The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
Apollo_11
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: Abortion should be banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,157 times Debate No: 21641
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (4)

 

16kadams

Pro

1st round acceptance.

8000 characters

No semantics with the resolution.
Apollo_11

Con

I accept the pre-agreed condition that we are debating first trimester abortions only.
My opponent is arguing for its illegalization, thus, it is he who has the burden of proof.

I look forward to my first debate.
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

I thanks my opponents acceptance.

C1: A fetus is a human

P1: A fetus is a human
P2: It is morally wrong to kill a human
C: Abortion is immoral.

P1: A fetus is a human being

The human zygote has all the DNA necessary to be a human baby. [1] The embryo has other cells within it that make up the human, blood cells etc. [1] Even at the zygote stage the cell is indefinably alive. [2] There is indisputable evidence that a zygote is , even at this young stage, a human. [3] Every human goes through these stages, and us not being aborted and or miscarried is the reason (other then the procreation) for our existence. Only after 14 days the fetus is already in the uterus. [3] By the end of the 20th day the heart, and the nervous systems are working. The other organs are present but only partially functional. [4] At 6 weeks, brain waves are recorded. [4] The second month the fetus can feel pain, this is in the first trimester. [5] When killing these beings it is not only murder, but gives them excruciating pain, even in the first trimester. [6] Some studies say the fetus may even learn while in the womb. [7]

P2: It is morally wrong to kill a human

Killing infringes on basic human rights: the right to life. [8] I my opinion this is self explanatory. I will name the moral misshapen in 3 ways: religion, law, the constitution (still law).

Religion:

Most, if not all religions, say that murder is a sin and is forsaken. This is not the reason to ban abortion AT ALL, but in this case this means a large sect of the human population would deem abortion immoral. That is why I added this argument, this right here makes a large portion of the people view abortion as immoral.

Law:

Murder in most countries is illegal and is classified as "illegal homicide". [9] As it is illegal to kill, many laws such as this are based of of religious or social morals. This is one of those laws: Society looks down upon murder, abortion is murder, therefore abortion is immoral.

Constitution:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". [10]

Case closed.

C: Abortion is immoral

It is wrong to kill human beings. It always has been this way, laws, society, and well everyone looks down upon it. Due to my criteria abortion is in fact a killing of a life, an innocent one, and therefore is immoral. [11] Abortion is an immoral practice, as it is murder, and many like myself find this a fact.

C2: Abortion causes increased risk or breast cancer

Abortion increases risk of breast cancer by 50%, yes you read it 50%. [12] 5 medical associations currently hold this link to be a fact. [13] Having pregnancy itself increase the risk, but studies show abortion even furthers the risk. [14] First trimester abortion too increases the risk. [14, 15]

C3: other side effects of abortion

---> Psychological

-women that had abortions where at a higher risk of mental problems by 150%. [16, 17]
- 44% had nervous disorders, 36 had new sleep problems, 31% highly regretted the choice, 11% needed psychological medicine. [18, 19]
-The women had denial before trying to get medical care. [18, 20]

---> Physical

-breast cancer (see above)
-Abdominal pain [21, 22]
-Vomiting [21, 22]
-bleeding [21,22]
-perforation in thy uterus [21, 22]
-infection [21, 22]
-heavy bleeding [21, 22]

---> Other pregnancies?

- It may cause bleeding [23, 24]
- low birth weight [23, 24]
- Placenta previa (causes severe bleeding during birth) [23, 24]
- Causes an increased chance of miscarriage. [25, 26]



---> Conclusion

Abortion is murder, immoral, and has many side effects, including breast cancer itself. I urge a PRO vote.





Sources:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov... [1]
F. Beck, D. B. Moffat, and D. P. Davies, Human Embryology, Second edition (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985) [2]
James J. Diamond, M.D., "Abortion, Animation and Biological Hominization," Theological Studies 36 (June 1975), pp. 305-342. [3]
Stephen M. Krason, Abortion: Politics, Morality, and the Constitution(Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984), p. 341 [4]
John T. Noonan, "The Experience of Pain by the Unborn," in The Zero People, Jeff Lane Hensley, editor (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Servant, 1983), pp. 141-56 [5]
Ibid., pp. 151-52 [6]
"The Secret Brain: Learning Before Birth," Harper's, April 1978, pp. 46-47 [7]
http://www.open.edu... [8]
http://en.wikipedia.org... [9]
http://www.constitutionparty.com... [10]
http://www.abort73.com... [11]
http://www.newswithviews.com... [12]
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com... [13]
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com... [14]
Robert B. Dickson, Ph.D., Marc E. Lippman, MD, "Growth Regulation of Normal and Maglignant Breast Epithelium," [15]
http://afterabortion.org...[16]
http://afterabortion.org... [17]
http://afterabortion.org... [18]
R. Somers, “Risk of Admission to Psychiatric Institutions Among Danish Women who Experienced Induced Abortion: An Analysis on National Record Linkage,” [19]
Kent, et al., “Bereavement in Post-Abortive Women: A Clinical Report”, World Journal of Psychosynthesis (Autumn-Winter 1981), vol.13,nos.3-4. [20]
http://www.contracept.org... [21]
http://www.americanpregnancy.org... [22]
http://www.mayoclinic.com... [23]
http://www.mayoclinic.com... [24]
http://www.abortionfacts.com...? [25]
Levin et al., "Association of Induced Abortion with Subsequent Pregnancy Loss," JAMA, vol. 243, no. 24, June 27, 1980, pp. 2495-2499 [26]
Apollo_11

Con

I thank my opponent for his argument.

My rebuttals:

1. "A Fetus is a human being"

A. First, let me summarize Pro's arguments:

i. A fetus has "human" DNA.

ii. It has some semblance of nervous and circulatory systems

B. A fetus has "human" DNA.

The first statement is clearly fallacious. There is no such thing scientifically as "human" DNA. There is only homo sapien DNA. Simply because something has homo sapien DNA does not make it "human." If this were true, my dead skin cells would be humans, making me, under Pro's logic, a mass murderer. This is quite obviously an absurd notion.

C. It has some semblance of nervous and circulatory systems

His second argument states anything with the semblance of a nervous or circulatory system is a human. This is yet another absurd notion. The majority of all mammalian organisms have these traits, yet we do not condemn, let alone illegalize, such activities as hunting, eating meat, etc. My opponent is mistaken as to what qualities distinguish someone/something as "human."

"We have self-awareness, spiritual curiosity and philosophical musings. We possess the capacity for mathematics, language, invention, mechanical adaptation and music." [1]

None of these are qualities found in 1st Trimester fetuses.

"Fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways, which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it.

Another key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being" [2]

Factors like abstract though, communication, independence, self-awareness, capacity to learn, etc. [3] None of these are observed in 1st trimester fetuses.

Pro has yet to make a make for a fetus's personhood beyond ridiculous notions of genetic makeup and organ semblance.

2. "It is morally wrong to kill a human"

Before I address his actually argument, let me question his introductory statement:

"Killing infringes on basic human rights: the right to life. [8] I my opinion this is self explanatory. I will name the moral misshapen in 3 ways: religion, law, the constitution (still law)."

First, Pro has not made a case for a fetus's personhood (as detailed above), thus any argument based on human rights is irrelevant. Second, he claims "religion, law, and the constitution" outline morality. This is a debate about legality (federal and state recognition) in a secular government. Thus, his argument bout religion is irrelevant as our (US) laws are not based upon the god-given moral objectivism of other religions.

A. Religion

Irrelevant. See above.

B. Law

"Murder in most countries is illegal and is classified as 'illegal homicide.'"

This is true. It also contradicts Pro's statement that "abortion is murder." Murder, legally, is illegal. 1st trimester abortions are legal, and, therefore, not murder.[4] Pro likely meant to say "abortion [should be] murder;" however, seeing how he has not substantiated this, it is no more than an empty emotional plea.

"As it is illegal to kill"

This is false. Killing is legal in cases of self-defense, the death penalty, war, etc. To say the government punishes all forms of killing is patently false and ignorant.

C. Constitution

"'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'

Case closed."

Pro claimed to have quoted the constitution, but he is clearly confused as this quote is from the Declaration of Independence. In addition to being incorrect, he then does not explain the quote's significance, thus, I have no argument to rebut.

3. "Abortion is immoral"

I fail to see how this point is different from Pro's previous point: "It is morally wrong to kill a human."

A summary of his arguments:

a. "It is wrong to kill human beings"

This a debate on legality, not perceived morality, and legally, this claim is false.

b. "Abortion is an immoral practice, as it is murder, and many like myself find this a fact."

Abortion is not murder, as I have already outlined. And I have no interest in what Pro perceives as fact if it is contradicted by empirical evidence. Pro has yet to make a case for a fetus's personhood and reason for punishment.

4. "Abortion causes increased risk or breast cancer"

This point is irrelevant. Pro is claiming that because there are potential health side effects, abortion should be illegalized. This is absurd. Smoking [5], foods with trans fat [6], lack of exercise [7], etc all have proven negative health side effects, yet none are illegal. So until such time that sitting on one's sofa for extended period's of time is illegal, this is not a relevant argument against abortion.

5. "Other side effects of abortion"

This is irrelevant for the aforementioned reasons.

Conclusion:

As is quite apparent by now, Pro has not made ANY arguments against 1st trimester abortions. He failed to show that fetuses were people. He failed to show why abortion should be illegalized. He made irrelevant points about religion and potential health effects. Pro also repeatedly gave false information, claiming lies as truths. Pro failed to correctly cite quotes, out of intent or ignorance. Finally, his arguments were riddled with grammatical and spelling errors.

I urge readers to see Pro's argument for what it is: an empty emotional plea. I hope my opponent has valid points on his next argument.



--Apollo

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources:

[1] http://science.howstuffworks.com...

[2] http://www.abortionaccess.info...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] http://oxforddictionaries.com...

[5] http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...

[6] http://www.medicinalfoodnews.com...

[7] http://health.nytimes.com...'s-effects-on-bones-and-muscles.html

Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro

~refutations~

Fetus is a human.

Human DNA

------> My opponent mis-interprets my argument. DNA is the basic foundation of a human, but other characteristics are needed to be a human, a fetus has all of the need. The first trimester is week 1-12. [1]

Other systems

-----> My opponent now is falsely linking animals to humans. This is like apples and oranges. Murdering a human is much different then killing for hunting. Why? When hunting you usually have a purpose: Food. When aborting it is murder without a reason. Hunting serves a purpose, and it's a wild animal. On farms they are bred to be killed. Killing a fetus is, well, murder of a human. Then my opponent claims just because the fetus has little knowledge then it is an invalid human. This is a fallacy. People who have mental disabilities and who are in poor conditions still have similar rights yet they are disadvantaged. Already by month 2 the baby already had designational systems and is making facial features [2] Even week 13 the nervous systems are being created. [3] My opponent will no doubt dismiss this as invalid for one reason or another. But how do you define human? Humans are relating to characteristics of humans. [4] A fetus actually does have the characteristics of a human. Also my opponent cites the dependence. My question is how this actually is... an issue. I am technically reliant on my shelter and family to survive, should I die? Dependence isn't an issue, any people are dependent.

"the infant is unquestionably alive, unquestionably human and viable outside the mother, whereas the fetus may not be. " [5]

With this information a fetus is undoubtedly a human. Also the aura of life are an amount of clumped cells that reproduce. A fetus actually does this, therefore is alive and well. [6] At the moment of conception even, the "thing" already is a human in the homo sapien species, and is alive. [7] Further more slaves used to be non-humans, because they where the property. [15] Under you logic of the fetus is property and property does not have rights then you are using the same logic as pro slavery advocates. [15]

Morally wrong to kill a human

My opponent claims I have not made a case for proving a fetus is human, this is absurd in the least. I have provided many credible sources and studies showing a fetus is in fact a human. Then my opponent bashes the religion. I am not arguing fully change the law on religion, but the argument at this moment in time on morality. Many religions see abortion as immoral. [8] My point is this already is a large sect of people who will view it as immoral. Should we change a law based on religion? No, but in my argument it stands as it proves the abortion procedure immoral.

Law

My opponent claims as abortion is legal, then abortion is not murder. The majority of my arguments show it as a "killing". As abortion is a killing it ought to be treated as immoral and a breach of law. My opponent will counter this as claiming it is not a killing, and the fetus has no sentient thought. Sentience is not a criteria for embryologists for a definition of life. [9] The definition is generally movement, brain waves, functioning systems, and obviously the DNA. [9] In this case a baby at 5 weeks already qualifies. [9] Abortion is a killing, and there is no 2 ways about it. Also at 12 days the fetus ejects the mothers tissue. [10]

Constitution

There are direct links from the Declaration of independence to the constitution. [11] The declaration states the right to life, and the constitution was made to protect these rights. [11] Also the 14th amendment states once again: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." [11, 12] Due to this fact Abortion laws already violate the 14th amendment, and therefore this is an automatic bang illegalization point.

Abortion is immoral

On legality and morality, this is what laws are based on. [13] On both issues, it should be banned. It violates the 14th amendment, it should be treated like murder, and it immoral. So in all technicalities you drop the essence of my argument.

My opponent then tries to muster up the murder case. I have already addressed above, and I will not mention the exact arguments, but dropped many of my other arguments regarding a fetus is a human.

Abortion and breast cancer

My opponent links many other things that are bad for you. Great. Many people want to regulate them for those reasons. Abortion causes a terrible type of cancer. Anything overdone will have detrimental effects. To much DDO could actually be bad... sadly. Abortion on the other hand is done once then you have increased risk. [14] Anything in low amounts in the things you mentioned has little impact. If you smoke once a year then chances are you are ok. Abortion on the other hand its a 1 hit... Well sorry moment. So the things you mentioned are controllable, abortion increases it regardless.

Other effects

extend arguments

Conclusion:

-----> Abortion is a killing of a human being and should be treated as 1st degree murder as it is planned

-----> It causes an increased risk of cancer

-----> Has other side effects

-----> As I stated last round, (no refutation) A fetus feels pain at 8 weeks. [16]

-----> He has provided no case only attempted to refute mine, therefore has no arguments.

-----> Vote PRO I have defended my arguments.






Sources:

1. http://www.mayoclinic.com...
2. http://www.webmd.com...
3. http://www.americanpregnancy.org...
4. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
5. Van Den Haag, E: Is there a middle ground? National Review 22 December, 51:29-31, 1989.
6. Stanley, WM: The nature of viruses, cancer, genes and life - a declaration of dependence.
7. Patten, B: Human Embryology. 3rd Ed. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1968.
8. http://en.wikipedia.org...
9. Humphrey, T: Some correlations between the appearance of human fetal reflexes and the development of the nervous system, in, Growth and Maturation of the Brain.
10. Berkowitz, R: Cross-reactivity of monoclonal antibodies directed against lymphopyte markers and trophoblastic cells of normal placenta, hydatidiform mole and gestational choriocaranoma.
11. http://www.renewamerica.com...
12. http://www.law.cornell.edu...
13. http://www.renewamerica.com...
14. http://www.abortionfacts.com...
15. http://www.abortionfacts.com...
16. http://www.abortionfacts.com...
Apollo_11

Con

I thank my opponent for his response. Sadly, his defense has much to be desired.

For whatever reason, Pro has decided to deviate from the organized structure, mixing up rebuttals. I have made numbered list of them below.

Pro's Defenses:

1. Fetuses have all human characteristics.

"other characteristics are needed to be a human, a fetus has all of the need."

Sadly, this was the end of Pro's argument. He gave no facts. He did not even mention the qualities I listed that made humans unique: factors like abstract though, communication, independence, self-awareness, capacity to learn, etc. [3] None of these are observed in 1st trimester fetuses.

Pro has yet to make a make for a fetus's personhood beyond ridiculous notions of genetic makeup and organ semblance.

EXTEND MY REBUTTAL 1C

2. MISINTERPRETED ARGUMENT: Animals vs. humans.

Pro claimed that having anything resembling a nervous system or circulatory system made it human. I states that these are qualities of almost all mammalian creatures, and not distinct humans. This argument was not contended.

3. Murdering a human vs. an animal.

This point is irrelevant as Pro has yet to prove that fetuses are humans.

4. STRAW MAN: Intelligence

Pro says "my opponent claims just because the fetus has little knowledge then it is an invalid human."

I never claimed this. The specific arguments are outlined above in the argument Pro dropped.

5. Having Facial Features Makes a Fetus Human

This is clearly false. All mammals have facial features. This is not a unique human quality.

6. Pro's Conceded point.

"Humans are relating to characteristics of humans."

I am perplexed by how my opponent can state this while defending his statement that fetuses are human with characteristics that are very common.

7. Fetuses Having Human Characteristics.

"A fetus actually does have the characteristics of a human."

My opponent again states this, but, as before, this is the end of his argument. He provides NO justification or evidence.

8. STRAW MAN: Dependance.

"Dependence isn't an issue, any people are dependent. "

Pro fails to see the counter-argument for what it is.

"Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it." [1]

Fetuses are dependent on one individual.

9. SELF-CONTRADICTION: Infant vs. Fetus

This is perhaps my favorite counter-argument. Pro cites a quote from a source that contradicts his argument.

Pro's source and argument:

"'the infant is unquestionably alive, unquestionably human and viable outside the mother, whereas the fetus may not be.' [5]

With this information a fetus is undoubtedly a human."

The source explained that infants are alive, human, and viable outside the mother, but that fetuses "may not be."

This contradicts Pro's argument that fetuses are "undoubtedly human."

10. Fetuses are alive.

This is not something I ever rebutted. I agree, fetuses are alive.

11. Human=homo sapien

This argument has already been rebutted. Pro chose to ignore it. Again. I will repost my argument for Pro:

There is no such thing scientifically as "human" DNA. There is only homo sapien DNA. Simply because something has homo sapien DNA does not make it "human." If this were true, my dead skin cells would be humans, making me, under Pro's logic, a mass murderer. This is quite obviously an absurd notion.

12. IRRELEVANT. Fetuses are slaves.

"Further more slaves used to be non-humans, because they where the property. [15] Under you logic of the fetus is property and property does not have rights then you are using the same logic as pro slavery advocates. [15]"

Pro has diverged from scientific arguments to those of past societal acceptance. The fact that people believed slaves to be non-human is irrelevant if the facts differ.

13. Argumentum ad Populum.

"Many religions see abortion as immoral. [8] My point is this already is a large sect of people who will view it as immoral."

Self-explanatory.

14. Clarification

"My opponent claims as abortion is legal, then abortion is not murder. The majority of my arguments show it as a "killing"."

For Pro's sake, I will agree that abortion is the taking of life, just like stepping on a bug is killing.

15. All killing ought be illegal.

"As abortion is a killing it ought to be treated as immoral and a breach of law."

I have already refutes this argument:

This is false. Killing is legal in cases of self-defense, the death penalty, war, etc. To say the government punishes all forms of killing is patently false and ignorant.

16. The 14th Amendment.

Pro initially brought up points about the Declaration of Independence (although he mistakenly thought it to be the Constitution), but the Declaration is not law. The 14th amendment is a valid point. However, it grants the right to life to "any person." [2] My opponent has yet t make a case for a fetus's personhood, thus, this is irrelevant.

17. Summary of flawed arguments.

Pro again repeats the same refutes arguments. He then claims I dropped arguments, yet he refuses to name which.

18. Abortion and Breast Cancer/ Abortion Health Effects.

Pro claims abortion "causes...cancer," has "detrimental health effects," and increases risk of things he doesn't name. I will accept all of this as true; however, this is not a case against abortion. Smoking has all of the same effects. Pro rebuts this by saying that isn't true for people who only smoke once a year. This is irrelevant. Countless things that "cause...cancer," have "detrimental health effects," and increases risk" of harmful things are legal. Until such time as they are not, it is illogical for abortion to be on these grounds.

19. Pain at 8 weeks.

"As I stated last round, (no refutation) A fetus feels pain at 8 weeks. [16]"

Pro claims that this is an argument for personhood. I don't even see the need to address this. Plants can feel pain, mammals can feel pain, fishes can feel pain, etc. Killing all of these things is not illegal. Accidentally running into someone causes pain, but we don't charge these people with first degree murder.

DROPPED ARGUMENTS

1. Having homo sapien DNA does not constitute personhood.

2. Having the semblance of a nervous or circulatory system does not constitute personhood.

3. Fetuses do not posses defining human qualities like "self-awareness, spiritual curiosity and philosophical musings. We possess the capacity for mathematics, language, invention, mechanical adaptation and music."

4. Arguments from Religion are irrelevant.

5. Not all killing is murder

6. Abortion is not murder. (He showed it was "killing," not murder, or any punishable offense).

7. Health Risks are irrelevant

8. Argument 1C.

CONCLUSION:

Pro dropped a staggering number of my points and failed to defend any of his. My opponent also conceded that to be human, one must possess qualities of humans, yet he never proves 1st trimester fetuses have any of these qualities. His argument for personhood also contradicts his sources. Most of his contentions were irrelevant or were logical fallacies. Pro failed to defend how morality has any bearing on the law. I urge readers to look at points presented.

I will not plea for a Con vote, but I believe readers should vote for the side that best defended their arguments/refuted their opponent's arguments.

Sources:
EXTEND SOURCES FROM PREVIOUS ROUND (for quotes taken from that round's argument)

[1] http://www.abortionaccess.info......

[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu...

Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Pro

1. Fetus is a human

-----> As I stated it already has these characteristics last round in the later rebuttals
-----> At week 5 the spinal, and brain develop. It also is creating the digestion system. [1]
-----> Most living things also need to reproduce. A fetus does this at a young age by growth and reproducing cells. [2]
-----> Already day 22 the baby has its own blood at may be different from its mothers. [3]
-----> Even at 40 days people record brain waves. [4, 5]
-----> By 8 weeks EVERY SINGLE SYSTEM IS PRESENT. [4, 6]

A fetus has human characteristics of a human, therefore is human, then there is a killing that should be treated as murder.

2. Animals V. Humans

----> The difference: DNA. The fetus and the other animals sure have these systems making them alive, but having the human DNA makes it murder of a human. DNA (homo sapien) + organs = characteristics of a human.

3. Murder animal and el human

I have proven multiple times, your denial isn't a refutation. They have characteristics and human DNA.

4. Intellect

----> Your Arguments are exactly that. The fetus cant learn, and it is dependent, therefore its not human. I stated last round that dependence or learning ability is not a qualification for human life.

5. Face

----> Is it not on characteristic we need? The baby is forming human features, and has other human organs and DNA. A fetus is unique from animals. This point is essentially dropped.

6. Characteristics

I stated it. They have all of the embryological needs to be a human. Extend.

7. Fetus and the human

I have justified it in many places. Characteristics for life:

1. Living Things are Composed of Cells --> check
2. Living Things Have Different levels of cellular organizationLevels of Organization --> See above, check
3. Living Things Use Energy --> Mothers energy, brain waves heart beats (see above), check.
4. Living Things Respond To Their Environment --> response to the womb. [7] check
5. Living Things Grow --> check
6. Living Things Reproduce --> a sexual reproduction of cells, check
7. Living Things Adapt To Their Environment --> Check see 4.

source for 1-7: http://infohost.nmt.edu...

8. dependance

I see no reason that just because it is dependent, that it isn't a human. Note in the 7 characteristics needed for life none of them stated dependence as an issue. A fetus is a human being and claiming it is not alive is preposterous. Dependance is not a criteria for life. [8]


9. infant v fetus

Because infants, we see them moving. The fetus may die at preliminary stages. [9] (same source) Some even claim its not human until in the uterus [10] But even in that case its a human during abortion. But it is proven a fetus is alive and human before the uterus stage. [10] Zygotes qualify as humans. [11]

10. Fetuses are alive

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Up there ^

11. fetus = human

I refuted this. It has the human DNA, giving it human characteristics, it develops other organs that give it human life.

12. fetuses are slaves

The argument you imply is a fetus is not a human, and property rights protect the woman to kill the baby. Slaves where property, so and slaves where considered non humans, so therefore using the same logic as a slave promoter.

13. religion

This isn't an argument to ban it. It is a moral argument that intertwines with the banning. It is the... pawn of the queen you might say.

14. Clarification

SO we agree, but disagree on the terms. A bug isn't human. That is all I need to say.

15. killing ought to be illegal

Ah yes, but you cite instances that have logical reasons. Killing a fetus because you forgot contraception is well now 1st degree murder, if it where made illegal. Killing because you messed up isn't a reason to kill. Seldom is abortion self defense.

16. Constitution

I kept the argument of the declaration. I have made multiple cases that a fetus is a person... wait... you conceded the DNA point! DNA makes it human, fetuses have organs too, therefore a fetus is a person! As a fetus is a human, bortion violates the 14th amendment. [12] I'll skip the summary.

17. Abortion and bast cancer and the beloved side effects! YAY!

My opponent sticks with smoking. An abortion no matter what, even if you just do it once, increases the risk. If you smoke in a controllable manner your risk increase is fairly small. You can control the other risk behaviors, but not abortion.

19. Pain

It is. "response to its environment". Extend. Also their animals, and they are alive. But they are not humans. Still extend.

My opponent claims I dropped arguments?

1. It is one aspect needed.
2. It is another aspect needed
3. This is not a criteria for life. I actually refuted that later in my arguments.
4. Depends.
5. Killing because you messed up is in fact murder.
6. It is murder as it is not self defense, the DP (as the fetus is innocent), rather on the majority of the cases whoops sorry buddy I am gonna kill you. [13]
7. Nope. The counter you have are cigarettes which are controllable.
8. See above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion:

-----> Abortion is a killing (and is not a justified one usually)
-----> Causes risks
-----> My opponent has no case only refutations
-----> Vote PRO, vote for life and the constitution.



Sources:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov... [1]
http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu... [2]
http://www.nrlc.org... [3]
http://www.abortionfacts.com...? [4]
H. Hamlin, "Life or Death by EEG," JAMA, Oct. 12, 1964, p. 120 [5]
Hooker & Davenport, The Prenatal Origin of Behavior, University of Kansas Press, 1952 [6]
http://www.psych.qub.ac.uk... [7]
http://www.bio.net... [8]
Van Den Haag, E: Is there a middle ground? National Review 22 December, 51:29-31, 1989. [9]
Kischer, C. W. 2001. Why Hatch is wrong on human life. Human Events, July 16th. [10]
William J. Larsen. Human Embryology (3rd edition). New York. Churchill Livingstone. 2001. [11]
http://www.nrlc.org... [12]
http://www.nrlc.org... [13]
Apollo_11

Con

I thank my opponent for a great debate. I hope the reader has learned something from it, or, at the very least, got some enjoyment out of it. Pro is a great debater; however, his arguments are fallacious.

As I have limited characters, I will be consolidating the 19 points into overarching categories with each point being a subheading.

1. A Fetus is Human

a. "it already has these characteristics"

My opponent claims that he has already proven that fetuses have the characteristics I listed. This is false. Pro has not even named he characteristics I listed, let alone proven that fetuses have them.

b. "At week 5 the spinal, and brain develop. It also is creating the digestion system"

Once again, this is not an argument for personhood. Most mammals have a nervous system, brain, and digestive system. That does not make them humans. Pro did not refute this. EXTEND ARGUMENT.

c. "Already day 22 the baby has its own blood"

See above. EXTEND ARGUMENT.

d. "Even at 40 days people record brain waves."

See above. EXTEND ARGUMENT.

e. "By 8 weeks EVERY SINGLE SYSTEM IS PRESENT."

I would question the veracity of this claim, but there is no need to. See above. EXTEND ARGUMENT.

f. Homo sapien DNA=human

Pro has not refuted my arguments, nor even mentioned them. He simply restated his own. Dead skin cells have homo sapien DNA, yet they are not humans. EXTEND ARGUMENT.

g. PRO'S MOST COHESIVE ARGUMENT

"DNA (homo sapien) + organs = characteristics of a human."

This is Pro's best argument. Sadly, it is not true. It ignores all of the characteristics I listed (and Pro ignored). Sentience, viability outside the womb, abstract though, communication, independence, self-awareness, capacity to learn, etc., EXTEND ARGUMENT.

h. Straw Man

"The fetus cant learn, and it is dependent, therefore its not human."

I listed many other categories, which Pro ignored. EXTEND ARGUMENT.

i. Facial Features

Chimps, Apes, Orangutans, Gorillas, etc. all have humanoid facial features. They are still not human. Pro ignores my counter argument. EXTEND ARGUMENT.

j. Fetuses Having Human Characteristics.

This was the title of point 7. Pro's rebuttal proved that fetuses are alive, something I already accepted. He ignored the point. EXTEND ARGUMENT.

k. Dependance

"I see no reason that just because it is dependent, that it isn't a human. Note in the 7 characteristics needed for life none of them stated dependence as an issue."

Pro completely ignored the actual point. I am not claiming that independence is a criterion for life; I am claiming it is a criterion for personhood. EXTEND ARGUMENTS.

l. Infants vs. Humans.

Pro does not even acknowledge his egregious error, and once again, he claims that fetuses are humans. This claim is not further substantiated, and, seeing how all other arguments have been refuted, I see no reason to accept this. There are, however, no arguments to extend as this was Pro's error I was pointing out.

m. Fetuses Are Slaves

Pro is confusing science with societal acceptance and comparing these two incongruous arguments. The fact that slaves were not considered humans has no bearing on whether they were indeed humans. This is argumentum ad populum. EXTEND ARGUMENTS.

n. Erroneous Claim

"you conceded the DNA point!"

I did no such thing.

o. Question Begging

"It is. "response to its environment". Extend. Also their animals, and they are alive. But they are not humans. Still extend."

I was claiming that the ability to feel pain is not a distinctly human quality. EXTEND ARGUMENT.

2. Fetuses Are Alive

As I have stated in previous rounds, I agree.

3. Religion.

Religion has no bearing on the laws of a secular government. EXTEND ARGUMENTS.

4. Killing Ought Be Illegal.

Another one of Pro's stronger arguments. Pro claims there is no benefit to abortion. I would refute this, stating the many benefits of abortion, but I needn't refute it. Pro has no made a case that there is criminal HARM from abortion. He is pushing for illegalization, thus, as I made clear in the acceptance round, it is he who has the burden of proof. His only arguments for the harm of abortion are not criminal (see arguments of the plethora of other things that have potential health effects).

5. Constitution

"As a fetus is a human, bortion violates the 14th amendment. [12] I'll skip the summary. "

If by "bortion," Pro means abortion, then no. He has not made a case for the personhood of the 1st trimester fetus. EXTEND ARGUMENT.

6. Health Effects of Abortion.

"My opponent sticks with smoking. An abortion no matter what, even if you just do it once, increases the risk. If you smoke in a controllable manner your risk increase is fairly small. You can control the other risk behaviors, but not abortion. "

I named things other than smoking, Pro simply ignored them. Regardless, Pro claims that extent is a valid argument. It is not. It is perfectly legal for one to cut off his/her own arm. There is no denying that doing this once has an effect. Pro has ignored my argument that having potential health side effects has no precedence as grounds for criminalization. EXTEND ARGUMENT.

Pro's Defenses of Dropped Arguments:

1. It is one aspect, but not the only aspect required. EXTEND

2. see above. EXTEND.

3. Straw Man. I am not claiming it is a quality of life, they are qualities of personhood. EXTEND.

4. A one word response is not a rebuttal. EXTEND.

5. Not an argument. EXTEND.

6. Refuted above.

7. Refuted above.

8. Pro Dropped this Argument.


CONCLUSION:
Pro failed to defend ANY of his arguments. He dropped several arguements, and his rebuttals were riddled with errors, erroneous claims, and logical fallacies. His arguments to define a fetus as human listed a plethora of characteristics that are common to most mammals. He then ignored the qualities that define humans, yet he claimed to have proven them The reader obviously knows this is false. I urge the reader to vote for the best aurgued side. I have successfuly refuted all of Pro's arguments, conceding only that fetuses are alive.

I am confident that the reader will see that my rebuttals refuted ALL of Pro's arguments. I thank you for reading this debate, and I thank Pro for a good debate.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCES:
Thankfully, there were no new sources needed, as all Pro's arguments had already been refuted.
I will extend previous sources:

[1] http://science.howstuffworks.com......

[2] http://www.abortionaccess.info......

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org......

[4] http://oxforddictionaries.com......

[5] http://www.netdoctor.co.uk......

[6] http://www.medicinalfoodnews.com......

[7] http://health.nytimes.com......'s-effects-on-bones-and-muscles.html

Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by THEBOMB 2 years ago
THEBOMB
Both side had rather weak undeveloped arguments. Pro's main point, thus the debate, centered around the syllogism:

P1. A fetus is human
P2. It is immoral to kill a human
C. Abortion is immoral

Despite the scientific inaccuracy in calling all stages of development "human" and that it is not morally wrong to kill a human but, it is morally wrong to kill a human BEING. Yes, there is a difference. The argument is quite simple, and quite underdeveloped. Pro defines a human as anything with the necessary DNA. Then, it breaks down into different characteristics to attempt to define what constitutes a human being. This in fact, goes in Con's favor as a human zygote does not have these characteristics thus, according to Pro's definition a zygote is not a human being. Pro spent WAY to much time trying to define a fetus as human and not enough time trying to connect the fetus as human with the immorality of abortion. Con actually would have had an easier time with this debate if he conceded P1 and focused more upon disproving P2. That did not happen so it turned into a wonderful underdeveloped, 19 point, source debate only over the first premise.

Pro never connected abortion and immorality and since the conclusion states abortion is always immoral Pro never proved his conclusion. Pro states laws apply but, only to PERSON'S a fetus is not legally recognized as a person nor a man or a woman thus, the legality of murder does not even apply nor does the constitution as it talks about PEOPLE not the broad term HUMANS. There is a major difference. Sadly, Con never brought up the legal difference between a person and a human. Person is a legal term, human is a scientific term. Don't mix them up if you want to have a debate over morality.

It was Pro's BOP to connect the immorality of abortion with the humanity of the fetus. It was Con's BOP to point out where Pro did not connect P1 and the conclusion. Neither side adequately fulfilled their BOP.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
No you cant
Posted by THEBOMB 2 years ago
THEBOMB
really....19 points....you guys spent most of your time arguing small trivial details and basically avoided morality...
Posted by Apollo_11 2 years ago
Apollo_11
Also, a question:

Am I allowed to objectively vote on debates I was part of?
^
|
|
noob, I know.
Posted by Apollo_11 2 years ago
Apollo_11
kyro,
Haha. It's not that long...ok it is.
But I typed more, so your should vote for me.
Jk. Only kidding. But it is an interesting debate if you get chance to read it.
Posted by kyro90 2 years ago
kyro90
Holy Crap this is a lot of typing... Im definitly never reading this entire debate....
Posted by kyro90 2 years ago
kyro90
Holy Crap this is a lot of typing... Im definitly never reading this entire debate....
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
I never said your arguments where insults. Your arguments are fine.
Posted by Apollo_11 2 years ago
Apollo_11
Sorry I couldn't post my argument sooner. I was busy at the time.
And insults? Wow. If disputing your opponent's argument is a TOS violation, then we are all guilty.
I am not aware as to what a "PM" is and as to how my statement was ad hominem.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
he was pissed at me and did ad hom
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 2 years ago
1Historygenius
16kadamsApollo_11Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro proved that fetuses feel pain, that abortion has risks, and that abortion is murder.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 2 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
16kadamsApollo_11Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had really weak arguments. He frequently made a claim that there was a difference between a fetus and a human yet never substantiated his claim. Pro had something like three times as many sources as Con.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 2 years ago
1dustpelt
16kadamsApollo_11Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro proved a fetus was a human and therefore its murder. And that abortion is unconstitutional and immoral.
Vote Placed by Deathbeforedishonour 2 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
16kadamsApollo_11Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro proved his point that a Fetus is a human. And that since a Fetus is a live human abortion is unconstitutional. Both had great conduct. Pro had the most sources and more of them. Good job pro.