law that proves Con's zygote is a baby or human being. It is simply an opinion, nothing more. The "law of hindered birth" is fact and proves that if you attempt to save the tissue of the unwanted fetus you will cause the loss of a fully developed and wanted child.

This new law changes everything. Prior to the law even a weak pro life excuse that claimed it was "life at conception" made a little sense. If there was a doubt, then the excuse was that one should err on the side of life and save the fetus. Now the fact is that if there is doubt one should err on the side of the wanted child. And the reason is simple. A wanted child has a much greater chance of surviving until birth than an unwanted child. Women will try again and again for a wanted child. And likewise they will avoid the unwanted child. So forcing the birth of an unwanted child denies life to a wanted child. The law proves that there is no way to avoid this consequence. I have proven and Con has not successfully disputed that the "Law of Hindered Birth" is true and it follows that the wanted child is much more likely to be born than the unwanted child. Anyone can see that if a woman is forced to give birth to unwanted tissue she can lose a wanted child. There is no life saved by forcing birth.

Con's challenge is met, the fetus in not a human and the the potential child from the "Law of Hindered Birth" is a living human being.
KeytarHero

Con

"Again, all of Con's points fail."

Repeatedly saying this will not make it true. My point that if a woman becomes pregnant with her lover, yet does not want it, her situation is not likely to drastically change in the nine months she would be pregnant with the unwanted child remains uncontested and I extend this argument to my final round.

Actually, the point of this debate, as per your own resolution, is that this law governs the morality of abortion. I have amply shown that it does not, and you have failed to refute the scientific, biological fact that all unborn children are living human beings from fertilization.

Liberty keeps talking about "killing the future child," but there is nothing to kill if the future child has not been conceived. No life is being lost, save the life of the unwanted child which Liberty supports the killing of. He wants the conceived, unwanted child to be killed. Liberty's apparent criteria for humanity is wantedness, but this is ridiculous. A living human is a living human regardless of whether they are wanted or not.

If this "law" only deals with what is possible, then it is no law at all. Scientific laws deal with what is actual, what is tangible. Liberty is speaking of philosophy, not physical science.

I have already explained why the wanted child is a real living human. Aside from quoting embryologists who say that at fertilization, a new, unique human being is brought into existence, it is simple biological fact. Anything that grows is alive, and living things reproduce after their own kind (dogs have dogs, cats have cats, humans have humans). Liberty is going against science, claiming that a philosophical belief is "scientific fact." You'll notice that Liberty cannot even supply one expert in the field of embryology to back up his claims, even after I have invited him to do so.

Now Liberty asserts that since the unwanted is not guaranteed to be born (as many conceptions end in death before birth), it can not be considered a human. However, Liberty also says that she will try over and over to have a wanted child. None of these wanted children are guaranteed to be born. So my Liberty's own argument, he cannot consider even wanted children to be living humans.

Also, as I have stated, if she doesn't want a child but becomes pregnant by her lover, her situation is not likely to drastically change in the next nine months to where she will be ready to have a child.

Again, Liberty is making the ridiculous claim that the unborn cannot be human because we do not know if it will be born or not. As I argued in a previous round (and Liberty has not responded to), we cannot be human at birth because we don't know if it will get SIDS or not. I extend this argument into my next round, as well, since it remains uncontested.

Liberty makes the following assertion: "If the forced fetus is a real living human and is forced into birth, the wanted child would still not be born and would lose the opportunity for life." The "forced" fetus is a real living human being. The potential wanted child is not, because they have not been brought into existence yet. The only life that could potentially be denied life is the unwanted fetus.

"So until the day of birth, if there is a successful birth, we cannot know for certain that the fetus will be a living human."

No, as you have pointedly ignored we can't even be sure the newborn will be a living human since it may get SIDS.

Liberty seems to be the only person in all of existence who would argue the unborn zygote/embryo/fetus could be anything other than human. He continues to ignore science that humans reproduce after their own kind, so any unborn human is, in fact, human. The baby who comes out of the womb is the same child who was in the womb five minutes ago, two days ago, three months ago, and nine months ago. It's the same human offspring.

"The unwanted conception will only have one chance at life. People will not intentionally try over and over for an unwanted child. "

Again, under your philosophical law, this is false. Wanted conceptions only have one chance at life because as you keep pointing out, conceptions have a chance of miscarrying before they are born. You are not only advocating the death of an unwanted child, you are advocating the death of all those supposed "wanted" embryos/fetuses, on top of the unwanted one, all because she wants to get a "wanted" one. Whereas those conceptions would not have died had she just kept the unwanted one and given birth to him/her. The reality is that natural spontaneous "abortions" are a fact of life, but they are natural. If the woman's body naturally flushes out a conceptus, or if her body does miscarry, this does not give us the right to take an unborn life willingly. People die of old age, but this does not give us the right to commit murder.

"The only moral and reasonable thing a person can do is to reject the ideas of the pro life movement."

I ask the reader: Which is more moral and reasonable: to kill a child because they are unwanted, or to want to protect children who are unwanted. Liberty believes the former to be the superior moral and reasonable position.

The pro-life movement believes that all life is valuable and worthy of protection. Yet Liberty considers this immoral and unreasonable. The pro-life movement says that it would be better to gift an unwanted child to a loving family, who likely can't conceive a child of their own, than to kill the child. Yet Liberty considers this immoral and unreasonable. I ask you, the reader, which of us holds the more immoral and unreasonable viewpoint?

Liberty keeps making the fallacy that the unborn are mere "human tissue." This is an erroneous viewpoint scientifically, as I have shown from the experts in the field. I have invited Liberty to show any experts in embryology who state that the unborn are not living humans from fertilization. In fact, the embryologists I quoted from having written the most widely-used college textbooks in the field of embryology. It is obvious that Liberty's evidence is severely lacking, and severely biased.

Also, Liberty misrepresents my position. I have not admitted the validity of his philosophical law. I agree that a woman who is pregnant cannot become pregnant again. What I don't agree with is that this justifies abortion. The only life at stake is the unwanted one. The abstract "wanted" child is not alive, has not been conceived, and therefore by keeping the unwanted child no life is being lost.

"While some people may think Con's ideas are valid, most do not."

Again, more baseless claims. Tell me, who does not think my ideas are valid? I will ask once again. Can you find me any experts in the field of embryology who say that life does not begin at fertilization? I daresay that Liberty does not know "most" people, and therefore cannot honestly make this claim.

Liberty constantly reverts to "other scientists" because anyone can make claims that life begins at other points to justify their stance on abortion. But the evidence is clear from the experts who know better: human life begins at conception.

Liberty's stance is based on conjecture and creating his own "law" which he asserts as fact. I have shown that we are living humans from fertilization (with evidence to support my views). Liberty has nothing to support his claims because they are just that, claims which are not backed up by science or reason. I have successful refuted his resolution. This "law" does not govern the morality of abortion, whether or not we are humans from fertilization does. And as I have amply shown, we are.

I look forward to our final round.
Debate Round No. 4
givemeliberty

Pro

All of Con's points fail. Why, because all of his points are invalid. As stated above in the first round:"This debate will test a newly revealed natural scientific law that partially governs the impact that abortion has on society. If this law is valid, then the generally accepted conclusions of the pro life movement will need revision or become invalid."
To win the debate Con would need to prove that the Law of Hindered Birth is not a Law and he would need to prove that a woman cannot under any circumstances plan to have a child and then have that child.
Con's major error is that he fails to distinguish between law and theory. This law states a fact and does not make a moral distinction. This law begins and ends within the quotation marks "A Forced Birth Precludes a Willing Birth". There is nothing to debate here. If a woman cannot become pregnant while she is already pregnant then she cannot in the same time period have another birth. There is no argument possible.
Con has wasted his space with off topic and invalid arguments. Con has made impassioned pleas and typical pro life arguments along every path that deals with abortion. He has not made one single valid argument to challenge the "Law of Hindered Birth" or to prove that it does not "partially govern" the impact that abortion has on society. As a result one is left with what he has proved. He has proved my point that there are new arguments that impact the abortion debate. He has made those arguments himself. Some of his arguments are invalid, and off subject, proving my claims.
His invalid arguments are:
1)"Her situation is not likely to change" which has no impact, because the situation of some women will change.
2)"The unborn are humans from fertilization" has no impact on the debate. It does not matter if they are in fact the same as adults because any impact on the "unborn" falls equally on the wanted and unwanted unborn. Saving the unwanted destroys the possibility of the "wanted". I have proved the unwanted unborn has a 21 percent chance of life and the wanted unborn has a nearly 100 percent chance of life. If a person forces the birth of an unwanted fetus, then each 100 conceptions will yield 21 live children. If a person allows the abortion of the unwanted fetuses then after numerous tries as many as 100 births will occur. Theoretically these conceptions could all happen in the 9 months of the forced birth period. Pro lifers are therefore the cause of the loss of 79 wanted children when they stop access to abortion for 100 women.
3)"There is nothing to kill if the future child has not been conceived" This is an invalid argument. Over half of all children conceived are planned children. The future child exists in the egg and sperm of the couple planning a family. There is tangible genetic material that is in "the life cycle" before being conceived. The odds of birth for a planned child are nearly 100 percent and the odds of the unplanned about 21 percent. Stopping a future conception is much more deadly to life.
4)"The law only deals with what is possible, then it is not law at all" This is an invalid argument and does not belong in the debate. I gave a link to my definition of what is a "Law" and Con does not dispute that definition. All laws deal with what is possible. It is actual and tangible that forcing one birth denies another birth. The "Law" is "fact" and how "nature works". It cannot be denied.
5)"Quoting embryologist"--- there is no disagreement with what the embryologists have said. This is not a valid point in the argument. It does not disprove the law or make a wanted birth impossible.
6) "None of these wanted children are guaranteed to be born" is also off target. The law does not say there is a guarantee of life. It says that if one life is forced then another is impossible.
7)"We cannot be human at birth because we don't know if it will get SIDS or not" has nothing to do with the facts in the "Law" or the possibility of a woman giving birth to a wanted child.
8)"Liberty seems to be the only person in all of existence who would argue the unborn zygote/embryo/fetus" This has nothing to do with the law or the woman.
9)"The "forced" fetus is a real living human being", has nothing to do with the debate. It does not matter to the law if the forced fetus is a human and it does not impact the birth of a wanted child.
10)"The potential wanted child is not {a living human}, because they have not been brought into existence yet." This has no impact on the debate. The indisputable fact is that women have throughout the history of mankind had "wanted children". It is a fact that if a woman is not hindered with an unwanted fetus she can have a wanted fetus.
11)"You are advocating the death of all those supposed "wanted" embryos/fetuses, on top of the unwanted one, all because she wants to get a "wanted" one." This does not belong in the debate. It does not disprove the law and does not impact a woman's ability to have a wanted child. In addition all the fetuses, embryos, etc not forced into birth will also die. It is a moot point.
12)"I ask the reader: Which is more moral and reasonable: to kill a child because they are unwanted, or to want to protect children who are unwanted." This has nothing to do with the debate. More wanted children die than unwanted children when birth is forced.
13)"The pro-life movement believes that all life is valuable and worthy of protection. " This is not true and has nothing to do with the debate.
14)"Liberty keeps making the fallacy that the unborn are mere "human tissue." This has nothing to do with the debate and you have not offered proof that it is more than tissue.
15)"Again, more baseless claims. Tell me, who does not think my ideas are valid?" This has nothing to do with the debate.
16)"Human life begins at conception." This has nothing to do with the debate.
17)"The only life at stake is the unwanted one. The abstract "wanted" child is not alive"
This is not part of the debate. The debate relates to the fact that the wanted child cannot be alive if the unwanted life is forced to birth. It is a fact that it could be alive except for the forced birth. Planned births occur every day.

Con's only contribution to the debate is when he states:
"I agree that a woman who is pregnant cannot become pregnant again." He does not like the wording of the law. I accept his changed wording as it relates to this debate. Even his words are proof of the Law of Hindered Birth.

Con has made a normal pro life argument that is of no value to this debate. It does not matter if there is life at conception. In fact none of the usual arguments about abortion apply. This debate is not about morality, it is about the natural laws that govern abortion. Morality is simply a by product of the discussion. The theories following the law prove the pro life stance is immoral, not the law. The law is valid, a woman cannot have a wanted birth while she is pregnant with an unwanted fetus. That is all that the "Law" says. The fact is that all arguments about abortion are impacted in one sense or another by this law.
The law says that forcing one life denies the possibility of another for 9 months. If the unwanted life is human, the wanted life is also human. This is true because a woman can conceive several times in the 9 month time span. Saving the unwanted life causes the wanted life to not exist. It is indisputable that the egg and sperm of the wanted child are simply a wish away from conception. And nature has proved that wanted children are strived for. I have proved that the wanted child is more likely to be born than the unwanted child. Both the unwanted child where conception has taken place and the wanted child have the same DNA available for human life. The only difference is the location of the genetic materials and the fact that the unwanted life is less likely to live.
The law is proved.
Thank you Con, good debate.
KeytarHero

Con

So we have reached our final round. As I read my opponent's final round argument, I have to ask myself (and, I suppose, the reader will also ask themselves) if Givemeliberty and I even read the same debate. Did he even ready my arguments or is he simply arguing based on what he assumes I will say? He has not responded to my arguments, and he has certainly not proven any of his alleged "facts" or the resolution at large. The resolution is: "newly revealed natural scientific laws govern the morality of abortion." Liberty has not proven that it has. Quite the contrary, I have proven that it does not. What does govern the morality of abortion is whether or not the unborn is a living human being. If they are, then abortion is morally reprehensible. Who would support killing a child simply because they are unwanted? Why would we treat the unborn the same way, if the are living humans like you or more? If they are not, then abortion is morally acceptable and there really should be no limits on abortion.

I have proven that the unborn are living humans, and have supplied ample evidence from embryologists, the experts in the field, who tell us that a new, unique human life is created at conception. Liberty could not even supply a quote from one expert to show otherwise. His argument remains, "embryologists don't agree with me, so they are wrong." In fact, Liberty has not supplied one expert who claims that life is "passed on," instead he equivocates. The embryologist said that life is a cycle, but this is because we are conceived, we are born, we grow up, we have kids, we grow old, we die. Our children do the same, our children's children do the same. Life is a cycle; it is not "passed on." He has called all the embryologists, the experts in the field, liars. Yet he has no experts to back up his own claims.

Seeing as this is our last round, I will not present any new arguments. However, I will respond to a few of Liberty's more ridiculous statements.

I have proven that the "Law of Hindered Birth is not a law." Women, of course, can't get pregnant again when they are pregnant. However, life is not "passed on." If the pregnant woman keeps an unwanted child (which, by the way, then becomes wanted -- so the law is moot when unwanted children are kept), then the abstract "wanted child" is not being denied anything. They are not alive, they have not been conceived. They have no life to deny. This is why this "law" is not a law at all. It is simply a philosophical position, and not a very strong one, at that.

This law does not state a fact. In fact, Liberty could not give a single expert who backed up his law.

"He has not made one single valid argument to challenge the 'Law of Hindered Birth' or to prove that it does not 'partially govern' the impact that abortion has on society."

Your resolution does not state that the law "partially" governs the morality, but that it governs it. An absolute statement. The resolution is what you are arguing here. Also, I have made many valid arguments. Just no arguments that you like (since they are detrimental to your case).

I will now respond to Liberty's points. Most of them involve how he doesn't see them as relevant, which is ridiculous. I have shown that they are relevant.

1) You have not proven anything about her situation. If a woman gets pregnant with her lover and doesn't want the child, her situation is not likely to drastically change in nine months to where she would want a child. You have not shown how it could.

2) You have proven nothing. You have offered no sources to back up your claims. Even if they are true, they don't prove that abortion is morally acceptable. If an unborn child has a slim chance at life, then the best thing to do would be to allow the child to miscarry naturally, then have the wanted child that she wants (which, possibly unless she was raped, she would not want right away anyway). This does not prove it's okay for us to take the life of the unborn. As I stated before, people die of old age but this doesn't make murder morally acceptable.

3) This is a perfectly valid argument, and falls under "one Liberty doesn't like because it's detrimental to his argument." The child does not exist in the "sperm and the egg." A new child is created once the sperm and the egg unite. But why would you listen to me, since you don't even listen to the experts?

4) Liberty seems confused about his own definition of "law." Let me show you: "A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'." This proves my point. Laws don't deal in what is "possible." They deal in what is true and observable. Liberty's alleged "law" is not based on truth, but on conjecture. It is no law at all.

5) Liberty admits there is not disagreement with what the embryologists said. Therefore, they prove that since the unborn are living humans, killing them because they are simply unwanted is barbaric. No one would support killing a two-year-old child for that reason.

6) Again, the law is incorrect. If one life is forced, the other life is not impossible, just delayed.

7) This has everything to do with it. Another one you don't like because it's detrimental to your case. If you can't tell the unborn are human because they might not be born, then you can't tell if a newborn is human because it might die of SIDS before it reaches adolescence.

8) This does have to do with the law or the woman, because if the unborn are living humans then killing them because they are unwanted is barbaric.

9) Again, I will not repeat myself.

10) This does have impact on the debate, since you, yourself, have stated that life is "passed on" and the potential wanted fetus is a human while the unwanted fetus is mere "human tissue." You have a double-standard which is not backed up by reason or science.

11) This does belong in the debate, because it speaks against the very thing you are trying to prove. You seem to be worried about the one "wanted fetus" that will make it through and survive, and not the other "wanted" fetuses who will be miscarried or flushed out. All of those lives will be gone, too, if she aborts the unwanted one.

12) This does belong in the debate because it counters your erroneous view of pro-lifers.

13) This is exactly true and you have not shown otherwise.

14) It does and I have.

15) This does, as you made the claim that no one (or very few people) think my ideas are valid. You have not offered proof, therefore you can't make the claim that my views are invalid simply because you disagree with them.

16) It does.

17) It does as you've made the claim that by keeping the unwanted child, the wanted one will "lose its life." You have not proven this at all.

Liberty has consistently misconstrued my words and made strawman arguments against me. I made no claims to the validity of this ridiculous law, only to one part of it (that a woman who is pregnant cannot be pregnant again while pregnant with the first). Again, was Liberty even reading the same debate I've been responding to?

Thanks again to Liberty for offering this challenge. However, it is quite obvious that Liberty is clinging to this "law" with all the fervor of a religious zealot who won't change his mind on anything despite all the evidence to the contrary. He views my arguments are irrelevant not because they are, but because they are detrimental to his case. I think it is obvious who has the stronger case here. Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
444 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sadolite 1 year ago
sadolite
I read the opening statement about "Obvious natural laws" and quit reading before they were sited in an attempt to see if I could figure out on my own what these "Obvious natural laws" are with regard to abortion.

I must confess I came up blank and had to read on. Was quite disappointed in myself.
Posted by Man-is-good 3 years ago
Man-is-good
Givemeliberty is obviously distraught with his defeat, and wants to earn the upper hand by making his loss a victory without a win.
Posted by KeytarHero 3 years ago
KeytarHero
"The embryologist is obviously implying that a new life is created at conception if it lives to be a baby."

Remember what I said about your reading comprehension skills? The embryologist is implying no such thing. The embryologists are saying that a new, unique living human being is alive at conception. You need to wake up to the fact that you're simply wrong and stop twisting peoples' words to try and prove your own.
Posted by KeytarHero 3 years ago
KeytarHero
"And then you came here and said you never said it was life at conception, that it was life at fertilization."

You are the only one who is lying here. I never said it wasn't life at conception. Perhaps you should study up on this process more. When an egg is fertilized by the sperm, that is the process of conception. If a zygote is alive at fertilization, it is alive at conception.
Posted by KeytarHero 3 years ago
KeytarHero
"Actually you don't know if my law is weak. You refused to debate the law and chose to try and change the subject to 'life at conception'"

Actually, I did refute the law. It was quite easy to refute as it's a philosophical position, not a scientific one. But your law wasn't the resolution, the resolution was that it governs the morality of abortion. So that's what I concentrated on.
Posted by KeytarHero 3 years ago
KeytarHero
"Hum, nice try. You are lying. You don't' know everyone on earth, it is only your opinion. So it is a lie to state it as fact."

Negative. I keep asking you for people who believe this silly law you keep promoting and you can't give me a single one. Therefore I can only assume you are the only one who believes it. Embryologists certainly don't, and sophisticated pro-choice philosophers certainly don't.
Posted by Man-is-good 3 years ago
Man-is-good
"Perhaps if you apologize and retract your lies then we can be best buddies?"

Perhaps if you apologize for creating this whole nonsense discussion, by accusing others of lying (and asking them to resign), in the comments page, and your conduct.

If you want, we can sort to even meaner practices since you seem so obstinate that we are lying. It's rather the opposite, though.
Posted by Man-is-good 3 years ago
Man-is-good
"It was not misconception / opposing view.
It is, especially when you, at first glimpse, appear to be affirming that we do not know that life begins at conception/fertilization....
"If that were the case you would retract what you said."
I was not. I still believe that new life is created at the moment of fertilization.
"It was an intentional lie that is practiced by every pro life debater.
No proof in demonstrating that this is an "intentional lie"
"And they know it is a lie when it is said.
If they know, then how do you know?
"Usually they attempt to back up the lie with misquotes form embryologist, as was done here.
Misquotes, especially with sources and citations (which I found lacking in your own arguments)
"And of course they misrepresent what he embryologist say as well.
Perhaps you didn't read what the embryologists read. Making baseless claims, without evidence, isn't going to help you prove your point/support your claim that KeyTar was lying.
"So did you know you were lying? Well it is obvious that you have not retacted your comments.
I would know if I was lying, or at least prevaricating. And besides, your flow of reasoning is unbelievable and full of strawmen arguments and baseless claims that do not support its premises. Sorry. And "retract" is spelled with an r.
"You have not asked Keytarhero to retact his comments.
Why should I? I am not in league with Keytarhero.
"So yes by your actions now, it is clear that it is and was an intentional lie.
It's ironic that it seems that you can simply discern actions, but not motives or reasons, and establish that it's "clear" that it had this intent or that. Backed up with no evidence whatsoever, and just based on this thin line of reasoning.
"That is enough for me and most resonable people.
Most reasonable people wouldn't even want to consider what you're writing. I happen to be one of the few that would.
Posted by Man-is-good 3 years ago
Man-is-good
"However I believe firmly that life begins a conception"

What is this? A change in belief, givemeliberty? First you state that we do not know that life safely begins at conception, then, with this debate, involving, Deathbeforedishonor, you, rudely, criticized his arguments (calling them lame at one time). Perhaps, you are just a hypercrite and want to try to look the best you can, whether by making contradictory statements with, quite possibly, the sole purpose of refuting others, and also demonstrating your "intelligence" with these baseless and ridiculous claims.
Posted by gimmestrength 3 years ago
gimmestrength
Givemeliberty. Yes things are changing. Have you noticed how many states are making stricter statutes and laws re. abortion. also defunding Planned parenthood(which i can't say i totally agree with in most cases).
"I just want pro-lifers to stop muredering children."
If they have murdered children then yes they should. Fortunately the vast majority don't murder anyone, let alone hypothetical, possible children as described by you.
"the concepts are without flaw."
:)
"People don't have puppies is a deceptive lie."
So you have see a woman give birth to a puppy?

"Live with that for a lifetime. Because it is a fact."
Geez, calm down I have never disputed that after 1973 births started going back up. It IS a fact. It's just that the reason you give to explain it doesn't hold water. 1 abortion is the termination of a fetus that might have become a living HUMAN person. Add up all those terminations and it cannot possibly cause an increase in births, it's simple. It is the combination of several logical sociological, economic, political, and medical, (there are probably more) reasons that caused a birth increase.
Do you have stock in some type of abortion clinic or supply company?
I have never denied a woman the legal option of having an abortion. I have never advocated that abortion laws be changed. I have never murdered anyone. You keep claiming that I have. Make a citizen's arrest ! Or should I just turn myself in?
"What are you when you deny abortion to a woman you don't know. I define you as a murderer."
Like I said I have never denied abortion to anyone. Even if I had that would not define me as a murderer, or did you write the dictionary too?
Seriously, I think most people understand the philosophical viewpoint/theory you are tryuing to promote. Understanding it doesn't mean thinking you are right; in fact just the opposite. But those that disagree do understand you, and what you stand for.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Chuz-Life 1 week ago
Chuz-Life
givemelibertyKeytarHeroTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: From the text of the debate: "Okay, here's where you lose me (and I suspect, the vast majority of our readers). There's no life being denied here except the life of the already conceived child. Any other child hasn't even been brought into existence yet, so there's no other life being denied." ~ Con. Right from the beginning, Con wins point after point with basic and easy to follow logic. Pro, You just can't be accused of killing a child that never existed. A child in the womb does exist. A child that exists ONLY in your mind does not.
Vote Placed by The_Tom 7 months ago
The_Tom
givemelibertyKeytarHeroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: You mean to say that a pregnant woman can't get pregnant? NO WAY. This newly discovered law will surely impact abortion laws. Are you kidding me, what a joke. This is neither new nor relevant.
Vote Placed by JoshBrahm 3 years ago
JoshBrahm
givemelibertyKeytarHeroTied
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 Checkmark1 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: This wasn't even close. Pro didn't respond to Con's arguments; he simply dismissed them and restated his own argument, which essentially says that it is "barbaric" to "kill" beings that are nonexistent. Since it is impossible to kill anything that doesn't exist, Pro didn't have a shot.
Vote Placed by Gileandos 3 years ago
Gileandos
givemelibertyKeytarHeroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: When con defeated all of Pro's arguments Pro seemed to lose sight of the resolution and defend something that was largely irrelavent. Con conduct for staying on resolution. Con was far more convincing and used embryologists to support his assertion.
Vote Placed by baggins 3 years ago
baggins
givemelibertyKeytarHeroTied
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:14 
Reasons for voting decision: 4:1 to Con. Pro tried hard. However he failed to uphold the implication of 'law' on abortion debate. He also did not answer Con's counterattack satisfactorily. Detailed analysis in comments.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 3 years ago
BlackVoid
givemelibertyKeytarHeroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument is entirely unreadable as it is all a giant wall of text. Please use spaces appropriately in future debates. Also, 5 rounds of filling up all 8,000 characters is more than anybody here is going to read. Please only have three rounds of debating in the future as well.
Vote Placed by GMDebater 3 years ago
GMDebater
givemelibertyKeytarHeroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: lots of ad hominen from pro