The Instigator
cakerman
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
JimShady
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should abortion be legal?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2017 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,083 times Debate No: 103501
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

cakerman

Pro

Hello, Jim, and thank you for accepting my debate about this wildly controversial subject, first let's lay out some groundwork

1. The first round can be your first argument round

2. Religion stays out of this debate, it isn't viable to bring up in a morality argument

3. We are not arguing if you can kill a fetus "days before birth", because not only does a minute percentage of people think that is okay, neither do it, it is not representative of the message i'm trying to get across

Besides that I don't believe i've missed anything. Best of luck to you sir
JimShady

Con

Thanks to cakerman for the debate offer on one of my favorite topics, I hope it is constructive and best of luck to you.

I will take advantage of the 1st round argument rule, and pass my Round 5 argument unless cakerman wants me to answer some questions or something.

So, to decide whether or not abortion should be legal, we should look at the supreme law of the United States, the Constitution. Pro-Choice advocates believe that the right to terminate a pregnancy is a constitutional right under he 9th Amendment, which reads:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This basically means that just because the Constitution does not reference a right, does not mean they cannot have it. For example, the Constitution doesn't say you are allowed to have ice cream, but it is an implied right. Abortion is never addressed by name in the Constitution and so thus falls under the 9th. To me this seems like a serious loophole that can be accessed. Even so, I would allow it....

...IF the Constitution did not contradict it. In the 5th Amendment (and also the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence), we are informed that we've got a right to life. Government, foreign powers, or other citizens have no right to take it from us (which is why I'm against the death penalty, but that's off topic and for another time.) The Pro-Life argument says that a human fetus is a separate, living entity from the mother, and thus deserves human rights the same as everybody else. He or she is not just an internal parasite or a bundle of cells but a different person. Because of this, I believe that abortion is murder, which is illegal (and should be illegal as I assume we agree on) and the mother should not have the right to take the human fetus's life UNLESS with the extremely rare circumstance that the human fetus is endangering her OWN life.

Here is my syllogism:

Murder of a human being is illegal.
Abortion is murder of a human being.
Abortion is illegal.

Major Premise: Murder of a human being is wrong:
You can go to jail for murdering a human being because it deprives them of life, is immoral, and is most of the time unjust. This statement is pretty agreeable.

Minor Premise: Abortion is murder of a human being.
Here is the tricky part: proving a human fetus is a human with the right to life. To start with, lifesitenews.net [1] and more importantly multiple sources including scientists, authors, and professors at [2] state that life begins at fertilization, when the sperm meets the egg. Before this, an egg only has half the amount of genetic information a human needs, the same with the sperm. When they fuse, the complete genetic code of 46 chromosomes come together. At this point, no more genetic information is needed: the entire coding of genes you will have is set in stone and is stored within each cell of your body till the day you die (with the exception of the possibility of unnatural genetic mutations). So, a single-celled human zygote has the same amount of DNA info as a fully grown human. In your opening argument round, please answer when you think life begins if you disagree that it's at conception.

Next, I wan to affirm what species the single-celled zygote, and later the multi-celled fetus is. Pro-Choice people will usually claim "It isn't actually a human being; it's just a fetus." By Webster definition, a fetus is

"an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind"

The definition "vertebrate" does not specifically state what species the zygote/fetus is. So I ask cakerman what species the zygote/fetus is, please answer in your next round. I assume you will say homo sapian, or human. What else could it be? After all, the DNA is exactly the same as a fully grown human. So now that we hopefully have established that the organism is indeed human, why aren't we granting he or she the right to life? Most will say "because the fetus is underdeveloped, it's not viable on it's own, it doesn't have a heart beat, it's not conscious, it can't think yet." Please fill in any more claims that I have not mentioned of the Pro-choice argument of why a fetus is not yet a human with rights. I will address those that I put forth two sentences ago.

1. A fetus is underdeveloped: So are babies who are born with birth defects and/or lack of certain tissues or appendages. Also, people will mental disorders can be considered mentally underdeveloped. When is a human fully developed, anyway? When they are an adult, right? So is a toddler or a teenager underdeveloped? Technically, yes they are. But the fact that they are underdeveloped does not mean that they aren't human and thus don't deserve human rights of life. They same goes for a human fetus.

2. It's not viable on its own: Neither are babies who come out of the womb. They still generally need motherly support to make it. Also, people hooked up to life support and can't live without it are not viable on their own... do they deserve human rights of life? If yes, than so should human fetuses.

3. It doesn't have a heart beat: Sometimes humans' hearts' stop but then they start pumping again. Are they still considered human during the duration of their non-beating heart? A heart beat does not signify when something is alive, it is merely a way of pumping blood into the body.

4. It's unconscious/can't think: I will group these two together for their similarity. Sleeping people are unconscious and can't think (with the exception of dreams, maybe). Also, people who are in comas or are in a brain-dead situation fall into the same category as a brain-dead fetus. But these mentally disabled people are still considered human beings with a right to life... why are human fetuses?

Conclusion to two Premises: Abortion is illegal
I have shown that murder is illegal because it infringes on an innocent person's right to life guaranteed by the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. I have also shown that abortion is the murder of a human being, who although might not have full-development, a heart beat in the first 3-4 weeks, or consciousness, still has the complete set of DNA and deserves human life like other underdeveloped, mentally disabled people do. Thus, abortion should be illegal.

Thanks to cakerman and other DDO users and anybody else for reading.

Sources:
1.https://www.lifesitenews.com...
2.https://www.princeton.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
cakerman

Pro

Hello, Jim, and thank you for accepting this debate. I hope my argument is as constructive and sensical as I intend.

Before we hop into the thick of it I think we should clarify exactly what we're debating before theres any misrepresentation of points from either side. I'm arguing that I believe that abortion taking place before the third trimester be legal, and considered a method of contraceptive just as the morning after pill, i'll talk more about that later. What I link below is an entire page of legal suits over abortion

http://law.justia.com...


Which I think is fair to say is valid when talking about legality because it's a fair source of real legal examples.


In deciding whether or not abortion should be legal or not I think we should outline a couple of really important factors when determining the humanity behind it, I want to for the first round look at a standard that many people try to undermine the value of all the time, and that is:


Pain. Would you say that pain is a major deciding factor, in terms of legality, considering that the best standard for legality is how humane it is? i am talking of course about fetal pain, not the pain of the mother. One of the more compelling arguments for this state as follows:


Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks. For fetal surgery, women may receive general anesthesia and/or analgesics intended for placental transfer, and parenteral opioids may be administered to the fetus under direct or sonographic visualization. In these circumstances, administration of anesthesia and analgesia serves purposes unrelated to reduction of fetal pain, including inhibition of fetal movement, prevention of fetal hormonal stress responses, and induction of uterine atony.


http://jamanetwork.com...

For the next section of my debate i'm going to rebut some of the things said in your round 1 argument, and answer any questions you may have had.

...IF the Constitution did not contradict it. In the 5th Amendment (and also the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence), we are informed that we've got a right to life. Government, foreign powers, or other citizens have no right to take it from us

I don't remember the fifth amendment saying anything along those lines, as we see here:

Amendment V:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The fifth amendment does not mention the right to life, or how governments, foreign powers or citizens can't take it away from you, as a matter of fact this amendment is where "pleading the fifth" comes from. What I assume you meant by "the right to life" was from the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence, which reads as follows:

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.

This would be a fair point to make if we didn't consider the time period. There are no primary documents that can say that this quote ever had anything to do with the legality of abortion, or the morality of abortion. This came from a time when abortion didn't happen, as the Declaration of Independence was written around 1776 and abortion didn't become a topic of discussion until about 1820.

To start with, lifesitenews.net [1] and more importantly multiple sources including scientists, authors, and professors at [2] state that life begins at fertilization

This is the exact reason that things like abortion should be considered contraceptives the same as the morning after pill. If there is subjectively no issue with a woman taking the pill in the morning then I do not see a reason there should be a moral objection to the idea of abortion.

cakerman what species the zygote/fetus is, please answer in your next round

Most will say "because the fetus is underdeveloped, it's not viable on it's own, it doesn't have a heart beat, it's not conscious, it can't think yet." Please fill in any more claims that I have not mentioned of the Pro-choice argument of why a fetus is not yet a human with rights

I will knock both of these out with one rebut. The zygote is a human, I would never argue that it isnt. My personal claims for why a fetus is not a human with rights is because it does not have the capacity to feel pain (as stated above) and therefore lack the sentience that humans naturally put a sentiment onto.

2. It's not viable on its own: Neither are babies who come out of the womb. They still generally need motherly support to make it. Also, people hooked up to life support and can't live without it are not viable on their own... do they deserve human rights of life? If yes, than so should human fetuses.

When I refer to a fetus not being viable on it's own I do not mean that the fetus can take care of itself, i am instead saying rather that the baby physically cannot continue to beat it's heart without a direct line to the mother before the third trimester, if the baby doesn't have a thalamus, it's not going to be able to live without a direct lifeline.

People on life support is another issue but I get what you're saying, but my opinions are that if you're brain dead we should pull the plug, no brain dead person has ever recovered before. An argument I hear Ben Shapiro use also includes the comatose, but why? In most cases we can predict the probability that the patient will wake up, or if the state is irreversible, if it's irreversible then refer to what I said above. In his specific argument he says "If someone was in a comatose state and you knew that they would eventually recover from it, would you kill them?" and of course I wouldn't, but that's entirely different than talking about a fetus.

the person that is comatose has a life to return to, whether they remember or not, they have a past, and they have a future. A fetus has a future but not in the same way as this, A fetus cannot be born, or "wake up from the coma" and as soon as they leave the hospital go look for a job (or return to work), they can't drive home, they can't talk to their loved ones, an adult coming out of an average 2 to 4 week coma can.

3. It doesn't have a heart beat: Sometimes humans' hearts' stop but then they start pumping again. Are they still considered human during the duration of their non-beating heart? A heart beat does not signify when something is alive, it is merely a way of pumping blood into the body.

Of course the person is as a human while their heart isn't pumping, but a heartbeat does indicate if something is alive or not. When the heart suddenly stops beating it's commonly refered to as sudden cardiac death, the heart muscle dies unless resuscitated via electric shock. Pumping blood through the body is the bodily function that keeps us alive, the only thing keeping braindead people alive, and is fatal 100% of the time if it doesn't start pumping again.

4. It's unconscious/can't think: I will group these two together for their similarity. Sleeping people are unconscious and can't think (with the exception of dreams, maybe). Also, people who are in comas or are in a brain-dead situation fall into the same category as a brain-dead fetus. But these mentally disabled people are still considered human beings with a right to life... why are human fetuses?

for the thick of my rebut to this point i summed it up pretty well above, brain dead people are physically incapable of revocering. Sleeping is more just another state of consciousness (hence dreams) and can't really be compared with something that doesn't have the capacity of consciousness.

Thank you to Jim for constructing a cohesive argument, I have a feeling the next 3 rounds are gonna be a bloodshed. thank you to everyone reading and don't forget to vote when the time comes

JimShady

Con

I will now offer rebuttals and counter rebuttals to cakerman's Round 2 argument.

"Would you say that pain is a major deciding factor, in terms of legality, considering that the best standard for legality is how humane it is?"

I would call the ability to sense pain a factor in the decision, but not a MAJOR factor or the most important factor. While it is widely thought that the neurons that carry pain signals start developing past the third trimester (after which you believe it should be illegal), and thus human fetuses cannot sense pain before this point, it should not be a decisive factor in the legality of abortion. Just because a human, and you have conceded that he or she is human, cannot feel pain, does that mean it should be legal to terminate them? Let's say there was a guest at your house that you invited, but now they've somehow developed an illness that requires constant care from you (an analogy that having unprotected sex invites a human fetus that must be taken care of... not exactly the best but it still makes sense). You decide you don't want to go along with it, so you will murder him in his sleep by injecting a drug that stops their heart. The victim feels no pain, but does this make it OK to do? While pain might be something to take into account on whether or not killing someone is OK, it should not be paramount thing or the only thing to consider on whether to kill or not. The paramount issue is whether it is just to take an innocent life, pain or no pain.

"I don't remember the fifth amendment saying anything along those lines, as we see here: [you quote the 5th exactly]"

Please look again, it reads "nor be deprived of life... without due process of the law." So I believe it does say something along the lines of a right to life. Also, aborted fetuses are not given due process of the law. This is then blatantly unconstitutional (unless you believe that they are not citizens, and thus deserve no due process. I will address this later). And yes, I said in my previous round that it's also in the Declaration Preamble.

Here you say "This would be a fair point to make if we didn't consider the time period. There are no primary documents that can say that this quote ever had anything to do with the legality of abortion, or the morality of abortion. This came from a time when abortion didn't happen, as the Declaration of Independence was written around 1776 and abortion didn't become a topic of discussion until about 1820."

Yes, aborted fetuses were not specifically mentioned to have a right to life, but it can be implied. After all, in that time period, slaves were not considered people with rights, and yet today African Americans, who like aborted human fetuses are not specifically mentioned to have the right to equality or life in the Preamble, now enjoy the rights they were denied at that time period.

"This is the exact reason that things like abortion should be considered contraceptives the same as the morning after pill. If there is subjectively no issue with a woman taking the pill in the morning then I do not see a reason there should be a moral objection to the idea of abortion."

The morning after pill does not terminate a pregnancy, it simply prevents one from happening. It is birth control and cannot compare to abortion. My personal belief is that birth control shouldn't be used unless the population is out of control, but that's a separate issue. My point is, abortion kills a human fetus, and contraceptives prevent a human zygote from existing. Both are wrong in my opinion, but killing is worse than preventing.

So, if I understand correctly, you believe that a human fetus receives its human rights when he or she starts to sense pain/have sentience (please clarify if that is not it). First off, science has an idea of when they do sense pain (again, at about after the 3rd trimester), but it's not set in stone. It's possible they could feel it earlier on, and thus we could be killing human fetuses, by which your definition, should deserve a right to life. I believe you should be solidly clear on when they feel pain if your stance is that they get human rights when they sense pain. Again, brain dead people are not able to sense the world around them. Mentally ill people have a sever lack of sentience, and yet they still have human rights. But onto what you say about brain dead people:

"People on life support is another issue but I get what you're saying, but my opinions are that if you're brain dead we should pull the plug, no brain dead person has ever recovered before."

Well, first off, if you pull the plug every time, you never know... there just might have been a break through recovery that was missed. But second off, which kind of nullifies my "first off" there have been recoveries: Steven Thorpe, a 17 year old who was announced brain dead by four doctors with no chance of recovery, has since then made a full recovery. [1] Sure, instances like this are rare, but not impossible as you claim. Also, there is the comatose state as you have brought up. Unlikely, but not impossible.

' "If someone was in a comatose state and you knew that they would eventually recover from it, would you kill them?" ' and of course I wouldn't, but that's entirely different than talking about a fetus."

I do not see it as a difference. When you take into account that a wide majority of human fetuses will gain sentience, much like patients in a comatose state that would also gain sentience, then you should have the same outcome for both: do not kill them. Now, your next paragraph states that those in a coma have a life to return to, a past and a future. Human fetuses only have a future to go to, so I guess there is a difference there. However, just having a future ahead of them I believe is reason enough to sustain their life. After all, a human fetus that will possibly be aborted could grow up to find a cure for cancer. Having both a future AND a past is not necessary to deserve human life, only a future.

For example, let's say a criminal killed someone and is sent to jail and given the death penalty. He has since legitimately repented and would not lead a life of murder if he was allowed to live. Should we judge whether he deserves to live based on his past or future? In this scenario, it's hard to make a decision of justice because, yes, he is sorry, but sorry doesn't always fix it. However, consider a human fetus who is innocent and is aborted. They have no violent past but instead a future to look up to.

"Of course the person is as a human while their heart isn't pumping, but a heartbeat does indicate if something is alive or not. When the heart suddenly stops beating it's commonly refered to as sudden cardiac death, the heart muscle dies unless resuscitated via electric shock. Pumping blood through the body is the bodily function that keeps us alive, the only thing keeping braindead people alive, and is fatal 100% of the time if it doesn't start pumping again."

I am unclear on your position here. The point I was trying to make is that life does not begin with a heart beat. When exactly do you think human life begins? By your paragraph, you seem to conclude it's when the heartbeat begins. So is the human fetus, of which you have said is indeed human, not alive at conception? Single-celled organisms lack a heart, and yet they are considered alive... why is it not the same with humans? Cells within their body are still functioning, maybe at a much lower level with the lack of oxygen, but still they are alive. I will delve more deeply into when life ends in the next round. First I want to hear your response to these questions

1. At exactly what points do life begin and end? Not legally necessarily, but by your own definition (it could be the same)
2. When do humans receive human rights?

For your final argumentative paragraph, you have offered up nothing really new that I've not addressed, other than sleeping. I agree with you that is actually not comparative to unconsciousness, but my rebuttal with brain dead people still stands.

Sources:

1.http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
cakerman

Pro

The rebutting of eachothers arguments is getting us closer to agreement so i'll follow the same format you did

Let's say there was a guest at your house that you invited, but now they've somehow developed an illness that requires constant care from you (an analogy that having unprotected sex invites a human fetus that must be taken care of... not exactly the best but it still makes sense). You decide you don't want to go along with it, so you will murder him in his sleep by injecting a drug that stops their heart. The victim feels no pain, but does this make it OK to do?

What you've done here is set up a moral dillema more than anything, if this guest was at my house and required my constant care due to a sudden illness I have every right in the world to eject them from my home if I do not want to take care of them, they have no right to stay in my house if I do not want them to regardless of their condition. The problem with this analogy is that the law is different in both circumstances, in the guest in your house example we can have the person be relocated and out of the house non-violently. When it comes to a fetus that you do not want living in your uterus, the law states that an abortion is legal for getting rid of it, it is also the only way to eject that fetus. Also let's not forget that this argument is based on legality, and in The Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade (1973) it established that the right to have an abortion is protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Yes, aborted fetuses were not specifically mentioned to have a right to life, but it can be implied. After all, in that time period, slaves were not considered people with rights, and yet today African Americans, who like aborted human fetuses are not specifically mentioned to have the right to equality or life in the Preamble, now enjoy the rights they were denied at that time period.

The immediate gripe I have is that you're capitalizing the fact that blacks were not represented in the preamble, this doesn't mean that anti-slavery didn't exist. Abolition was part of the message of the First Great Awakening of the 1730s and 1740s in the Thirteen Colonies. Also, in the same period, rationalist thinkers of the Enlightenment criticized slavery for violating human rights. Considering that and the fact that noone was petitioning against abortion in the time period I don't think it's necessary to bring up what has and hasn't been mentioned in the Preamble. Continuing on though, even though blacks were not mentioned in the Preamble the country pretty much broke in half 85 years later over slavery, and later have had constitutuional amendments and laws put in place to protect their rights.

A fetus has never had legal rights or laws protecting their rights. Instead we have only seen abortion justified before the third trimester. Giving a fetus legal rights would come with it's own series of issues. To conform with the constitutional right to choose established in Roe v. Wade, fetal protection legislation must exempt abortion from punishment. The exemption should explicitly cover: 1) abortions performed by health care workers with the consent of the woman or in medical emergencies; and 2) self-abortions. This of course becomes an issue when looking deeper into it's meaning.

An exemption specifying "legal abortions" is not adequate, because a narrow interpretation of what constitutes a "legal" abortion could restrict the performance of abortions to physicians only, and put mid-level health care practitioners, or women who self-abort, in jeopardy of being prosecuted for murder. Fetal protection legislation lacking an adequate exemption for abortion could make all abortions in a state illegal if Roe v. Wade were later overturned or undermined. Even when fetal protection statutes do have such exemptions, zealous anti-choice prosecutors may try to intimidate abortion providers by threatening to use the statutes as grounds to indict them for murder if there are any deviations from strict abortion laws or regulations. I can add upon this further on the next rounds debate but here's a quote that summarizes the rest of point more clearly.

[G]ranting a fetus autonomous legal rights would subject virtually all of a pregnant woman's actions to monitoring, questioning, and judgment, laying a foundation for civil liability and even punitive government action against the woman. . . . [T]he impulse to hold a pregnant woman accountable for any and all decisions that may, in some unforeseen manner, affect her fetus, could only lead to an arbitrary legal standard by which to assess the propriety of her actions. The woman's privacy and autonomy would thus be drastically reduced. Any development of "fetal rights" as a legal doctrine would undoubtedly intensify efforts by legal and medical authorities to "police" pregnancy.

The morning after pill does not terminate a pregnancy, it simply prevents one from happening

That is a very fair counterpoint, the only rebuttal I have is that one of the functions of Plan B is to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, which as you stated previous life starts at conception, or fertilization.

It's possible they could feel it earlier on, and thus we could be killing human fetuses, by which your definition, should deserve a right to life

With all of the possible science we can use right now we can determine that the likelihood of a baby feeling pain before 20-28 weeks is very highly unlikely considering the connection to the thalamus is non-existent at that stage, and it also required to perceive pain. The fact that a thalamus is required to perceive pain is not limited to fetuses, we can observe that in a human of any age.

Steven Thorpe, a 17 year old who was announced brain dead by four doctors with no chance of recovery, has since then made a full recovery

I've looked into your link you provided and several other links of the same story and there are a few minor discrepancies which leads me to believe he didn't really fit under the category of "brain dead" and that he was lucky. Firstly, the headline saying he was declared "brain dead" remains consistent but in The Telegraph article you posted as your source it states that "Doctors told his family he would never recover " but other versions of the same story from sources like The Huffington Post and BBC state that "doctors told his family he was not expected to recover". It may seem like a small discrepancy but considering the context of the situation it makes all of the difference, if he were truly brain dead there would be no brainwaves.

http://www.bbc.com...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Another part of this story that doesn't align with the abortion argument is that he was put into a medically induced coma in order to put ease on the brains swelling, but comatose and brain dead mean VERY different things medically speaking. This article sums it up pretty well

http://www.cnn.com...

I am unclear on your position here. The point I was trying to make is that life does not begin with a heart beat. When exactly do you think human life begins?

I misread your point, in the context that it was brought up it seemed as if you were saying that in a way that defends fetuses still being human in terms of lack of heartbeat.

I will answer your question simply. Instead of telling you when I think life begins, I will tell you that scientifically life begins at conception just as you do.

So, if I understand correctly, you believe that a human fetus receives its human rights when he or she starts to sense pain/have sentience

Yes, and no. I believe that the factor of pain to the fetus is crucial to backing up the morality of abortion. A human should not receive rights purely based on pain reception, I only use that as a hallmark because it's something that 99.99% of us can experience and relate to. A human should gain their natural rights (such as life) under a few criteria

1: I have stated this already, but the ability to feel pain. While not entirely required to attain human rights it is certainly a deciding factor in determining a cutoff time before abortion will violate this factor (congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis is a rare genetic disorder in which the patient can't feel pain)

2: sentience (not to be confused with the ability to think). Sentience in the sense that the baby can be aware of it's surroundings subjectively. Not to be confused with having an opinion on important issues, subjective reality is more the meaning one associates with certain tools or objects, such as a breast feeding baby would associate the action of eating/drinking with the breast. (I'll be happy to expand upon this if you wish, just give me the word)

3:Being able to sustain an active heartbeat, breathe, feed (such as breastfeeding), and maintain brain activity without an active lifeline to the mother (the umbilical cord) or medical intervention (such as life support)

It is very important to not confuse with people who are comatose, and seem to lack all of these qualities as i'm talking about attaining these rights as an individual to define at what approximate time an abortion would violate one of the above

Life ends either at the cesation of a heartbeat, or more technically at the cessation of brain activity.

To summarize my guidelines above, I believe that the fetus should attain it's rights at around the third trimester. As that's when the baby is able to perceive pain and use it's brain for conscious movement. At this point in development the baby also develops the ability to hear noises from outside the womb. If you have any questions or issues with what i've said feel free to point it out, I am typing up this round in kind of a hurry so I apologize is you find this round to be of poor quality


JimShady

Con

Now it's time for rebuttals to your rebuttals of my argument. Also, a semi-related question: how do you bold words so I can separate arguments more cleary?

"What you've done here is set up a moral dillema [sic] more than anything, if this guest was at my house and required my constant care due to a sudden illness I have every right in the world to eject them from my home if I do not want to take care of them, they have no right to stay in my house if I do not want them to regardless of their condition."

You are right that it's a moral dilemma and that their is a problem with this analogy. I said earlier in parentheses it is not exactly the best analogy because how you solve the problem of a sick guest and an unwanted child are different. Yes, I realize that, and so it's not a perfect analogy. However, you are just explaining small problems of it without understanding the point- it's not right to kill even if they feel no pain. Let's just SAY you choose to kill the guest instead of letting them live. Pretend that throwing them out of the house out isn't an option. They can just either stay or die. I know that's a crazy situation, but bare with me. Killing the person is not morally good, even if they die without pain. Like I said, the analogy does not correlate to an aborted human fetus perfectly, but the main point still comes across.

"Also let's not forget that this argument is based on legality, and in The Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade (1973) it established that the right to have an abortion is protected by the U.S. Constitution. "

Yes, and I'm arguing that Roe v. Wade is wrong and should be overturned. Supreme Court decisions are not always right (Dred vs. Scott Sanford). So it might be constitutionally legal, but this can change.

"The immediate gripe I have is that you're capitalizing the fact that blacks were not represented in the preamble, this doesn't mean that anti-slavery didn't exist... Considering that and the fact that noone [sic] was petitioning against abortion in the time period I don't think it's necessary to bring up what has and hasn't been mentioned in the Preamble. Continuing on though, even though blacks were not mentioned in the Preamble the country pretty much broke in half 85 years later over slavery, and later have had constitutuional [sic] amendments and laws put in place to protect their rights."

I don't see why whether or not they debated the issue back then matters in the question of if it's implied in the Constitution. In fact, I'd say because abortion was basically unheard of back then it should NOT be implied under the 9th Amendment. Abortion is comparable to slavery in that is created a lot of controversy, so don't you think there would need to be an abortion amendment instead of just riding on the 9th? But this whole paragraph confuses me, please re-explain this paragraph. Sorry, it makes almost no sense to me.

"A fetus has never had legal rights or laws protecting their rights."

In the past, state laws protected their rights but were overturned by Roe versus Wade. Also, so what if Roe v Wade ensures that those who perform abortion must be exempt for punishment? I do not believe Roe v Wade is correct, and so whether an abortion is a "legal abortion" done by doctors or an illegal abortion done by a mother herself, either way the practice, in my eyes, is wrong.

"Fetal protection legislation lacking an adequate exemption for abortion could make all abortions in a state illegal if Roe v. Wade were later overturned or undermined. Even when fetal protection statutes do have such exemptions, zealous anti-choice prosecutors may try to intimidate abortion providers by threatening to use the statutes as grounds to indict them for murder if there are any deviations from strict abortion laws or regulations."

I have no problem with all abortions being illegal in a state unless an abortion must happen to save the life of a mother. If Pro-Life prosecutors intimidate Pro-Abortionists by threatening them for murder, even if it's a slight deviation from abortion regulations, I think that's perfectly just and fair. I have said abortion is murder, and so those who perform them should be prosecuted.

As for your quote about why it's bad to grant fetal rights (because it takes away privacy from the mothers), it is unfair. Why'll there may be a slight invasion of privacy of the woman, this quote fails to access what happens to the human fetus: he or she won't DIE. You cannot just think of the mother's rights and completely neglect the child's rights. Trust me, invasion of privacy is better than dying to abortion. Plus, people's privacy is taken advantage of when they are suspected of murder or some other crime, and police scour their house and constantly question. Why should it be any different for a human fetus who could be murdered? This is of course all up to whether you think the human fetus is a human being or not, but I have already explained why he or she is. The point is your quote does not address the full circumstances and outcome and thus is invalid.

"That is a very fair counterpoint, the only rebuttal I have is that one of the functions of Plan B is to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, which as you stated previous life starts at conception, or fertilization."

True.

"With all of the possible science we can use right now we can determine that the likelihood of a baby feeling pain before 20-28 weeks is very highly unlikely considering the connection to the thalamus is non-existent at that stage, and it also required to perceive pain. The fact that a thalamus is required to perceive pain is not limited to fetuses, we can observe that in a human of any age."

Yes, highly unlikely, but not sure enough. And on a case such as abortion, you should be 100% sure. Also, I have already said why, even if he/she can or cannot feel pain, it should not be the deciding factor in life or death.

"I've looked into your link you provided and several other links of the same story and there are a few minor discrepancies which leads me to believe he didn't really fit under the category of "brain dead" and that he was lucky."

Looking back, I guess he truly wasn't completely past the point of return. However, there is always a first for everything, and people who are brain dead should not be robbed of their human rights and taken off life support right away. Also, my point that a non-sentient human fetus will one day be sentient (and thus should not be killed because of a future to look to) still stands.

"I misread your point, in the context that it was brought up it seemed as if you were saying that in a way that defends fetuses still being human in terms of lack of heartbeat."

Well, it is true that human fetuses are still human even without a heartbeat.

Now, onto your criteria for when humans (you agree they are human at conception) should get human rights.

1. Pain is a deciding factor, but miniscule to the factor of whether it's just to kill an innocent human being or not. Again, refer to my sick guest who dies with no pain analogy from earlier... is it OK to kill someone even though they feel no pain?

2. Sentience begins at around the third trimester, as does pain, but again, this is a minor factor in whether killing a human being is OK or not. The fact that they will be sentient also should be taken into account. They have a future to look to. I'll admit that killing a human who cannot think, feel pain, or reason does not sound as bad as killing a human who CAN think, feel pain, and reason. Nevertheless, you are still killing a human being.

3. Sometimes, people's heart stops beating (they do not sustain an active heartbeat). So, do they have human rights? Your argument would suggest no, let them die. My argument would say yes, perform CPR and get an AED. As for being able to breathe, feed, and survive without life support/umbilical cord, I simply disagree with these criteria, I do no think people should be denied human rights for not having these.

"Life ends either at the cesation of a heartbeat, or more technically at the cessation of brain activity."

I am mostly and understandably alone on my opinion of when people die because it seems kind of crazy, but let me try to explain it. Let's say you are drawing the letter "S". You start from the top by drawing a small, curvy line. You continue to draw the S. When you are finished, you start to erase it from the bottom to the top. Eventually you are left with a small curvy line, and then nothing.

The S represent the human life. At the beginning, it is unrecognizable as an S but is still an S nonetheless (we consider an unrecognizable human cell to be a human nonetheless.) As you progress, you get to like only a sideways "U", which represents a 10 year old. Still you are nonetheless an S. When you are a completely drawn S, you are an adult. The erasing of the S signifies the rapid deterioration of the body, and when you get back to the sideways U, your heart has stopped, yet still you are an S. Once you are down to the small line, you have one living cell left in your body, yet still an S. And when that cell dies, you are finally not an S, or not alive.

So, as abstract as it may seems, I believe you die when the last cell in your body dies, because you are alive when the first cell in your body lives. This is a theory in progress.

In conclusion, I just want to say that we both agree that at conception, a new human being is formed. The phrase "human rights" should apply to ALL humans, because it's not called "sentient human rights." If you are human, you should have human rights.
Debate Round No. 3
cakerman

Pro

how do you bold words so I can separate arguments more cleary?

Assuming you're typing up your responses on a PC/Laptop you click the option for "rich text" and you're given the option.

But this whole paragraph confuses me, please re-explain this paragraph. Sorry, it makes almost no sense to me.

Looking back on it, yes, it made no sense. Blacks are irrlevenat to this argument, but there's one counterpoint I have to refute in that paragraph.

I'd say because abortion was basically unheard of back then it should NOT be implied under the 9th Amendment. Abortion is comparable to slavery in that is created a lot of controversy, so don't you think there would need to be an abortion amendment instead of just riding on the 9th?

If I painted the picture that abortion was unheard of, I was wrong, abortion has been a practice for thousands of years, as far back as greco roman times. (where it's important to note that it was only considered illegal if the husband died while the woman was pregnant and she got an abortion because the child could have claimed the estate) My main point is that anti-abortion legislation in the United States wasn't drafted until about the mid-1800s. Abortion was legal in 1776, and not yet influenced by medical advancements. (the main provocation that started anti-abortion movement) For this simple reason I will say that the 9th amendment can be applied to something like the right to abortion.

I have said abortion is murder, and so those who perform them should be prosecuted.

I have one simple question, if you believe that human life begins at the moment of fertilization or conception, then what exactly wouldn't you consider "murder"?

Enough of the rebuttals for now, I'm going to construct an entirely new point based off of what you've told me

Firstly, the belief that all life is precious is severely overstated. Human women's eggs are fertilized at high greater percentages than many people believe, but are then flushed away and fail to implant in the uterus. On top of this, many hundreds of thousands of embedded zygotes die each year. All on their own. Now you, who is entirely pro-life, if you value consistency, would view these events as tragic deaths. But they are 100% natural, and preventing them would increase medical costs for everyone. Life fails and fails often.

Going beyong simple fertilization, let's look at the argument that "If you dont want your baby you should put it up for adoption" as that's one I hear quite frequently.

We currently have many children who have not been adopted. Over 20,000 children age out of the system every year without having been adopted. This says that adoption is not an adequate solution to unwanted children. The number of abortions each year is much greater than the number of adoptions. If we cannot adopt the current number of children, how could we adopt out many more?

https://www.livescience.com...

There is substantial scientific evidence that proves that fetal pain is not present by 20-28 weeks, although not 100%. But there is no true way to 100% verify any claim about a human fetus, including the thought that they do feel pain, so let's consider that point null.


I have a couple of points to make on rebuttals of your points, firstly:

is it OK to kill someone even though they feel no pain?

That's not the point i'm trying to make, the point i'm trying to make comes in a simple question such as that.

Is it morally more acceptable to kill someone who feels no pain versus a person that feels pain? Disregard any other factors aside from that question, you must choose one, chances are it will be killing someone who feels no pain. Keep in mind this isn't saying it is okay, it is simply drawing a line between morally acceptable and unacceptable circumstance.

Sometimes, people's heart stops beating (they do not sustain an active heartbeat). So, do they have human rights?

You're doing me a bit wrong with that paragraph, if a person can't sustain an active heartbeat without an umbilical cord or life support they've lost this critical factor in determining whether or not they have human rights. My argument also did not suggest otherwise, of course CPR and AED should be tried, and if it works, great, but if it doesn't that person doesn't have human rights to living anymore, they're dead. Also, I established at the end of those criteria that these are not to be associated with anything aside from a fetus, those are the standards you should take care not to violate when determining the cut off time for legality of abortion. If you have any other inquiries about this that don't relate to already born individuals then fire away.


JimShady

Con

"Assuming you're typing up your responses on a PC/Laptop you click the option for "rich text" and you're given the option."
Thanks for the tip. But for some reason my enter bar is messing up so please ignore the lack of paragraphs.
"abortion has been a practice for thousands of years, as far back as greco roman times... My main point is that anti-abortion legislation in the United States wasn't drafted until about the mid-1800s. Abortion was legal in 1776, and not yet influenced by medical advancements. (the main provocation that started anti-abortion movement) For this simple reason I will say that the 9th amendment can be applied to something like the right to abortion."
I didn't admit my ignorance of when abortion was first started to be practices, I said it was just unheard of in the senses of legislation back then. But yes, technically since it did exist back then without technical advancement (and whether or not is was a prominet, debated issue back then), it could be included in the 9th- again, if it did not contradict the 5th Amendment.
"I have one simple question, if you believe that human life begins at the moment of fertilization or conception, then what exactly wouldn't you consider 'murder'?"
I never said human life begins at conception, therefore you have committed a straw man logical fallacy. You have lost the debate, thanks for your time! :)
No but seriously, murder is when you intentionally kill a human being no matter what stage of life he or she is in, either a single-celled zygote or a fully grown adult. What I would NOT consider to be murder is busting a nut in a condom and then tossing it (human sperm are not human beings), the destruction of female eggs (eggs are not human beings), or the unintentinal death of a human being (such as a miscarriage). Bascally anything that does not involve intentionally killing humans.
"Firstly, the belief that all life is precious is severely overstated. Human women's eggs are fertilized at high greater percentages than many people believe, but are then flushed away and fail to implant in the uterus. On top of this, many hundreds of thousands of embedded zygotes die each year. All on their own. Now you, who is entirely pro-life, if you value consistency, would view these events as tragic deaths. But they are 100% natural, and preventing them would increase medical costs for everyone. Life fails and fails often."
All life is precious is not overstated. There is a noticable difference between when human zygotes are destroyed unintentionally and human zygotes/embryos/fetuses are destroyed intentionally. I am 99% Pro-Life (I believe if the woman's life is threatened, she may have an abortion), and I value consistency, so each is a tragic death. And if it raises medical costs for everyone to prevent, I do not care. People die of cander, and this is a tragic death. People are treated for cancer, which raises medical costs. I see no difference between the two. If you can save lives even though it will cost more money, I think we should go for it. That's my personal belief.
"Going beyong simple fertilization, let's look at the argument that "If you dont want your baby you should put it up for adoption" as that's one I hear quite frequently.We currently have many children who have not been adopted. Over 20,000 children age out of the system every year without having been adopted...If we cannot adopt the current number of children, how could we adopt out many more?"
You make a fair point that adoption is not a solution to the abortion epidemic. I think we could advertise adoption better, though, but that's a separate issue and I agree with you right now we just can't do that. A better solution to the problem of not wanting kids is: do not have kids in the first place. Of course I have stated my stance on birth control, so I think if you don't want kids, you should not have sex. This is going to far into my religious beliefs though, so I'll back off.
"There is substantial scientific evidence that proves that fetal pain is not present by 20-28 weeks, although not 100%. But there is no true way to 100% verify any claim about a human fetus, including the thought that they do feel pain, so let's consider that point null."
You have beaten me on this point, lucky for me though it's not the epicenter of the debate. But congrats.
"Is it morally more acceptable to kill someone who feels no pain versus a person that feels pain? Disregard any other factors aside from that question, you must choose one, chances are it will be killing someone who feels no pain. Keep in mind this isn't saying it is okay, it is simply drawing a line between morally acceptable and unacceptable circumstance."
OK, I'll answer your question, but I'd like to point out that you called me out on a moral dillema earlier, and now you are giving me one. So, I'd have to say that, obviously, killing someone who feels no pain is the moral high ground. However, I feel this is a question meant to trap me and admit something I don't want to. It's not "drawing a line between morally acceptable and unacceptable circumstance." Both are immoral, I am simply saying one is LESS immoral, and thus not OK either way.
"...if a person can't sustain an active heartbeat without an umbilical cord or life support they've lost this critical factor in determining whether or not they have human rights... if it [CPR/AED] works, great, but if it doesn't that person doesn't have human rights to living anymore, they're dead."
These two statements you made conflict. You say when someone doesn't have a heartbeat, they have no rights. Then you say if the AED/CPR works, then they have human rights. What about the time in between? Do they lose their human rights and then gain them back?
"Also, I established at the end of those criteria that these are not to be associated with anything aside from a fetus, those are the standards you should take care not to violate when determining the cut off time for legality of abortion. If you have any other inquiries about this that don't relate to already born individuals then fire away."
I saw your criteria, but then I ignored it because I don't think its fair to only consider a fetus when you can directly correlate it to fully developed humans. It would make trying to prove my argument very difficult. And I got no more inquires.
Conclusion:
I believe I have shown that abortion is the murder of a human with human rights, and since murder is illegal, then abortion should not be legal.
I'll forfeit my argument for Round 5 because I began the debate and will only make counter arguments or answer questions if cakerman wants me to. Otherwise I am done here.
Again, thanks to cakerman for the opportunity to debate abortion, you have proven yourself to be a worthy opponent and this was by no means an a "piece of cake". Heh heh. I feel we both have a better understanding of each other side, and therefore this debate was fruitful. See ya 'round.
Debate Round No. 4
cakerman

Pro

You don't have to forfeit round 5 just because you started, your insight and opinion has been eye-opening, and regardless of whether or not the debate is a win or loss we both retained useful information from it. I do have some rebuttals to your points though, and just thinking about what i'm going to say before i type it i feel you deserve a round 5 argument.

I never said human life begins at conception, therefore you have committed a straw man logical fallacy. You have lost the debate, thanks for your time! :)

Darn, you got me there

And if it raises medical costs for everyone to prevent, I do not care. People die of cander, and this is a tragic death. People are treated for cancer, which raises medical costs

If you can come up with a feasible way to prevent the hundreds of thousands of embedded zygotes from dying, without overlapping on the adoption problem, i'm all ears. Also, I think it's worth mentioning that a problem like that would cost more money to solve than the US has in debt.

A better solution to the problem of not wanting kids is: do not have kids in the first place. Of course I have stated my stance on birth control, so I think if you don't want kids, you should not have sex

What about cases of rape?

Also, telling people the aren't allowed to have sex unless they want children is the antithisis of legality, that's just a violation of basic human liberties. Contraception like birth control and condoms (since you mentioned that earlier) are faulty in the aspect that people still get pregnant when using them at a surprisingly high rate. "Permanent" measures like vasectomy and the tying of the tubes even still have faults, people have gotten pregnant both from a man who has a vasectomy and a woman that has had tied tubes.

This is going to far into my religious beliefs though, so I'll back off

22 “If men fight with each other and hit a woman who is going to have a child so that she loses her baby but no other hurt comes to her, he must pay whatever the woman’s husband says he must, as agreed upon by the judges. 23 But if there is other hurt also, then it is life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, cut for cut, sore for sore.

Thought i'd throw that in there, this translation is from the NLV version but also apply to

NRSV, NRSVA, MSG, TLB, JUB, GNT, and EXB versions of the bible, I may be forgetting some but the same point applies. Also, I don;t think religious values are acceptable in the issue of abortion when the bible has clearly promoted sexism *such as right up there* multiple times.

Both are immoral, I am simply saying one is LESS immoral, and thus not OK either way.

This question was not a trap, it was a setup for my next point though. Some will say that abortion isn't okay either way, and as I said before i'm not happy about the killing of unborn children, but the only positives to it is the moral benefit of not causing it to feel pain.

What about the time in between? Do they lose their human rights and then gain them back?

This seems like a trick question to me, so i'll answer honestly. The person shouldn't lose their human rights between the period of technical death and resuscitation, hence the reason why doctors are legally forced to attempt resuscitation until it is futile. The person does lose their rights to live once the resuscitation becomes futile though.

I don't think its fair to only consider a fetus when you can directly correlate it to fully developed humans

There is a very clear difference between adults and fetuses, considering the fetus is still developing, and is nowhere close to having the brain of a fully developed human being. There is significant research that shows there are massive differences in fetal circulation and adult circulation, so considering the lack of ability to confirm I find it fair to say that there are also massive differences in fetal and adult brains.

http://nursingcrib.com...

https://biosci.mcdb.ucsb.edu...

http://doctor.ndtv.com...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

In conclusion:

Bodily autonomy means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long. Its why you can't be forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs. Even if you are dead. Even if you’d save or improve 20 lives. It’s why someone can’t touch you, have sex with you, or use your body in any way without your continuous consent.

A fetus is using someone’s body parts. Therefore under bodily autonomy, it is there by permission, not by right. It needs a persons continuous consent. If they deny and withdraw their consent, the pregnant person has the right to remove them from that moment. A fetus is equal in this regard because if I need someone else’s body parts to live, they can also legally deny me their use.
By saying a fetus has a right to someone’s body parts until it’s born, despite the pregnant person’s wishes, you are doing two things.

1. Granting a fetus more rights to other people’s bodies than any born person.
2. Awarding a pregnant person less rights to their body than a corpse.

Abstinence has never been proven to work, and in fact historically has been linked to a decrease in fertility.

Making abortions illegal is not going to stop women from having abortions. It is only going to force women to do what they did before abortions were legal. DIY abortions with coat-hangers, poisons, throwing yourself down the stairs or going to back alley abortions where they will either kill the woman or make her sterile. So the choice is up to you, do you want your wife, mother, sister, aunt, cousin, girlfriend to have an abortion in a safe, sterile environment or do you want her to decide between DIY or back alley abortions? The choice is yours, but abortions are going to happen either way.


JimShady

Con

Thanks to cakerman for the ability to post Round 5 arguments.

If you can come up with a feasible way to prevent the hundreds of thousands of embedded zygotes from dying, without overlapping on the adoption problem, i'm all ears. Also, I think it's worth mentioning that a problem like that would cost more money to solve than the US has in debt.

I'm not a scientist, so I don't have a solution for this problem. However I think scientists should be employed to figure out this problem, just as they are trying to figure out cancer. And I'm wondering where exactly you found out that the cost of fixing the problem would be more than the U.S. debt. I agree it will cost a lot, but that seems like a very large assumption.

What about cases of rape?

Human fetuses who have been concieved through rape do not deserve to die- they are innocent in the situation, and thus the mother should not be able to have an abortion. Punish the rapists with death before you punish the innocent.

Also, telling people the aren't allowed to have sex unless they want children is the antithisis of legality, that's just a violation of basic human liberties. Contraception like birth control and condoms (since you mentioned that earlier) are faulty in the aspect that people still get pregnant when using them at a surprisingly high rate. "Permanent" measures like vasectomy and the tying of the tubes even still have faults, people have gotten pregnant both from a man who has a vasectomy and a woman that has had tied tubes.

You know what else is a violation of human liberties? Abortion, because you take away the right to life, which I value over right to privacy. I know birth control does not work 100% of the time, but it is still highly effective. Sterilization is not a permanent fix, either, but again it is still effective. Again, I'm not pro-birth control, but I don't wanna go down that road because it leads to my religious beliefs. I'm still divided on birth control, anyway. Really what I'm trying to get at is abortion is not the solution.

“If men fight with each other and hit a woman who is going to have a child so that she loses her baby but no other hurt comes to her, he must pay whatever the woman’s husband says he must, as agreed upon by the judges. 23 But if there is other hurt also, then it is life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, cut for cut, sore for sore.

First off, I accept this verse as part of the Bible, although my preffered Bible is the New American Bible, but anyway, I agree with the verse above. It gives out punishment for killing a baby in the womb, and I don't see how it is sexist at all. The man is punished for harming the woman. Also, we agreed not to bring in religion to this debate. I was close to it earlier, but stepped back. This section of the debate is not valid under debate rules.

This question was not a trap, it was a setup for my next point though. Some will say that abortion isn't okay either way, and as I said before i'm not happy about the killing of unborn children, but the only positives to it is the moral benefit of not causing it to feel pain.

The negatives FAR out way the positives. There is a much larger moral benefit from not killing a child at all then killing a child and not inflicting pain. If we both agree that abortion is not the best option (which I think you are hinting at by saying you are not happy with), than find a better option. The difference between Pro-Choice and Pro-Life is that Pro-Choice settles for abortion, while Pro-Life tries to find a better solution.

This seems like a trick question to me, so i'll answer honestly. The person shouldn't lose their human rights between the period of technical death and resuscitation, hence the reason why doctors are legally forced to attempt resuscitation until it is futile. The person does lose their rights to live once the resuscitation becomes futile though.

So yes. It is a trick question (kind of) in that it's meant to trap you in your contradiction. Earlier you said human rights cease to exist when there is no heartbeat, and now you say it is once resuscitation has failed do humans lose human rights. There is inconsistency in your argument, which is what my trick question was trying to expose.

There is a very clear difference between adults and fetuses, considering the fetus is still developing, and is nowhere close to having the brain of a fully developed human being. There is significant research that shows there are massive differences in fetal circulation and adult circulation, so considering the lack of ability to confirm I find it fair to say that there are also massive differences in fetal and adult brains.

Well, I mean of course there are big developmental differences between adults and human fetuses, such as brain size. However, I think they should both be considered because both have the exact same DNA information. DNA is the building blocks of life, not the brain, so because they share the same amount of DNA info, they are comparable.

Even though I could take on your conclusion with counter arguments, I won't because I think it's a little unsportmanlike to counter your final word. However, just know that I'm not conceding it is correct. But again, thank you for the fun debate.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cakerman 1 year ago
cakerman
You can quite simply detatch those two points because they don't matter.

Go tell the ultra-westernized Greco-Romans in the 1st century that they are too westernized.

From 1870 there was a steady decline in fertility in England, linked not to a rise in the use of artificial contraception but to more traditional methods such as withdrawal and abstinence, further showing that abstinence doesn't truly work. The only reason abortion ever was illegal was mainly due to the 30% death rate for the woman and now that with a sterile hospital environment the death rate has shot down very significantly.

It says a lot of things when the oppressive country (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, A.K.A Soviet Russia) of Russia had abortion legal (excluding 1936-55 as Stalin heavily promoted population growth

A common theme seen in a lot of countries including the US is that abortion was never re-legalized after the initial laws that forbade it until the area of about the 50's to 80's.

If you think you could debate this with me I would be more than willing.

One more thing before I go, you can't equate being pro on abortion and con on killing autistic grown ups to a hypocrisy, that just really doesn't make sense
Posted by SolispsisticMind 1 year ago
SolispsisticMind
You see, to me it is the precise opposite. It is the paramount factor that you consider the consequences of your actions, and that you have a mature respect for how serious a level of commitment a sexual relationship entails. It is not stifling your freedom to make you take this responsibility seriously. Any more than it is stifling anyone's freedom to forbid them to drive under the influence, stick to the speed limit, pay their taxes and obey the law.

I further argue, that it is the trivialisation of sex (to that of a mere pleasurable pastime) that has led Western Society into this mess we are currently in.

And to clarify - yes, that is exactly what I am saying - if you are not ready/responsible enough to have children, then you are not ready/responsible enough to have sex. Period. It staggers me that you think you can detach these two inextricably linked points.
Posted by cakerman 1 year ago
cakerman
I think that we are just fine the way we are. Forcing women to not have sex unless they want children is forced abstinence in logical conclusion.

Most say that contraception can be used, but even if that is faulty then they should take responsibility and have the kid anyways (what you seem to imply) which is forced abstinence, more clearly explained like this:

If you don't want children you should not have sex, practice abstinence. If you want to have sex, considering humans are one of the few species that has sex for pleasure, you should use a condom or birth control. Say i'm a woman and I have my boyfriend/lover wear a condom, but this condom breaks and doesn't work. I end up being pregnant, and the consequent of your statement is to say to me "if you weren't ready for the possibility of having a kid you should not have had sex" Which boils down to: If you do not want children, don't have sex, but if your contraception doesn't work because you didn't want kids you should not have had sex since you weren't ready to have the kid.

Forced abstinence
Posted by SolispsisticMind 1 year ago
SolispsisticMind
That doesn't address the issue in the slightest. Most societies around the world had social norms that you were wed before having offspring - when you had the ability to provide, care for and raise the children. That is not a unique heritage of the Judeo-Christian culture, nor a wholly-owned subsidiary of religiosity by a long chalk.

It seems to me that the key bugbear you have with abortion is the fact that the main opponents have historically been rooted in religious conviction. You clearly oppose religion, therefore you seem to lean towards being sympathetic of any stance that generally stands at a variance to traditional religious values (judging by your positions on key topics). That this appears to be your prejudice is not my concern; although as a friend in the debating sphere, I would encourage you to introspect and consider to what degree this might cloud your objectivity on certain matters. [If you consider me to be off-base here, then my apologies - the intent is well-intentioned, and not to be condescending.]

My concern is for the logical link between permissive sexualisation of modern Western societies, and the triad of problems associated with unwanted pregnancies, abortion and over-capacity adoptee levels. Railing against religion adds nothing to the debate. Whether under the auspices of religion, or under the auspices of secular societal values, the issue is largely tackled by making sex outside a committed life-long partnership taboo. This doesn't have to be religious taboo. We have plenty of secular societal taboos, like not littering.

Let me frame the question a different way, do you think we are too permissive as a society - and do we (in general) take an irresponsible attitude towards sex and the responsibility to take seriously the potential of offspring? Or do you think the status quo in this regard is perfectly fine as it is?
Posted by cakerman 1 year ago
cakerman
I will address that issue with 5 words:

Separation of Church and State
Posted by SolispsisticMind 1 year ago
SolispsisticMind
Do you feel that is an unreasonable position for a sensible society, that genuinely seeks to protect the rights of the innocent and defenceless, to... hold!

5 ruddy characters short!
Posted by SolispsisticMind 1 year ago
SolispsisticMind
:o)

"...neglects to provide a solution"?

please refer to:

"maybe the problem is Western society's totally irresponsible over-permissive tolerance of sex outside of marriage"

ergo, the solution is to make it socially unacceptable to have carefree sex outside of marriage, and not to have a promiscuous permissive society where we just behave how we want then abort the lives of innocent beings out of convenience - simply to deal with the consequences of our collective irresponsibility.

If you can't/don't want to bring up offspring, then don't have sex. Make it as socially unpalatable as littering, or stealing, or beating up homeless people for fun. Plenty of societies before us recognised that you can and should take this stance.

The reason I critiqued the below as a "turd" of an argument, is that it is basically saying:

1) It's fine to be permissive of promiscuity in society

2) It's not fair to lumber the irresponsible people (those who have sex outside of a committed relationship and/or before they are ready and financially able to bring up offspring) with the consequences of their actions, ie they are happy to take all the "rights" without accepting any of the "responsibility", and we as a society support them in this lopsided "social contract"

3) It's ok to have a blunt solution of aborting an innocent life out of convenience to deal with the inevitable issue arising from points (1) + (2), and here are intellectualised reasons why it isn't really wrong...

I suggest to you that we do away with all of the above, and the solution is quite simply: do not allow people to think it's ok just to have sex whenever they feel like it, without a care to the potential offspring. That is the root cause of the problem. You address that problem, then the abortion/adoption problem is radically reduced.

Do you feel that is an unreasonable position for a sensible society, that genuinely seeks to protect the rights of the innocent and defenceless, to
Posted by cakerman 1 year ago
cakerman
maybe the problem is the fact that no one is adopting all of these children, it's a clear issue, and to call it a "turd" of an argument neglects to provide a solution
Posted by SolispsisticMind 1 year ago
SolispsisticMind
"If you don't want your baby you should put it up for adoption", "But the adoption system already can't cope, if we don't have all these abortions it will be even worse".

I hear this total turd of an argument all the time. The fact is, maybe the problem isn't the adoption system, maybe the problem is Western society's totally irresponsible over-permissive tolerance of sex outside of marriage. As Ben Shapiro says, "finish college, get a job, wait until marriage to have babies". It isn't frickin' rocket science.
Posted by cakerman 1 year ago
cakerman
what immediately discredits your entire argument is that Female Feticide is an Indian thing, If you look up Female Feticide the entire first page is all stuff from India, and the next page is all stuff about India (and a page from the orthodox wiki that opens up with : Female feticide is thus the conjunction of two ethical evils: abortion and gender bias. A fetus's right to life outweighs the parents' rights to wealth, pride, or convenience, whether the fetus is male or female)

Yes, I do think its messed up and something should be done to try and help prevent this, like how in 1994 India made determining your baby's gender illegal because of how big of an issue this is over there, but this is because of how strict their abortion policies are. In case you couldn't tell we are debating legality in the United States, not India, China, and parts of southeastern Europe (places where female feticide is a real threat, India is the worst though) This means that gender selective abortion isn't necessarily objectively wrong in a society where your guidelines for getting an abortion are far less strict
No votes have been placed for this debate.