The Instigator
blondesrule502
Pro (for)
Winning
58 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Losing
51 Points

Should abortion be illegal?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/24/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,813 times Debate No: 4498
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (50)
Votes (32)

 

blondesrule502

Pro

In the age where human rights is of immense importance, why is it that society demeans the meaning of life by legalizing abortion?
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

It is not the legalization of abortion, but the notion that forced quartering of fetuses in human bodies is somehow supported by human rights, that demeans the meaning of life.

Life, you see, in the context of philosophy, that is, a human life, is supposed to demand a special reverence, of a sort not due to the sort of life biologists talk about. That reverence, however, must only be given to that which is due it, and one must be clear about the quality that deserves such relevance- the quality of a free, reasoning mind, of volitional consciousness. Man's mind is the source of all valuation, and thus the highest value. "Rights," or proper social limits, arise from the requirements of life for those who have developed such minds- that is, from the syllogisms arising from the choice to live and the general facts of reality. You see, human beings need to use their mind without barrier to produce the various things they need, and thus need other such beings to refrain from creating such barriers to use of their mind and application to action. Since this is a reciprocal need, it is in each party's own self interest that they each refrain from violating it unless in retaliation to the other violating it, that is, so long as the other person's interfering with your need is a necessary condition of your violation of theirs, and vice versa, a RIGHT is established that you each possess-knowledge of how to protect yourself. This particular one, protection from barriers to use of the mind, is known as the right of liberty. A related one, protection from barriers to enjoyment of the product thereof, is known as the right of property. The source of these, at base, is the reciprocal need to not have actions taken toward your own destruction, this is known as the right to life.

I'm sure you are yelling "Ah-ha!" and seizing on the moment, because you've forgotten the beginning of the paragraph. All of this only applies to those with free reasoning minds, volitional consciousness. A fetus is without them, it is incapable of reasoning. And even were this not true, there is another problem- Remember the clause "Failure to observe toward another must be a necessary condition of another's failure to observe toward you and vice versa?" It's important- because fetuses are violating the property rights of the mother if they do not exit when asked. A body, too, can be remade as a product of the human mind, it is the product of constant action, of carefully feeding and sleeping and cleaning and exercising, all to keep it in good working order. The fetus, in ruining that body without permission, is trespassing, in violating the mother's rights, it loses any claim to rights of its own, even if it had them in the first place, which because it cannot reason it did not.
Debate Round No. 1
blondesrule502

Pro

But whenever the human race has discriminated against a certain people, it is looked at in a negative manner. Also, since we cannot confirm or deny that the unborn does or does not have this intellect, we cannot destroy them. Much like in murder cases. If there is not enough evidence to prove the murder, the person is let go, and the unborn deserves that chance as well.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
But whenever the human race has discriminated against a certain people, it is looked at in a negative manner."

Oh? First, that's evasion, you are saying YOU look at it in a negative manner (it's your argument), not "it is looked at," as though some ambigous collective were doing it. Second, say you are married to one woman. Isn't the fact that you aren't sleeping with another discriminating against them for not being married to? Or say you are hiring someone because they can do the job. Aren't you discriminating against those who can't? Say you eat food because it nourishes you. Isn't that discriminating against rocks, which don't?

The word discrimination has been stolen and corrupted with a package deal by idiotic collectivists, when they saw an oppurtunity with the race issue. You see, racism is irrational, collectivist, discrimination. Only the irrational and collectivist would have a motive for such dishonesty as declaring DISCRIMINATION to be the problematic element in that equation.

But I digress. Let it suffice to say that the sort of discrimination you have been taught to say represents all is based on irrational motives, whereas the discrimination here against fetuses (and bacteria and whatnot) is based on merit- indeed, on rationality itself!

"Also, since we cannot confirm or deny that the unborn does or does not have this intellect, we cannot destroy them.them. Much like in murder cases. If there is not enough evidence to prove the murder, the person is let go, and the unborn deserves that chance as well."
False. If fetuses had an intellect (and the corollary, free will), they would demonstrate thinking about their actions, HUMAN actions, rather than what they actually demonstrate, an instinct-based drive to suck upon mammary glands, cry, and eliminate waste. Even the most basic of rational functions takes time to develop AFTER birth, not before. If this would not be sufficient evidence to satisfy you in regards to fetuses, it should not be sufficient to satisfy you in regards to animals, plants, rocks, bacteria, and all the countless other things you would be similarly skeptical about, and thus, in essence, you would have to outlaw human life, to be consistent in respecting unverified rights :D.
Plus, you obviously didn't read my whole argument, because there is another thing they are guilty of that is not nearly so complex- the trespassing charge. It is demonstrable that fetuses have no respect for the mother's rights, considering how they constantly kick at the mother's insides, and don't exit willingly when requested. In failing to respect such demonstrable rights, they would, again, lose any possibility of a claim to rights of their own.
Debate Round No. 2
blondesrule502

Pro

The mother gave the baby permission to be there when she had sex. Rape is a little bit different, but it is just another emotional burden for the mother. Abortion makes a woman six times more likely to commit suicide than a woman who goes through with her pregnancy.

This abortion/suicide link is well known among professionals who counsel suicidal persons. For example, Meta Uchtman, director of the Cincinnati chapter of Suiciders Anonymous, reported that in a 35 month period her group worked with 4000 women, of whom 1800 or more had abortions. Of those who had abortions, 1400 were between the ages of 15 and 24, the age group with the fastest growing suicide rate in the country. http://www.abortionfacts.com...

First, I asked myself the question at what point does a human being obtain "personhood" and as such gain all the legal and moral protections that status entitles them to? There are some who say that the point of personhood is 28 days AFTER birth, at which point you still should be allowed to abort. In fact, there is a professor of ethics at Princeton University that actively advocates this position. This is the position that spurred "Born Alive" legislation that says if a woman has an abortion and the baby survives, that doctors cannot withhold care and let the baby die on the operating table. Others say up to the point of birth. These folks, such as Barack Obama, would hold that this type of infanticide as well as partial birth abortion is a reasonable procedure. Or perhaps just before while the mother is in labor. Or 6 months of gestation or 3 months or three weeks. I wrestled with this for a long time.

Then I looked at the issue a different way. Does human life have an imputed value or an intrinsic one? If we say that it is imputed, meaning the value is derived from something else, some outside criteria, then any one of the above positions would be equally valid. We as a society would decide what criteria to select. My problem with this is what criteria do you use? On what basis is a baby at 6 weeks more valuable than a baby at 5 weeks? Is a baby that has not yet developed a heart still a baby? This hit really hard on my friend who lost one of her children. Lynne had a miscarriage a few years ago. When people with strong pro-choice sentiments gave her their condolences, they referred to the fetus as a child, even though she (we named her Grace, even though we do not know for sure if she was a she or a he. It made it easier to explain to the children what happened and easier for Lynne and I to grieve her loss) was at the same gestational point, 9 weeks, that they believed abortion was merely removing some unwanted tissue of the mother. So, the criteria used is whether or not a child is wanted. If that is so, then why?

By similar logic, if the value of human life is imputed, it can also be taken away, depending on what some person or group of persons believe that life is worth. So if you happen to be mentally retarded or black or Jewish, it would be perfectly reasonable for you to be killed off for the good of the community if they believe it. I have a friend who is paralyzed from the neck down. There are some in the world who would look at her and say that she has no quality of life or that the money and effort to support her would be better used on others. They would have her die due to her handicap. But knowing her the way I do I find the notion that she is without a quality of life to be ridiculous on its face. She is a writer, a painter, a social worker, and heads up an international charity. I'd call that a pretty good quality of life. So would her husband who married her years after her accident put her in the wheelchair. Thus, the imputed value logic is shown to me to be completely arbitrary. Following any of the "prior to this point it is not human but at this one on it is" positions is likewise arbitrary and does not answer the question of personhood.

But consider the proposition that human life has an intrinsic value. That it is valuable simply because it is human life and no other reason. No measure or quantification of the value of it, it is and that is enough. It is sort of like gold. Gold is valuable because it is gold, not because we as a society stood up one day and said, "we are going to make gold valuable". Gold has an intrinsic value as opposed to an imputed value, such as paper currency. Paper currency is worthless in and of itself. It has value only because we say it has a certain value.

This position then would support a clear line between human life and not human life. With this position, you are a human at the point that you have a unique genetic code. In other words, at inception. Prior to inception, there was no "you". The male and female reproductive components in and of themselves are not a unique genetic code, but merely parts of the donors. It is only when they combine to create new life do "you" begin to be a person.

The notion of intrinsic value also carries forward throughout life. My mother-in-law was on dialysis for several months before diabetes finally took her life. There are many who would have said that she should just die and not burden the rest of us. If those persons held the position that human life has imputed value, I can understand. I however, believe that human life is intrinsically valuable and worth preserving and protecting for as long as possible. Thus, we should protect life at the beginning and at the end and at all points in between.

So, we come full circle back to the question of abortion. Should it be outlawed? My answer, since I believe in the intrinsic value of human life, is that for the most part it should. Why only "for the most part"? Because there are times when you have to weigh the life of two humans and pick one to live and one to die. My sister-in-law faced such a problem once. She got pregnant from her husband and it turned out to be a tubule pregnancy. Had the child been allowed to grow inside of her, it would have killed her before the baby would have been able to survive on its own. Thus, in weighing these two lives, one would have to conclude that the baby would have to die in order to save the mother's life. What about cases of rape or incest? I have 5 daughters (yes, that was no typo) and the thought of one of them being raped is always lurking in the back of my mind. If one of them should get pregnant as a result, the hard decision would be to let that child live. Pregnancy is not the extremely dangerous event of the past. Rarely do people die from giving birth. Many more die as a result of complications after an abortion. But the bottom line is that the child is innocent of any crime, so why punish it? I'm not saying it is an easy choice and I can certainly sympathize with those who have had to make it.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"The mother gave the baby permission to be there when she had sex. "

False. She gave the phallus permission to be there. Say I open a door, and a letter into my house. Turns out that the letter has a bomb in it. Do I lose the right to throw my letter out of the house?

"Rape is a little bit different, but it is just another emotional burden for the mother."
No, it's more than an "emotional burden," it is a violation of all her rights, and a potential risk to her life.

"Abortion makes a woman six times more likely to commit suicide than a woman who goes through with her pregnancy."
Suicide, as it's the ultimate consensual act, is absolutely none of the business of law or those discussing what should be legal. Secondly, I highly doubt that's actual causality, since to establish that you'd have to do a CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT, which would be illegal in this case, so you lied. The truth, if your statistic is even accurate, would be "Abortion CORRELATES" with a six times higher chance of suicide." Correlation is not causation.

"
This abortion/suicide link is well known among professionals who counsel suicidal persons. For example, Meta Uchtman, director of the Cincinnati chapter of Suiciders Anonymous, reported that in a 35 month period her group worked with 4000 women, of whom 1800 or more had abortions. Of those who had abortions, 1400 were between the ages of 15 and 24, the age group with the fastest growing suicide rate in the country. http://www.abortionfacts.com......
"
Is the source of your statistic? That's not even CLOSE to controlling variables. It's a coincidence of age between peak abortion and peak suicide, clearly, which demonstrates no causal link, and even if it did as I said above it's none of the business of law.

"
First, I asked myself the question at what point does a human being obtain "personhood" and as such gain all the legal and moral protections that status entitles them to?"
When they demonstrate the SOURCE of the justification of that protection: a rational faculty.

"There are some who say that the point of personhood is 28 days AFTER birth, at which point you still should be allowed to abort."
28 days? That's arbitrary. Unless they can demonstrate that rational faculties manifest in all cases at that time, which I doubt. But in any case I'm not stating that, so your inclusion of it here is a subtle straw man.

"This is the position that spurred "Born Alive" legislation that says if a woman has an abortion and the baby survives, that doctors cannot withhold care and let the baby die on the operating table."
So doctors are slaves?

"
Then I looked at the issue a different way. Does human life have an imputed value or an intrinsic one? If we say that it is imputed, meaning the value is derived from something else, some outside criteria, then any one of the above positions would be equally valid. We as a society would decide what criteria to select."

Ignoratio elenchi. Human life has intrinsic value TO ITS BEARER (no one else, there cannot be two or more intrinsic values for any valuer, or contradiction would arise), but remember, the definition of "Human" is "Rational animal," so fetuses don't count either way :D.

"My problem with this is what criteria do you use?"

I already stated that. Rationality. Pay attention to the debate at hand.

"On what basis is a baby at 6 weeks more valuable than a baby at 5 weeks?"

It's not, unless the former has become rational and the latter has not.

"Is a baby that has not yet developed a heart still a baby?"

The brain, not the heart, is in question.

". So, the criteria used is whether or not a child is wanted. If that is so, then why?
"

That, is a criterion for a different standard, the question of personal wish for abortion, not the question of legality. The child being wanted does not lend it "Rights," it lends it the fact that it will be taken care of regardless, like one would polish a shiny bauble.

"By similar logic, if the value of human life is imputed, it can also be taken away, depending on what some person or group of persons believe that life is worth. So if you happen to be mentally retarded or black or Jewish, it would be perfectly reasonable for you to be killed off for the good of the community if they believe it"
False, because then such people would kill you in retaliation, you'd lose all possibility of trade with them
(from which enormous values can be reaped), etc., in short, it would not be REASONABLE to do so, i.e. in one's self-interest, if the group you are doing this to possesses any rationality (which includes, in a limited sense, even the mentally retarded) ^_^. And there is no such thing as the "good of the community", only the good of individuals.

"I have a friend who is paralyzed from the neck down. There are some in the world who would look at her and say that she has no quality of life or that the money and effort to support her would be better used on others."

So long as it's her money and her effort, only she can properly make that determination.

"Thus, the imputed value logic is shown to me to be completely arbitrary."
Fallacy of the straw man. You have not shown that MY logic (which contains elements of both imputed and intrinsic value) is arbitrary, only that a few other people's are arbitrary.

"Following any of the "prior to this point it is not human but at this one on it is" positions is likewise arbitrary and does not answer the question of personhood."
Since personhood has no meaning aside from who is "human," of course it provides such an answer, sometimes true and sometimes false. So that is a lie, you state it does not answer the question when it is precisely what it does.You may not like certain answers, but the answers are there. Mine, again, is not arbitrary, it is derived from the nature of rights and the nature of humans.

"
But consider the proposition that human life has an intrinsic value."
It does, ONLY TO THE HUMAN IN QUESTION. Any more than one intrinsic value (i.e. you considering all humans to have intrinsic value) would lead to CONTRADICTION, i.e. you would be faced with the notion that both A holds priority over B and B over A. That is the only consideration necessary for your proposition, due to the law of noncontradiction.

"Gold is valuable because it is gold, not because we as a society stood up one day and said, "we are going to make gold valuable". Gold has an intrinsic value as opposed to an imputed value, such as paper currency."

False. If gold had an intrinsic value, logically, it would have to be pursued IN ALL CASES, even if you DIE as a result, because an intrinsic value is to be pursued regardless of other issues, as an "end in itself." The value of gold is "objective," it arises from the relation between the human mind and it (specifically the human mind finds it capable of making objects that are aesthetic, i.e. pleasing to the consciousness, and people with pleased consciousnesses live longer, and thus, it's value is derived not from it's existence itself but from it's capacity to improve human life, and it lasts awhile :D. Paper money does not have "Value" at all, people are simply forced to pretend it does at gunpoint.

"With this position, you are a human at the point that you have a unique genetic code. In other words, at inception. Prior to inception, there was no "you". The male and female reproductive components in and of themselves are not a unique genetic code, but merely parts of the donors."
In fact, every reproductive component is indeed a unique genetic code, besides which, do you realize, you have just stated that identical twins ARE NOT HUMAN. Your position here has no demonstrable merit, and that flaw damns it.

Too long, continued in comments.
Debate Round No. 3
blondesrule502

Pro

The unborn child is more than a clump of cells and it is more than an organ. By two months (90% of abortions are after nine weeks), baby is already moving, the woman just can't feel it, and it has fingers, fingerprints (a form of identity).

a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a hetero specific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)

b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homo specific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.

a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.
b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being. The mother also allowed sperm to come into the body, so though a foreign source, it was allowed in, not invasive.

a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.
b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.

a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.).
b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.

a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).
b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.

a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.)
b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.

a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.
b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.

a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).
b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.

A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).

A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.

[This data was compiled by Thomas L. Johnson, Professor of Biology, Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA. Professor Johnson teaches Chordate Embryology and Parasitology.

Besides, how would you like it if you were called a fetus and then aborted, and trying to escape the cold metal instruments of the doctor performing the abortion.

If the baby survives, the doctors cannot deny it care, so why is it denied protection in the womb when the mother was the one that chose to have sex? She set herself up and has no right to kill the unborn child.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
The unborn child is more than a clump of cells and it is more than an organ. By two months (90% of abortions are after nine weeks), baby is already moving, the woman just can't feel it, and it has fingers, fingerprints (a form of identity)."

Koala bears have fingers and fingerprints too. And clumps of cells move.
I dunno about you, but I don't consider my fingerprints an important form of self-identification :D.

"
a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a hetero specific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)

b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homo specific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship."

Biological definitions of parasitism, which vary, are irrelevant here. And it is a "dependent" relationship, but it is certainly not obligatory- nothing can be an obligation unless a contract has been made.

"
a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.
b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother,"
Sure it does. It kicks, it causes vomiting, weakens bone structures, and occasionally kills in exit... need I go on?

"b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.
"
The umbilical cord and placenta count as part of the mother. :D

"b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.
"
Irrelevant. AIDS patients don't reject some viruses with antiviruses either, but I don't see you lining up to give viruses rights.

"
b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.
"
Fetus. Not human being, by the definition given earlier. Homo sapiens maybe, but there is a distinction.

"
b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus,"
Reproductive capacity is irrelevant here, because reproduction is not necessary, and a species as such has no rights, rights only apply to individuals.
And the mother is in fact ALWAYS at least weakened by the presence of the embryo or fetus... you try carrying one late-term and run two miles or so :D.

"
Besides, how would you like it if you were called a fetus and then aborted, and trying to escape the cold metal instruments of the doctor performing the abortion.
"
If I were a fetus, I would not be capable of "liking" or "disliking" anything. And fetuses do NOT try to escape, they are incapable of that too. They frankly don't care.

"
If the baby survives, the doctors cannot deny it care,"
Because of laws that enslave doctors. Those aren't good laws.

"so why is it denied protection in the womb when the mother was the one that chose to have sex? She set herself up and has no right to kill the unborn child."
Why is the murderer denied protection when someone decides to walk outside without a bulletproof vest? I thought I already addressed this.
And the fetus is still INCAPABLE OF THOUGHT. You never addressed that, never defended your absurd metaethical positions and the contradictions within them.

My opponent has attempted to answer a charge (parasitism) I have not made, and is ignoring the actual points I've made (fetuses demonstrably have no mind, rights depend on that mind, trespassing), and he repeats himself without addressing my rebuttals. He is thus far guilty of evasion.
Debate Round No. 4
blondesrule502

Pro

As a student studying to be a gynecologist, I can tell you that ultrasounds measure brain waves and that I have personally seen the areas of the brain that are part of our thought process and activity levels and have seen high activity levels in this part of the brain that highly suggests that it has thought. The part of the brain that is associated with curiosity is very active when the child is moving around or feeling parts of the womb.

An unborn child is not a koala, so that argument is completely irrelevant, and you later state something about "virus rights." That's not what we are talking about, we are talking about a human child.

When you become selective of a human class (Blacks, Arabs, Mexicans...) it demeans the value of human life.

The "fetus" is a gray area. It seems that we as a people cannot decide. We give it certain human rights, and recognize it as some human form. What makes it okay to abort a baby and kill it, but not okay to let it die on the operating table? Or why it can count as two murders when a pregnant woman is killed?

Go to youtube and watch the Silent Scream and you can see like I have seen an abortion through an ultrasound.

And you say, that it is good to let a child that has had an unsuccessful abortion die screaming on the operating table? How violent are you?

The egg is already in the mother so the only thing that comes into the body is the sperm, which, with the exception of rare cases (rape makes up 1% of abortions), was willingly allowed into the body and it is by reason of the mother that the egg was fertilized. The egg is a part of her up until the point of fertilization, when it has its own DNA. Here, it establishes its own person, its own gender, and no mother has the right to end this life.

My opponent calls me a man, which I am not, and says that "fetuses" have no minds but I highly doubt that he has ever seen an ultrasound through the advanced equipment that I have nor had the realization that it is possibly human.

Besides, the child did not ask to be there per say, but it is at the moment of conception, and wehn a woman goes to have an abortion, she is willingly killing the child in question. having seen what I have seen in my field, it is undeniably a child.

What happens when the child passes through the birth canal. You are for late term abortion in you profile. So, when the child passes throguht the birth canal is it magically human? what was it before, when it was still in the womb

Abortion gives us the power to kill the unborn, but nature did not give us the right to do so. All men are equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that amogh these are, life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. No one can change ethics, only defy them. "A life is a life, no matter how small." --Dr. Suess "Horton Hears a Who"
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
As a student studying to be a gynecologist, I can tell you that ultrasounds measure brain waves and that I have personally seen the areas of the brain that are part of our thought process and activity levels and have seen high activity levels in this part of the brain that highly suggests that it has thought. The part of the brain that is associated with curiosity is very active when the child is moving around or feeling parts of the womb."

Just because something uses the same part of the brain as reason does not mean it is reason. Lust and anger use the same parts of the brain, and the same chemicals, but very different things. Curiosity itself matters not a whit unless one takes steps to fulfill it. And it still doesn't change the trespassing.

"
An unborn child is not a koala, so that argument is completely irrelevant,"
Wrong. You implied that fingerprints somehow lent the fetus "identity." Koalas have fingerprints too. It would seem logically from your statement that a fetus is in some relevant manner the same as a koala :D.

"and you later state something about "virus rights." That's not what we are talking about, we are talking about a human child."
You are taking it out of the context of what you said. You said that the fact that the mother's body doesn't produce antibodies very well against children was important, very well, some viruses share the same characteristic. If you state that a trait lends value to something, you had damn well better be consistent.

"
When you become selective of a human class (Blacks, Arabs, Mexicans...) it demeans the value of human life.
"
In using the term "You" you just became selective of a different class. You made a distinction between two different classes of human... you and I. You selected one to address. It would seem you are demeaning the value of human life, and don't tell me "It's not the same," because "Blacks, arabs, mexicans" is not the same as the type of classes I am talking about either.

"
The "fetus" is a gray area."
No, it is not. There is necessarily a right answer and a wrong answer about it, even if one does not figure out which.

"It seems that we as a people cannot decide. "

A "people," a "we," never decides anything. There is no collective ubermind. Individual minds are the only minds that exist, the only deciders.

"We give it certain human rights,"
Human rights cannot be given, they can only be recognized. And no, "we," do not. I neither give nor recognize rights in fetuses. If I do not, "we" do not, until you come up with a less ambigous "We," that does not include me.

"and recognize it as some human form"Nope, don't do that either.

"What makes it okay to abort a baby and kill it, but not okay to let it die on the operating table?" Nothing. Perfectly okay to let it die on an operating table.

"Or why it can count as two murders when a pregnant woman is killed?"
Because legislators are stupid.

"
Go to youtube and watch the Silent Scream and you can see like I have seen an abortion through an ultrasound.
"
All I saw in that video was a creature demonstrating a level of mental sophistication far less than several insects I've seen die.

"
And you say, that it is good to let a child that has had an unsuccessful abortion die screaming on the operating table? How violent are you?
"
"Letting" a child die is "violent?" Violence requires action. But for an idea of how violent I am when I think it is called for... I intend to join the military at some point. Now of course, if the pro-life crowd wishes to standby and pick up the child that has had an unsuccesful abortion off the operating table, and care for it on their tab, I'm fine with that, so long as they stand by without making much of a ruckus.

"
The egg is already in the mother so the only thing that comes into the body is the sperm, which, with the exception of rare cases (rape makes up 1% of abortions), was willingly allowed into the body" It was allowed into the vagina, it made it's own way to the egg, which is several canals away. Imagine if you invite me into your living room, and I sneak into your bedroom, and then crack open a safe inside it.

"Here, it establishes its own person, its own gender, and no mother has the right to end this life.
"
A fly has it's own gender, it's own "person" in any sense that may be applied to a fetus, but you still swat it.

"
My opponent calls me a man, which I am not, "
Apologies, I judged from your avatar, big mistake :D.

"and says that "fetuses" have no minds but I highly doubt that he has ever seen an ultrasound through the advanced equipment that I have"
How advanced we talking here? I've seen normal ultrasounds anyway (of my siblings). In any case the existence of a mind (a mind with volition) isn't something that shows up on an ultrasound's perceptual level, though one could adequately conceptualize it from signs that would show on ultrasounds
(and don't).

"nor had the realization that it is possibly human.
"
"Realizations" can only be described as such when based on valid evidence. You have the "Feeling" it is, not the "realization."

"
Besides, the child did not ask to be there per say,"
It stays there nevertheless, it won't get off the property.

"and wehn a woman goes to have an abortion, she is willingly killing the child in question. "
Irrelevant until you demonstrate WHY it can't be killed.

"having seen what I have seen in my field, it is undeniably a child."
Define "child" before claiming it is either undeniable or relevant, there is one definition that is undeniable but irrelevant, and another that is relevant but deniable, that come to mind. For it to help you you'd have to find a definition that is both undeniable and relevant, which does not come to mind. :D

"
What happens when the child passes through the birth canal."
It's no longer trespassing, but it's still apparently nonrational, and thus doesn't have rights. If it can demonstrate rationality-even then, it only has the same rights as everyone else, which does not include the right to enslave, it will have to find some WILLING to take care of it.

"So, when the child passes throguht the birth canal is it magically human? "

Nope, still isn't. When it demonstrates it has a rational faculty it is human.

"what was it before, when it was still in the womb" Same thing it is right after getting out, plus a trespasser :D.

"
Abortion gives us the power to kill the unborn, but nature did not give us the right to do so. " Human nature as a free creature of the mind gives us the right to kill any trespasser, and do whatever we want to that without a mind already in control of it.

"All men are equal, "
False. Demonstrably. For example, I am pro-abortion, you are against it, one of us must be right, and therefore have more merit than one who is wrong. Some men build skyscrapers, some are homeless. Not equal. Some men solve Fermat's last theorem, others cannot do basic subtraction. Not equal. Some men produce a set of principles that are explicitly designed such that consistently following them shall produce them a life as long can be, others constantly twist about searching for such things, others don't bother with principles at all and simply grasp about on the range of the moment, like any common animal. Not equal.

"and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights,"
What creator? Only creator I know of is my parents, and they regularly violate my rights (not when I was a fetus, later on of course, had no rights as a fetus :P). One of the characteristics of rights is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to "endow" them, they are either there or they are not. If a thing is a gift, it is not a right. Another is that they are in fact alienable-but only by the action of their possessor. A man who violates the rights of another invalidates (alienates if you will) his own.

Dr. Seuss, by the way, is not a philosopher.
Debate Round No. 5
50 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Punisher 1 year ago
Punisher
My point is, one's identity is based on one's genetic code, not on that of the body in which he/she resides. Since it is impossible for an individual to have two distinct genetic codes, the fetus must be distinct from the mother.
Posted by HellKat 1 year ago
HellKat
The fetus is literally attached to the inside of the mother. It is most certainly a part of the mother. It effects the mother's body in multiple ways, sometimes to the detriment of the mother. If it is inside of your body it is a part of your body, that's not really debatable.
Posted by Punisher 1 year ago
Punisher
A fetus is indeed attached to the mother, but it is not part of the mother. This is an important distinction. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn child's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. In many cases, the blood type of the mother is different than that of the unborn child, and one's body cannot function with two different blood types. Since the fetus is not part of the mother, rather it is living inside the mother, the argument becomes one of location (inside vs. outside the womb).
Posted by HellKat 1 year ago
HellKat
The problem with what you're saying though, is the fact that abortion is legal due to laws surrounding bodily autonomy. Everyone has the right to bodily autonomy, and since a fetus is a part of the mother's body it becomes her right to choose what she does with her body and therefore the fetus. A fetus and a 6 month old are different in that a 6 month old is not physically attached to or an internal part of the mother any longer.
Posted by Punisher 1 year ago
Punisher
1. Our country is founded on the principle that everyone has a "right to life." The Declaration of Independence. (Our Constitution is based on the Declaration.) Our country is therefore founded upon the principle that all human beings are endowed with certain natural, inalienable rights that the government must protect, one of which is the "right to life," the most basic of all rights without which no other rights exist. The purpose of government, according to the Declaration and the Constitution, is to protect our basic rights. Contrary to common belief, the Bill of Rights does not "give" Americans any rights - it merely outlines rights we explicitly have and which the government promises to protect. While one might argue that these rights only apply to those who are already born, similar arguments were used to oppress women, blacks, and homosexuals. Even if one is dependent on another, such as a six month old baby who cannot live independently, or a baby inside the womb who likewise cannot live independently, the right to life applies to all human beings, regardless of gender, skin color, or location (e.g. inside the womb).

2. Our right to choose is often limited. In law, our right to choose ends when it infringes upon another's rights. For example, the government does not protect my right to choose to rob a bank or murder my neighbor. In the case of abortion, the government should not protect one's choice to take away another's right (e.g. the right to life).

3. The Supreme Court is not always right. Perhaps the most obvious examples are the Dred Scott case and Plessy v. Ferguson. At the time, many applauded the Supreme Court decisions; however, today, most agree the Supreme Court was wrong (and these decisions were obviously overturned).
Posted by HellKat 8 years ago
HellKat
I wouldn't doubt it actually.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Abortion must be illegal. It is because this is somewhat a process of killing a human which is not good.
"
Did you read the debate? A, there are situations in which the killing of humans is desirable (self-defense, for example,) b, as Hellkat pointed towards (though did not phrase it I'll note), in no case does a fetus meet the definition of human.

And seriously, does the pro-life crowd go around voting on all the abortion debates without reading, just for jollies?
Posted by HellKat 8 years ago
HellKat
You can technically say the a fetus is not a human under some conditions though.
Posted by kellyxinwudos 8 years ago
kellyxinwudos
Abortion must be illegal. It is because this is somewhat a process of killing a human which is not good.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Though I appreciate your generosity, I cannot take your gift. Morality, that is a framework to decide which choices will enhance your life, is always in question in all human action, including legal action.
32 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Berend 2 years ago
Berend
blondesrule502Ragnar_RahlTied
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: I could go on about this, but my vote remains con for reasons I do not think I can fully type out in this box.
Vote Placed by FemaleGamer 8 years ago
FemaleGamer
blondesrule502Ragnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by dragonfire1414 8 years ago
dragonfire1414
blondesrule502Ragnar_RahlTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
blondesrule502Ragnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by silveracer 8 years ago
silveracer
blondesrule502Ragnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by indianajones644 8 years ago
indianajones644
blondesrule502Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by clsmooth 8 years ago
clsmooth
blondesrule502Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
blondesrule502Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by kellyxinwudos 8 years ago
kellyxinwudos
blondesrule502Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by I_am_Einstein 8 years ago
I_am_Einstein
blondesrule502Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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