The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Resolved: Abortion ought to be legal.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
David_Debates has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,020 times Debate No: 101120
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)




Informal debate, so to speak. General rules:

1) Don't be rude.
2) Don't be a kritik (i.e. say that there should be no gov't)
3) Sources are required only if you make a scientific claim.
4) Enjoy yourself! This isn't supposed to be an incredibly proffesional debate, just stay on topic.

With that, I'll give definitions:

Abortion: the killing of a human fetus.
Legal: permited by law.

SkySky16 will begin arguments in R1, and waive R4 to allow Pro to have the first argument and still have the same amount of arguments as Con.


I will be outlining my arguments in this speech, although it is difficult to do so because I have no real clue where Con stands on the spectrum of pro-life.

First off, that is not the definition of abortion, here is the actual definition:
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.

These arguments will be in response to popular pro-life arguments. Con should not point out that he never said these things because he hasn't said anything and has structured the debate in his favor.

Most of the arguments should be outside of "when does life begin" arguments because those are vastly unproveable and completely subjective.

1. "A fetus is a human being, and human beings have the right to live, so abortion is murder."

This is a good starting point because there is no actual definition for when life begins. It's almost entirely subjective. Because of this, I'm probably not going to be able to convince you or the audience supporting you that a fetus isn't a life. But here are the arguments aside from that. A fetus cannot survive on it's own and is fully dependent on it's mother's body; but, the right to life does not include the right to use someone else's body, this is why people can refuse to donate organs.
The right to life does not bring about the right to live by threatening the life or well being of another human being, this is specifically a "what if the mother is in danger argument" but can be applied outside of it. Financial, physical, and mental health are all detrimentally impacted by pregnancy and child birth, the fetus does not have the right to those things.
The right to life is also, essentially, the right to not have somebody else's will imposed onto your own body without consent, this applies to abortion as well.

2. "You should be responsible for your actions of having sex"

This is the natural counter argument to my first point. But the problem with this argument is it assumes that the most responsible choice is pregnancy and giving birth. However, this is just not true if the mother does not want or can not take care of a child. I would argue that abortion prevents much more suffering and misery than forced pregnancy and child birth.
Not everyone has access to contraception nor does everyone have the proper sex education to know how to use it and where to get it. But for arguments sake let's suppose that everyone does have these things. Even then, contraception is not 100% effective even when used perfectly. If you still support that it is the woman's responsibility to have a child just as a consequence of having sex, not a consequence of being ill prepared. This is not a value of life argument, this argument is strictly to control people's behavior, mostly women of course.

3. "Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion."

This assumes that the only reason to have an abortion is to avoid raising a child, but that's just not the case. Depending on circumstances, giving birth in a hospital costs $3,000 - $37,000 dollars and a C section costs $8,000 - $71,000 dollars. [1] While the act itself is dangerous as well, it is the sixth most common cause of death for women between the ages of 20 and 34, the vast majority of pregnant women. [2] These are on top of the expenses of pre-natal care as well. Not just the financial expenses, which has too wide of a range to portray, but also the emotional. People are often shunned/shammed for their pregnancies when they have it at a "bad time." This is extremely prevalent in pregnant teens.
Adoption doesn't address any of these.

4. "When abortion is legal, women just use it as birth control."

There isn't any evidence of this. Logic also goes to show that this would rarely happen, considering contraceptives are far cheaper, easier, less painful, less time-consuming, less emotionally detrimental, and more readily available than abortions. It seems odd to suggest that women who've decided to use birth control would utilize abortion as the preferred method. And yes, most women do decide whether to use birth control before having consensual sex. In fact, it is empirically proven that women will seek abortions whether or not they are legal and when other contraceptives are more widely available, abortion rates go down.[3]

5. "Abortions are dangerous"

This is a common argument to combat pro-choice arguments that center around having a higher net life total. But it just doesn't stand up to criticism. Abortions are one of the safest procedures in medicine, with a fatality rate of less than .01 percent! The risk of dying while giving birth, however, is thirteen times higher.[4] Using the evidence from the last point [3], we can cross apply it with this argument. Abortions performed by inexperienced and untrained people are extremely unsafe, with 68,000 women dying every year from "back alley" abortions, which are most common when abortion is illegal.
Empirical evidence also proves this, in Romania a policy was in place from 1966-1989 that banned abortions. During this time 9,000 women died from unsafe abortions, about TWO WOMEN every day.[5] It doesn't end at mothers being affected either, that same ban caused the nationwide orphan crisis with about 150,000 unwanted newborns were placed in horrific state-run orphanages.[6] An orphan crisis would undoubtedly happen in the US as well.

6. "What if ____ had been aborted?"

This is probably one of the most common arguments. This is extremely flawed because I can just point to horrific people who could have been aborted and thus, saving millions of lives.

7. "Many women regret their abortions"

Another common argument that is also fundamentally flawed. Should the government ban something people might regret later on? Think of everything you regret. A cruddy relationship, missed job opportunity, etc. Should those have laws against them as well? No, they should not.

8. "Taxpayers shouldn't be obligated to pay for something they disagree with."

Okay, then most Americans wouldn't pay for the military, since almost everyone has a gripe with how that is handled or anything else. So should we disband the military? Absolutely not.

Here are some offensive, "on the attack," arguments now.

1. Abortion is a fundamental right in the U.S.

This is a legal argument.
In 1973, Roe v. Wade declared that a woman is able to make her own medical decisions regarding her own body without the government intervening. This applies to abortion for the fact that the beginning of life cannot be proven outside of birth. You may call an appeal to tradition fallacy but that wouldn't apply, since the somatic rights of a human can and should be supported in every case possible where it doesn't trample the rights of another, and for the fact that this argument is talking about whether Roe v. Wade should extend to abortion, which it should since the case stated that "the word "person," as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn."

In conclusion, there is no just reason abortion should be illegal. Debating over when life begins is useless as it is purely subjective and completely opinion based. Science cannot prove it because you may depict life beginning at conception but I may depict life beginning at sentience. No credible authority can prove, without a doubt, which should be preferred as far as science goes. But what can be proven is which should be preferred as far as logistics and real world impacts go. And those sources side with me, Pro.

Debate Round No. 1


First off, I haven't "structured the debate in my favor." If you look at the other debates on this site, Pro goes first, con speaks last, and both get the same amount of rounds. I get three, you get three. I'd ask the voters to dismiss this comment.

Also, Pro attempts to redifine the term by stating that it is a "termination of a human pregnancy." Pro, how is a human pregnancy terminated? Do we wave a magic wand and the fetus disapears? No. The actual way an abortion takes place is described here, and note that this is from a doctor who has performed many abortions in the past.

NOTE: The following paragraph really is quite graphic, but this is the procedure as described by the doctor who performed it.
"After the amniotic fluid is removed, the abortionist uses a sopher clamp — a grasping instrument with rows of sharp “teeth” — to grasp and pull the fetus's arms and legs, tearing the limbs from the fetus's body. The abortionist continues to grasp intestines, spine, heart, lungs, and any other limbs or body parts. The most difficult part of the procedure is usually finding, grasping and crushing the fetus’s head. After removing pieces of the fetus’s skull, the abortionist uses a curette to scrape the uterus and remove the placenta and any remaining parts of the fetus.
The abortionist then collects all of the baby's parts and reassembles them to make sure there are two arms, two legs, and that all of the pieces have been removed.
" (1)

So, I ask you Pro, what is wrong with my definition: the killing of a human fetus?

This debate comes down to answering one question. Although some may attempt to overcomplicate it, but it comes down to a simple, albeit hard to answer question.

Is the fetus a human?

If it is, human rights apply, and killing it is homicide. Doing so intentionally would mean murder, in every sense of the word.

If it isn't, then the fetus can't be given human rights.

Pro has attempted to show that the fetus is not a human, but his interpretation of humanity is inacurate. The fact that I am a human does not change. If someone thinks I'm a dog, I am still not a dog. Even if my mom thinks I'm a dog, this does not make me a dog. However, by Pro's definition, humaninty depends on other's opinion. If someone seperate from you detirmines you are not a human, then you are non-human. But if they decide that today you are human, then human you are.

Pro's definition is absurd. It depends on the same argument in favor of slavery. "If you're on my land, I get to decide if you are human or not." In the same way, Pro uses the same rhetoric, "the right to not have somebody else's will imposed onto your own body without consent."

Pro cites Roe v. Wade to support his argument. The exact quote here is "the word "person," as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn."

This is a terrible source, Pro. I can offer multiple court desisions that have discriminated against specific groups in the same way.
"In the eyes of the law…the slave is not a person.” – Virginia Supreme Court, Bailey v. Poindexter’s Executor (1858)
"An Indian is not a person within the meaning of the Constitution." - George Canfield,American Law Review (1881)
“A fetus is a damn parasite and it invades the mother’s body like one too.” – DailyKos author, 2012 (2)

Pro's argument is inhumane. That fetus will become a human, and that is undisputed. The fetus has human DNA from the moment of conception, and that is undisputed. (3)

In all sense of the word, that fetus is human.

Unborn life is still life. And that is a human child, not a dog, not a cat, not a pidgeon.

For that reason, I ask you to apply human rights to unborn human life.



Let's break down Con's arguments.

1. Debate structure

This really wasn't my point I was just stating there are countless positions of why someone is against abortion and expecting me to reasonably answer all of them or guess which ones Con stands behind is foolish. He has done exactly what I said in my last speech. He completely ignored all my practicality arguments because that isn't the position he stands behind. Thus, causing me to waste a major part of my first speech. If I had known that Con was only going to be arguing morality I wouldn't have even mentioned many of my arguments.
Furthermore, in my first round I stated that we shouldn't be debating whether or not it is human or not because those discussions largely go nowhere, because of the fact that it is entirely opinion based, albeit mine makes much more sense logically. This is what I stated and went on to how regardless of whether it is or is not a human being, it does not have the right to someone else's body. So my argument stays within the realm of con's argument. Because their argument states they should have human rights. Human right DO NOT give someone the right to another person's body.

2. Definition

The condescension in this argument is blatant. Besides, the definition doesn't describe the procedure, just describes what it does. The procedure does indeed terminate human pregnancy. Con's definition is not only not cited anywhere, so I can only assume it is their definition alone, but it is also flawed. "The killing of the human fetus" is not objective. This definition is charged with the connotation that it is inherently wrong because it is killing. Yet that is just opinion. Definitions are fact. Whether or not you believe abortion is murder my definition still stands that it terminates pregnancy. So my definition should be preferred.

3. Is the fetus human?

Pro states that if the fetus is human than it has human rights, if it is not then it doesn't. This is untrue. The fetus is indeed human, but not human life. Much in a way a tumor is human but is not an individual on its own. Con attempts to compare my reasoning with saying I'm comparing a human to a dog, this is just fundamentally untrue. I'm looking at it from an objective stance, there is no difference between other cells in the body and a fetus, other than they are different types of cells. Neither of them are independent from the mother nor are either of them sentient. There is nothing that separates the fetus cells to other human cells. Life begins at sentience, because this is the first time we can separate fetal tissue from other groups of cells in the human body. Sentience begins, at the earliest, 2 weeks before birth.[1] Yes, abortions still do happen there and they should, because they only happen this late when the baby is a threat to the mother.
So con's argument that me saying a fetus isn't human is not only illfounded, because obviously I acknowledge that it is human tissue, I just present that it isn't a human being; but also that it simply doesn't make any sense. My statement saying that a fetus doesn't have the right to the mothers body has nothing to do with saying it is something that it isn't. I'm just stating that I probably won't convince anyone that have already made their opinion so we should debate the consequences of pregnancy and how a human being doesn't have the right to another's body.
Con then appeals to emotions by comparing it to slavery, yes slavery. Not only has he predicated his criticism on something I hadn't actually done, compare a fetus to something it isn't, but has also stretched it so far that now my argument is the same one that advocates for slavery? This is just ridiculous. He states that the argument for slavery, "If you're on my land, I get to decide if you are human or not." (Which isn't really what slavery is but alright) Uses the same rhetoric as "the right to not have somebody else's will imposed onto your own body without consent." Excuse me, what?
I'm arguing that the mother has a right to her own body and no other human being can violate that without her consent. My argument on this is saying that even if the fetus was human, it still has no right to the mother's body. I understand that con is trying to say this is equivalent to the mother saying it's not human because it's on her "property"; but that is just illogical and a fallacious argument. The reason for this being, a slave is a human being, a fetus is not a human being. Human beings have sentience. Fetus' do not.

4. Roe v. Wade.

In an attempt to discredit my legal argument, con states that this revolutionary women's rights case is a bad source. Again I say: Excuse me, what? Con's reasoning is an extension from the last argument in the paragraph above. He is making a false equivalence. Because a slave is a human, so is an Indian, but a fetus is not. Why? Sentience. The reason why we should prefer sentience as the mark for the start of a human being? Because any other is illogical. If you believe it should be early, like at conception as con believes, you are usually stating that because it has the potential or will eventually become a human being. This is flawed reasoning.
a. Sperm has the potential to be a human being, yet contraceptives and male masturbation is legal.
b. This reasoning would give an a justification to rape. Because if sperm has the potential to be a human being, and stopping that would be murder, you must let a male rape you to accommodate to that potential.
Unlike con, this isn't an appeal to emotion as I have shown the logical steps to this conclusion.

5. "Fetus will become a human, and that is undisputed."

What is their to dispute? My last argument addresses this as well. First, con has used another fallacy, just because it will eventually be a human separate from the mother doesn't mean it is a human being now, it actually means that it isn't a human at that time. This means, according to con's own statement, that since it isn't a human being, it has no human rights. Thank you for proving my point con.
Yes the fetus has human DNA but that doesn't matter either. My hair has human DNA, yet I get it cut from my body all the time. My annoying acne has human DNA, yet I pop those annoying little things all the time. Human doesn't and shouldn't define a human life. My fecal matter would literally be a human life, under this definition.
If con is trying to use this definition in the sexual reproduction context, it still doesn't make sense. Because gametes (the sperm and egg cells) would also be considered separate human beings as well.


I have shown that my definition should be preferred, which alone should win me the debate because fetus' are not human beings. I have also shown that even if a fetus is considered a human being, human rights that it is granted don't allow for the un-consensual use of another's body. Other than moral, legally it ought to be legal as well, because of current precedent in the Roe v. Wade case, and for the fact that the start of life is a subjective matter so law shouldn't be able to stop abortions. On top of ALL of this, I have shown that the financial, emotional, and physical detriments to having an unwanted child are tremendous for both the child and the mother.
"In all sense of the word," a fetus is not a human being.

Debate Round No. 2


Pro, I never asked you to "answer" anything. As Pro, you get first speech. You don't have the option to rebutt (which I gather is what you intended to do). I'd recomend you stop complaining. Usually, the first argument is a more brief, opening statement if you will.

Now I'll just go through Pro's arguments one by one, and show the voters why they fail.

1: Economic Argument

As to your statement that I have ignored your practicality arguments, there's good reason for that. The reason being is that no one, and I repeat, no one would value money over human life. I'll show you what I mean using a hypothetical plan.

My plan is decimation. Kill 1/10 people on earth.

Now hear me out. We'll save money. Less mouths to feed, less people to send to college, less expense placed on families. 1/10 less money spent on humans.

Do you see where I'm going with this, Pro? If the fetus is a human, then you can't kill it, even if it might save you some money. Because killing humans is wrong. Saving money through killing humans is never justified, and it certainly isn't justified because it'd cost more to adopt them rather than abort them.

2: Woman's right to her body

You also state that "Human right DO NOT give someone the right to another person's body." True. This is exaclty, exactly my argument. You don't have the right over the fetus's body, as it is another person's body. The fetus has completely different DNA than the mother, so the baby is not a part of the mother's body, it merely resides there. (1) The mother does not have the right to the fetus's body, because the fetus is not the mother's body in the same way a kidney or a spleen would.

3: When life begins is subjective

This is blatantly false. Science has shown again and again that fertilization is the begining of a new human life, as new human DNA is formed. Several scientific textbooks acclaim this fact.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed[.]" (2)

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization … 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." (3)

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)[.] … The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." (4)

If we say that a dog's life begins at fertilization, a cat's life begins at fertilization, then why are humans any different? Instead, scientific fact points to fertilization, or conception, as the moment a new life, a new human life, begins, not the moment the child is expeled from the birth cannal.

4: The fetus is human, but it is not human life

In fact, the differences between a fetus and a 15 year old, for example, is
1) Age (development)
2) Location
3) Level of independency

As we have seen, the proponents of slavery offered location to deny humanity. "Because he is on my property, he is non-human. But if he was in the North, he'd be human as any." In the same way, this argument is used to deny the fetus's humanity. "Because he is in my womb, he is non-human. But if he was outside my womb (i.e. born), he'd be as human as you or me."

Can we not see what is flawed with this argument? A human ought to be considered a human regardless of his or her location. If a person moves to another country, he or she ought to remain human. Should this not also apply to a 9 month old child that moves 3 feet away from his or her mother's womb?

Pro also states the fetus's cells are dependent on the mother. This is true. The fetus is dependent on the mother for food. The fetus is dependent on the mother for survival.

But this doesn't change for the next 13 or so years! A newborn child is still dependent on the mother (or it's guardian) for food. A six year old is still dependent on his parents for survival. Without someone to get him food or shelter, he would surely die. He remains dependent. Does this lack of complete independence rule out children as human? Is this truely a requirement for humanity?

Of course not. To argue this to be true is completely illogical, and is unsound reasoning.

Another example of this shoddy reasoning is that of sentience. Now that Pro has brought in new term, I'll define, as Pro has failed to offer a definition of what he now argues to define humanity.

Sentience: able to perceive or feel things. (5)

This means that if someone is no longer able to percevie or feel things, they cease being human. Does this mean that someone in a coma ceases being human? Does this mean that someone who gets into a major car accident, survives, but is unable to use/feel his legs is non-human in the leg area?

Of course not. Once again, Pro's definition fails.

6: If human DNA makes one human, then removing a tumor is killing a human life.

Wrong again, Pro. This is an example of the human in question exerting their right over their body, over the cells that contain his or her DNA. This is the reason they are able to remove these tumors: because they contain his/her DNA. The fetus, on the other hand, contains different DNA. Thus, you don't have the authority or the right to kill the fetus, as it contains different DNA from you. You get to choose if you want the tumor operated on. The patient down the hall from you doesn't have that right.

7: Although the fetus is a potential human life, this is illogical reasoning

This isn't my reasoning. I'm saying that the fetus IS a human life, not a potential human life. This argument must be dismissed.

8: Con's argument is only an appeal to emotion.

False. If you'd like, you can check my sources. My logic also checks out. Here, I'll show you my sylogysim.

All organisms with human DNA are humans.
All fetuses are organisms with human DNA.
Therefore, all fetuses are humans.

Pro, you've conceded to my minor premise, so all I must do is show that all organisms with human DNA are humans, which, I believe I've sufficently shown.

Otherwise, you'd have to show me why not all humans should get human rights, which might not go over too well.

9: Roe v. Wade is a good source.

Is Dred Scott v. Sandford a good source? It's a Supreme Court ruling, 7-2 majority favoring slavery. Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court ruling, 7-2 majority favoring abortion. Why is Dred Scott v. Sandford a bad source?

Because we realized it was faulty. Because we realized black people were still people. Because the court realized it's mistake and reversed it.

Supreme courts don't decide what is or isn't moral. They decide what the law thinks at that time. And at this time, the law couldn't be more wrong.

I think I've gone over the majority of Pro's arguments. If there are any I missed, I'm sure Pro will be more than happy to inform me in his next round. :)

Go ahead, Pro.

(2) Human Embryology & Teratology (Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller [New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996], 5-55)
(3) Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology [3rd edition, New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001, p. 8]
(4) Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3


1. "Never asked you to answer anything"

That isn't really my gripe. My problem is that I stated in my first speech that there are thousands of positions within the pro-life movement so I will only be addressing common arguments within it. This gave you the ability to choose whatever you deemed as my weakest arguments as your points of view and ignore the rest. This is exactly what you've done. Up until now you have only argued morality which is just one, maybe two, of my arguments in my first round.

2. Econ

He could've stated this in his last speech. This leads me to believe he was just negligent and wanted to push his rhetoric, I can substantiate this claim with his extreme appeal to emotions and his complete disregard to the vast majority of my arguments, which I predicted to be the case.

On to the argument itself. He is doing more appeal to emotion. Equating my argument with the literal killing of 10% of the human population. Not only has he completely disregarded my morality arguments that cross apply to this argument, he has just reinforced my belief that he has no idea what my point of view is. Let me reiterate for about the 8th time:
a. A human fetus is not a human being. (It is HUMAN but that is completely different, we don't treat tumors as humans)
b. Even if it were, the human rights granted to a human being does not state they have the right to use anyone's body without consent. This means, whether or not we consider a fetus to be a human being, a mother can retract her consent during pregnancy. Works similar to sexual intercourse.
c. Therefore, whether or not I convince you as a voter that a fetus is a human being, I have won the morality argument.

So no, con, I am not advocating for killing for money. Stop with the nonsensical comparisons of my arguments to things that are quite obviously morally wrong. Address my arguments or forfeit.

3. Somatic Rights

Con has lost all sense of logic in this argument. He argues that the mother doesn't have the right to abort because "Human rights do not give someone the right to another person's body." What? This just doesn't make sense. The mother isn't using the fetus' body to survive and develop, it's vice versa. Human rights show us that this isn't allowed without consent. If a mother withdraw's consent, then abortion is justified to keep the mother's rights intact. As John Stuart Mill expresses, the authority, which depends on context, has no right to forcefully act upon one's rights unless that right is infringing upon another. This is called the harms principle. The mother, the authority in the harms principle, is infringing on the fetus' right to live, if we assume a fetus is a human being, because that is only kept by the mother sustaining the fetus. The fetus has violated the mother's rights, even if unintentionally it still applies (look at legal precedent), first to even warrant a response by the mother, this is why she has the right to abort.
Furthermore, writing this argument is odd because the fetus has done nothing to warrant a response, even though as I stated it is an irrelevant variable in the harms principle, which just reinforces my view of the fetus not being a human being. This is because the fetus had no choice in the matter, in the most literal way, because it does not have sentience to choose.

4. The beginning of life is subjective

This isn't blatantly false. There is nothing in science, DNA or RNA or otherwise, that proclaims, "Hey scientists this is when life begins." This is because we as humans dictate the definition. Let's go through the quotes Con brings up to substantiate this claim:

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed[.]"
I agree, a human organism has formed, this is just logical. However, a human BEING, with the ability to reason and act on their own, has not. This quote shows nothing for con's argument.

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization " 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."
Same as the last one, even used extremely similar wording. Nothing in this substantiates Con's claim.

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)[.] " The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
I thought this one would have a refutable point, but it doesn't. This quote, as stated in the quote itself, is stating from the context of ontogeny. Now ontogeny is a descriptive word for ontongenesis which I will define:
the development of an individual organism or anatomical or behavioral feature from the earliest stage to maturity.
This, again, is saying the same thing as the past two. This is because it is using the word life and lives as the start of their biological being. All this is saying is that higher animals start their biological life as an organism from a zygote. This is not something I am refuting. This does not substantiate con's claim.

"If we say that a dog's life begins at fertilization, a cat's life begins at fertilization, then why are humans any different?"
Have not heard of anyone saying this nor it being a huge topic, but that is irrelevant. This is an appeal to popularity, which is a logical fallacy, that states that just because something is popular in belief or action doesn't mean it's the best thing.

Yes scientific fact states that new life of an ORGANISM begins at fertilization. This doesn't equate to a human being. Cancer cells, parasites, diseases, are all organisms within the human body and we do not treat them as human beings, because they aren't human beings. Even if they were, they'd need sentience to be able to classify as a human being.

5. Fetus' are indeed human but not a human BEING.

I never stated they weren't human life in the context of being a living organism.
The differences between a fetus and a 15 year old is indeed:
a, Age
b. Location (irrelevant)
c. Level of independency
d. Sentience

Not only does this show that con is completely disregarding my entire argument of sentience, it doesn't have a real point.
Slavery wasn't justified because of property, it was due to mostly economic factors that then brought social change for the worse, but that is nether here nor there. Con is appealing to emotion by equating my arguments to the justification of slavery, yet again. I had never stated that a fetus isn't a human being on the grounds of location. I only stated IF we classify it as a HUMAN BEING, therefore showing I never stated that a fetus wasn't a human being on those grounds, it still has no human right to the body of the mother. This is fact. Con goes on about the flawed location argument, even though I never made it.

Con then makes the argument that the fetus is indeed dependent on the mother and that doesn't change. Yes it does. Scientifically, a mother cannot transfer a child to another, at least not yet, but a child can receive food from another source after birth.

I have offered a definition to sentience in context to our argument. it is the ability to experience, feel, and perceive things SUBJECTIVELY.

Most coma patients have sentience and those that don't have the means of accessing sentience, but a brain condition prevents it. Completely different. Coma patient has the means but not the ability, fetus has neither.

7. Tumor

Fetus containing different DNA is irrelevant to my human rights argument. "Patient down the hall" is an illogical comparison. Patient whose blood I'm living off of is a logical comparison. And they do have that right to stop giving blood.

8. Give me an objective reason why a fetus should be considered a human being that trumps mine.

9. I've shown the lack of logic in his arguments.

Address ALL of my arguments!!!!
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SkySky16 1 year ago
Posted by David_Debates 1 year ago
Nooooo I missed the deadline!

I'm willing to copy/paste this debate and finish it, SkySky16. Are you okay with that?
Posted by SkySky16 1 year ago
I just dropped a bomb of truth!
Posted by David_Debates 1 year ago
Okay, I'll give it to skysky16. Accept when ready!
Posted by TheRoyalAcer 1 year ago
Let sky take it.
Posted by AcidicApples 1 year ago
I'll take it.
Posted by David_Debates 1 year ago
Okay. Four takers so far:

1) DCoff
2) illegalcombat
3) RC-9282
4) SkySky16
Posted by SkySky16 1 year ago
I'm up to debate this! Lemme at 'em coach
Posted by RC-9282 1 year ago
Ill debate this as well.
Posted by David_Debates 1 year ago
Okay, so far I have two takers:
1) DCoff
2) illegalcombat

Is this correct?
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.