The Instigator
kw7319
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
YaHey
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Should abortion be illegal for women who are NOT rape victims?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
YaHey
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,410 times Debate No: 58749
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (31)
Votes (3)

 

kw7319

Pro

Should abortion be made illegal for women who are NOT rape victims?

I will take the pro life position, and I assume you will take the pro choice position.

This first round will be just acceptance.

You cannot use religion to justify your viewpoints
YaHey

Con

I accept the challenge and look forward to having the debate we've already had in a formal setting.
Debate Round No. 1
kw7319

Pro

When is the beginning of life? Because if the baby is alive and human, it should be protected. Modern scientific research has proved that conception marks the beginning of life, and intellectuals on both sides agree with that. Life is, "a material complex or individual characterized by the capacity to perform certain functional activities, including metabolism, growth, reproduction, and some form of responsiveness and adaptation." After conception, human embryos exhibit all of these features."

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of the University of Pennsylvania, stated:
""I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception". I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life""
I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty"is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.

He also states

"A fertilized human embryo carries out the processes of metabolism, it grows and develops, it responds to stimuli and maintains homeostasis, and it contains the genetic potential for reproduction. While it is not capable of reproducing at such an early stage in its development, neither is a four year old boy; the important issue is that it has reproductive potential, or to be even more accurate, that it belongs to a genus which can reproduce itself as a whole, as not all particular living organisms are fertile.
If a person may argue that the embryo cannot do all of these things on his own. But, an embryo does carry out metabolism by itself. You can say that it only processes energy and the mother actively has to acquire the energy actively herself. Yet, may other organisms that are considered separate, living being that also live inside the mother (in her skin, digestive tract, and other places) that get energy from her."

"All organisms acquire their energy from their environment. And for some organisms, their environment is another organism. Such is the temporary state of the unborn human being until it reaches a transition into the next stage of its life cycle, infancy. The embryo or fetus is getting no "help" in absorbing and processing the energy. It doesn't simply remain passive while energy is actively pushed through it from an external source. By its own power, it actively works to obtain energy from its environment and process it to grow and develop, which it also does by itself.
The mother"s womb does not actively assemble a new organism from passive parts. It is a nourishing environment in which the embryo actively replicates and specializes its cells to grow and develop. The embryos individual reproductive potential is not dependent from the mother. The embryo does react to stimuli as an independent and fully-functioning organism without being helped to do so by the mother." (http://www.humblelibertarian.com...)
An excerpt from a secular pro-life group
"Frankly, denying that life begins at conception is on par with denying the theory of natural selection; the evidence is that strong. And what"s more, the leaders of the abortion rights movement know it. While some rank-and-file abortion advocates will insist that the unborn aren"t alive, or are mere "blobs of tissue," you will not hear such ignorance from the heads of abortion advocacy groups. Nor will you hear it from abortion doctors. Intellectually honest people on both sides agree that abortion kills a living human individual"
Abortion activists (as in our informal debate) moved to the argument that of bodily autonomy, which is, "a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long." Basically, "My body, my choice." The argument, is that a person can kill the unborn inside the womb because of bodily autonomy.

A blogger named Matt Walsh, a blogger, responded to this comment

"women have the RIGHT to control their OWN BODIES. The fetus can only survive by draining resources and nutrients from the mother. The mother has the right to end that if she wants to. A fetus is scientifically considered a parasite".. It has no rights."

His response which I agree with

"Wow, is this what you tell your child? "Mommy look? That woman"s belly is big! That means she has a baby inside!"
"No sweetie, she is the victim of a parasitic infestation."
"Couple of things here. At no point in your existence were you ever somebody else"s body part" Also, and I hate to be so predictable with my whole "stop making up definitions" schtick, but here I go again: a parasite, by definition, must be of another species. If there"s any mother walking around with another species in her womb, please alert the CDC" Your point" seems to be that a "fetus" needs its mother for nutrients and so therefore it can be executed. In other words, "it depends on me so I may kill it." This is quite the ruthless worldview, but one that"s shared by many people, like third world dictators. My primary problem with this philosophy is that it"s morally and intellectually hideous"
An unborn human totally relies on its mother, this is true. But so does a born human for the first several years of its life (or the first several decades, in some cases). An infant is more demanding, more restricting, and more expensive than a "fetus." It requires more resources, more attention and more time. A mother is REQUIRED BY LAW to provide everything that child needs, or else make other arrangements for it. If the "other arrangements" include euthanizing it, she will face criminal penalties. A baby needs its mother"s milk (milk that comes from her body), if the mother chooses not to feed him this way, or is unable to, she must feed him formula. Buying formula every week can be a huge financial strain, but it is one the parents must assume. Not feeding him is not a legal option. A "fetus" needs your body, a baby needs your entire life." (http://themattwalshblog.com...)

And, a quote from another pro-life group
"Another common abortion argument is the appeal to bodily autonomy; we"ve all heard the saying "my body, my choice." This is sometimes articulated as a belief that in order to have rights, you must not be dependent upon another body for survival. But as with the consciousness argument, a consistent application of this rule would threaten rights of some born persons.
Other times, the bodily autonomy argument is expressed in terms of consent; you cannot use another person"s body without their permission, and if a woman does not want to be pregnant, the fetus does not have that permission. If the only way to stop the fetus" use of its mother"s body is to kill it, so be it.
That argument misses an important point: except in rape situations, the mother had a role in causing the unborn baby"s dependence in the first place. In that light, it seems unfair to revoke consent especially when doing so will kill someone... As a woman, I do not want my worth to be based on my power to destroy the life of a defenseless child." (http://thebelltowers.com...)
These quotes provide strong reason to believe that bodily autonomy is NOT a reason to abort the life of a human, and that life begins at conception.
And, My final point. Some pro choice advocates say that the fetus (which means offspring in Latin) is not alive. the definition of Alive is having life; living; existing; not dead or lifeless. Is it possible for a being to be dead and lifeless with the mere potential to be living and existing?
I would like to end with a quote from a pro life woman
"As a woman, I do not want my worth to be based on my power to destroy the life of a defenseless child
YaHey

Con

Thanks for the opportunity to resolve this.

Response to paragraph one: Um, I am not sure where you are getting this idea of a universal scientific consensus that life begins when the sperm goes into the egg, but I would like a link. I may not be humanity’s cheerleader, but I would like to think the difference between a fertilized egg and even a baby is marginally great at the least.

I asked this on the last debate I had with a pro-lifer, and I guess I have to ask it again. What kind of reproduction is a fetus going to perform? Seriously? As I pointed out on the last debate, I question where you are getting this list from because the idea that a living thing is one that can reproduce is not the greatest working definition. People can be sterile. Children, until puberty, can’t reproduce, so is their life some sort of limbo where they may or may not actually be alive? Maybe if you said that living things exhibit most of these attributes, then I’d say fine. But to say all? Reproduction isn’t the only error. Fetuses don’t show some sort of responsiveness to stimuli until 8 weeks [1]. Now, I may not be the best mathematician, but I think conception doesn’t occur at 8 weeks into a pregnancy.

Response to paragraph two: I can concede that a child before puberty is a human being. I am glad we can come to agreement on that.

You quote some guy from Pennsylvania. Cool. As I have demonstrated I don’t think we can really claim that the embryo, not even a fetus yet, is a full human being.

Response to paragraph three: Oh good. More quotes. I mean, if we go by this definition of potential for genetic reproduction, then so does a sperm. If anything, a sperm has more potential for reproduction that an embryo, so let’s making masturbation illegal too.

Response to text wall one: You talk a lot about how life begins at conception, and you really seem to value this guy from Pennsylvania’s opinions. Maybe you can consider a fetus a life but, as I will argue further on, it doesn’t really matter. A fetus doesn’t feel pain until 24 weeks [2] so it seems this responsiveness isn’t a conscious one.. This blob of tissue may as well be in a coma. If, by the the way, a member of your family is in a coma and you are next of kin, you have the LEGAL RIGHT TO TERMINATE, which this debate is about, the legality of abortion.

Response to text wall two: Oh goodie. You go from pediatrician to blogger (which you state twice. Thanks for the S&G point). At least your pediatrician had some authority for his position, but a blogger?

One: Why should I care what you tell your child. I didn’t realize we made legal decisions (this is a debate on the legality of abortions for non-rape victims) based on what you have to tell poor little Timmy. Maybe Timmy should learn the truth that pregnancy isn’t a shower of sunshine and rainbows and that there are actual negatives to carrying around Timmy Jr.

Two: I didn’t realize this was a semantics debate. I am pretty sure what is understood when I say that the relationship is parasitic. One being uses a host with no benefits to the host. And no that isn’t my point? It’s “this thing depends on me to survive at my expense with no benefit to me so I am going to choose not to carry it.” Yeah, your strawman is pretty ruthless, but not important because I don’t say that. Yes, it is a hideous position to take, but it’s not my position and I am not going to insult your intelligence by assuming you actually thought that.

Three: Your entire paragraph can be debunked very simply. You can put a baby up for adoption, you can’t put a fetus up for adoption. If you have a way of putting a fetus in another womb, I’m sure we’d all love to know how. There is a reason why my position is pro-choice not pro-abortion.

Four: Wow you really are hung up on this “life at conception”. What you are doing is giving not equal rights to a fetus, but special rights. Imagine a scenario where a man needs your body for nine months to remain alive. It doesn't matter if you put him there or not, you don't have to sacrifice yourself for nine months so this man can live. That’s for a grown, actual human being.

Five: Again we play a semantics game. Just because something has potential to be something does not make it that. A sperm has the potential to be life, yet masturbation is legal. A woman during ovulation has the potential to produce a child, yet we don't demand women get pregnant every time she ovulates. I have the potential to be a writer, but until I actually publish some form of writing I doubt anyone is gonna call me a writer. Also, you say that the definition of "alive" is "not dead or lifeless". However, if we go to the definition of "live" we don't see the mention of those words at all [3].

Six: Thanks for the quote of yet another unqualified person. If you really think the right to have an abortion is equal to that being your only worth as a woman, I'd write you off as a sexist with no clue of the actual argument. I have the potential to own guns, yet I am not a gun owner nor is my worth, as a potential gun owner, based on my power to own a gun.

In response of the use of the word "murder": Several times in this debate you have used the word "murder" in substitute for, say, termination. Murder, under law, means the killing of another human being [4]. You haven't shown adequately that a fetus is alive, let alone a human being (though you quite like equating the two). Is taking a family member off life support murder? Is killing an ant murder? Murder would be blowing up an abortion clinic with the doctors inside. Apparently some of you guys don't take the 'life' part of 'pro-life' all that seriously [5].

Why it is called Pro-Choice: A common argument from the ironically named Pro-Life is “What about the adoption?” I am in support of adoption, though growing up in an adoption center may not be the greatest place for a kid to grow up. I am for more options, not only abortion.

The Legal Argument: Since this is a debate on the legality of abortions, and not just the morals of abortion, I should bring up the fact that having an abortion is already legal. See Roe v. Wade [6] as long as the abortion takes place before 20 weeks, when a fetus is determined to actually be alive by law.

A fetus isn't a being: For this I just need to show the definition of a being: "conscious, mortal existence; life". We don't consider embryos to be equivalent to grown beings, nor fetuses. Not until a baby is born do we see this equivalency. This is why you don't see miscarriages in the obituaries nor is a miscarriage the same as manslaughter.

Sources:

[1] http://www.beginbeforebirth.org...

[2] http://www.motherjones.com...

[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[5] https://www.prochoice.org...

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


Debate Round No. 2
kw7319

Pro

You said, "I asked this on the last debate I had with a pro-lifer, and I guess I have to ask it again. What kind of reproduction is a fetus going to perform? Seriously? As I pointed out on the last debate, I question where you are getting this list from because the idea that a living thing is one that can reproduce is not the greatest working definition. People can be sterile. Children, until puberty, can"t reproduce, so is their life some sort of limbo where they may or may not actually be alive? Maybe if you said that living things exhibit most of these attributes, then I"d say fine. But to say all? Reproduction isn"t the only error. Fetuses don"t show some sort of responsiveness to stimuli until 8 weeks [1]. Now, I may not be the best mathematician, but I think conception doesn"t occur at 8 weeks into a pregnancy."

I will admit that this person was off on their definition of life, but I don't believe that the definition of life is not in limbo.

I still believe that life begins at conception.

You said in point one ": Um, I am not sure where you are getting this idea of a universal scientific consensus that life begins when the sperm goes into the egg, but I would like a link."
I decided just to get some scientist and doctors (more than the guy from the University of Pennsylvania. (: ) that agree with the opinion that life begins at conception.

First, Pro-choice advocates agree that abortion kills a human being.

"Faye Wattleton, the longest reigning president of the largest abortion provider in the United States"Planned Parenthood"argued as far back as 1997 that everyone already knows that abortion kills. She proclaims the following in an interview with Ms. Magazine:
I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing" yes, it kills a fetus."

The president of Planned Parenthood, an obvious pro-choice supporter, says that abortion kills a fetus. Fetus means in Latin "fetus bringing forth of young, hence that which is born, offspring, young [human] still in the womb," So, a fetus is a human, as the definition itself and these quotes prove.

"Ann Furedi, the chief executive of the largest independent abortion provider in the UK, said this in a 2008 debate:
We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it. It"s clearly human in the sense that it"s not a gerbil, and we can recognize that it is human life."

Why do pro-choice people admit that the unborn inside the womb is a human life? Because it is not debatable, and it is an accepted fact.

"Bernard Nathanson co-founded one of the most influential abortion advocacy groups in the world (NARAL) and once served as medical director for the largest abortion clinic in America. In 1974, he wrote an article for the New England Journal of Medicine in which he states, "There is no longer serious doubt in my mind that human life exists within the womb from the very onset of pregnancy..."6 Some years later, he would reiterate:
There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the the same being as the mother"and is therefore a unified whole.7"
All quotes above are from this site (http://www.abort73.com...)

Why do pro choice supporters say this? Because it is true that life begins at conception, and they admit it.

As the quotes above said, pro-choice leaders agree that the unborn in the womb is a human, here are quotes stating the opinions of experts in the medical field in a senate committee meeting.

"Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, "after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being." He stated that this "is no longer a matter of taste or opinion," and "not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence." He added, "Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."

"Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

"Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: "It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive". It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception". Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data."

"Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: "The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter"the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals."
All quotes are from this site. (http://www.naapc.org...)

I think that all of these highly educated people in the world of biology and human anatomy agree that life begins at conception.

You said, "Several times in this debate you have used the word "murder" in substitute for, say, termination. Murder, under law, means the killing of another human being"
I needed to prove that killing of the unborn human inside the womb is murder, but because they said that the unborn in the womb is a human, and you said murder is the killing of a human, so, by deductive reasoning, abortion is murder.
Abortion kills a human
Murder is killing a human
Abortion is murder

To your argument using Roe v. Wade. You said "Since this is a debate on the legality of abortions, and not just the morals of abortion, I should bring up the fact that having an abortion is already legal. See Roe v. Wade [6] as long as the abortion takes place before 20 weeks, when a fetus is determined to actually be alive by law."
The Supreme Court can be wrong. For example, Dred Scott v. Sanford said that it was legal to own humans. Point is, the Supreme Court can be wrong.

Also, we are debating on whether abortion SHOULD be illegal, not whether it is.

You say, "A fetus isn't a being we don't consider embryos to be equivalent to grown beings, nor fetuses. Not until a baby is born do we see this equivalency. This is why you don't see miscarriages in the obituaries nor is a miscarriage the same as manslaughter."
This is a circular reasoning fallacy, false premise, or both (it is not important which one it is) "Why are the unborn human beings not considered equal to a grown human being?"
"Cause miscarriages are not in the obituaries."
"Why are miscarriages not in the obituary?"
"Cause they are not equivalent to a grown human being"
The false premise is that you think that the unborn in the womb is not human, but by both intellectuals on both sides, they agree that the unborn in the womb is a human being.

Also, the manslaughter argument, Manslaughter is "the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought." (www.dictionary.com) and, because Miscarriage is, "the expulsion of a fetus from the womb before it is able to survive independently, especially spontaneously or as the result of accident." they are different. Miscarriage is not intentional or of no fault of the mother, but in Manslaughter, It is intentional most of the time and partially the fault of the person accused of manslaughter.

These point prove that it is an accepted fact that life begins at conception, and that on your own definition murder, pro-choice leaders say that abortion murders a human being.

Sources

http://www.naapc.org...
http://www.abort73.com...
www.dictionary.com
YaHey

Con

R1: You still believe life begins at conception, but I have demonstrated that either your criteria for life is flawed or the fetus doesn't meet it.

R2: What you listed is most definitely not a pro-choice advocate conceding that abortion kills a human, but rather that it kills a fetus, which isn't what we are debating.

If you want to have a debate where we can only use the early definitions in what they mean in Latin, then we that sounds interesting. However, Latin is a dead language and information is updated. We used to think flies came from dean animals until we proved that wrong.

This fetus is a human. It has human DNA. You cannot go from "it has human DNA" to "it is a human being". Until 8 weeks, this fetus is an embryo, but when the heart barely starts beating in this period [1]. What importance is even a beating heart? Do you know who else has a beating heart? Patients on life support, and next of kin are allowed to take them off.

The more appropriate question is "Why has (so far) one, and two if you do some jump through some baseless logical hoops, pro-choice advocate(s) admitted that this is a human? Because it has human DNA but that doesn't mean anything to being a human BEING."

R3: This is a quote from 1974 and 1980. You have shown that one man admitted life begins in early pregnancy (never was conception brought up) 40 and 34 years ago respectively, one admits that there the fetus is of the same species, and that one admits abortion kills a fetus.

I understand that this is to answer where I asked for this idea of universal agreement on life at conception, but this list of scientists just reeks of Argument from Authority fallacy. Especially when you say "I think that all of these highly educated people...agree that life begins at conception." Here's some things I will comment on.

Jerome LeJuene: Well, buddy, I'd sure love some of that evidence because the only evidence I have been presented didn't hold up too well. Also, the idea that a life has begun at conception is shaky at best, and whether or not it is a person or human being is actually what metaphysics is [2].

Micheline Matthews-Roth: Another function of the law is to protect the rights of innocent Americans. Such as the right to bodily autonomy.

So really, you have three scientists for yes, one pro-choice advocate said yes 40 years ago, one sort of but not really, and one that if you spin it enough you might see it as a yes.

R3: Under the court of law, a fetus isn't a human being until 20 weeks. You have yet to demonstrate that this zygote, embryo, or fetus is a human being other than to point out that it is of our species.

Actually, here is how the chain would go.
Abortion kills a zygote, embryo or fetus.
Murder is the unlawful and premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Abortion is premeditated but not unlawful.
Abortion is not murder.
To further illustrate why this reasoning is wrong, here is another chain.
Abortion kills a thing with human DNA.
A casualty of war is the death of something with human DNA.
Therefore, aborted fetuses are casualties of war.

The Supreme Court can be wrong but you have yet to illustrate that it is. While the Supreme Court can be morally wrong it cannot be legally wrong, as it sets and interprets laws.

R4: This isn't a circular argument nor is it a false premise fallacy. I will demonstrate why neither are true.

Circular Argument: I wasn't stating we don't see fetuses as human beings because they aren't in obituaries, but that not being in obituaries is an affect of us not seeing them as human being. I do not think that this fetus is a human being because it isn't conscious until five months after the birth [3], cannot make moral decisions, and live without interference from others (a fetus cannot live without its mother) [4].

False Premise: If you would like to have a debate about whether a fetus has human DNA, I wouldn't have accepted this. What is more important of a question is whether or not this is a person.

Manslaughter: For the same reasons you listed that a miscarriage is not manslaughter are the same reasons that abortion isn't murder.

These points vaguely point to the fact that maybe life begins at conception, but my points refute that. You have offered up no response to why an embryo doesn't respond to stimuli until 8 weeks (and therefore isn't alive until at least 8 weeks) or an alternative definition of life. Instead, you point out some scientists that agree with you, abortion advocates that don't really agree with you, and the constant assertion that 'No really guys it is a human being.'

Here is the question we should be asking: is it a person? Note, I have used human being and person interchangeably. If these definitions are not synonymous, then I apologize for this mistake.

C1: You haven't refuted bodily autonomy this round, so I ask if you have any further objections to it? If not, then whether or not this fetus is a person doesn't matter, as bodily autonomy protects oneself from another person using their body without permission.

C2 "Patient on Life Support": Until you have proved that this fetus is a person, it is pretty much the equivalent of a person on life support. It cannot live on it's own, and it requires the use of another person's resources (pregnancy is the use of the body and life support is the use of money), and next of kin have the right to take the person/thing off its support.

C3 "Why Human DNA Doesn't Matter": It is very simple to explain why human DNA doesn't matter. Sperm is "living" and it has human DNA. Yet masturbation isn't illegal. Women aren't required to get pregnant every time she ovulates and is not pregnant. Unless you are going to argue that sperm is sacred and a woman's job is to pump out babies whenever she hits puberty, having human DNA doesn't matter.

Thanks for the round, and I await your response.

Sources:

Response 2:

[1] http://www.babycenter.com...

[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[3] http://www.wired.com...

[4] http://www.mind.ilstu.edu...



Debate Round No. 3
kw7319

Pro

kw7319 forfeited this round.
YaHey

Con

Questions unanswered:
1. How is a fetus a person?
2. How is the potential of life an important factor when sperm and egg cells also have such potential?
3. Where is the flaw in bodily autonomy?
4. How is having human DNA an important factor when sperm and egg cells also have such DNA?
Debate Round No. 4
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
http://www.mind.ilstu.edu...

Read up on the link and realize nO REALLY IT ISNT A PERSON.
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
1) Argument from authority fallacy. (These people have a degree so I'm right and YOU are wrong).
2) Argumentum ad populum. More people agree with me so I'm right and YOU are wrong.
3) You can't prove it.
4) I haven't claimed to know when "life begins" but this doesn't help your case.
5) There is a difference between a human and a person Jesus Christ. Did you read my debate???
6) No I really don't want to keep circling the drain on this issue where neither of us will change our minds. This is was my second debate on abortion and I am tired of rebuting the same arguments.
Posted by kw7319 2 years ago
kw7319
If you want to go 3 more round on debate, I will
Posted by kw7319 2 years ago
kw7319
You basically shout "You can't prove it"

I am going to take the word of 10 scientist (lots more also) that say life begins at conception over your opinion (which is life doesn't begin) cause they have more experiance and knowledge than both of us
Posted by kw7319 2 years ago
kw7319
You haven't told me when life begins.

There is no difference in between a person and an human being.
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
You can say that all you like, and hopefully you will say it in the proper setting next time (like in the actual debate rounds) but I am going to need some basis for WHY that is the criteria for a living organism. You have also yet to acknowledge the difference between a person and a human being, and how you can make up for this difference. As I have hinted several times, this commenting back and forth is tedious, and shouldn't be happening.
Posted by kw7319 2 years ago
kw7319
I believe a human/fetus is alive when it contains one complete copy of human DNA and can do mitosis.
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
Your criteria for saying a fetus is alive is flawed and demonstrates that a fetus isn't alive until AT THE VERY LEAST week 8 if it even worked. You have yet to provide a better one. But please, continue to shove your fingers in your ears and sing "A fetus is a person if I say it enough or loud enough". I'm sure it won't get old soon.
Posted by kw7319 2 years ago
kw7319
Hair is dead. A fetus is alive.
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
Griswald vs. Connecticut uphelds reproductive rights for a woman and Roe vs. Wade includes abortions in that.

Do you know what else has human DNA? Hair. Hair has a full set of human DNA but having a hair cut isn't illegal. You haven't demonstrated that a fetus is living as your criteria for a living being was ALSO FLAWED.

Next time actually put these arguments in the debate so we don't have to do this.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
kw7319YaHeyTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF and con's contentions were not adequately addressed.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
kw7319YaHeyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by LordEnglish 2 years ago
LordEnglish
kw7319YaHeyTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to refute Con's statements in the last few rounds, but both Pro and Con conducted themselves well and used good sources.