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

Using nonreligious catchphrases, can one one oppose MOST abortions?

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  
Argument Due
We are waiting for cakerman to post argument for round #5. If you are cakerman, login to see your options.
Time Remaining
00days10hours23minutes50seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 days ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 101 times Debate No: 105621
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

KJVPrewrather

Pro

I intend to demonstrate scientifically, ethically, and politically, that all HOs (Human Organisms) should have equal legal rights to life and personhood under Constitutional American law, Regardless of location, or develelopement or ability, and attempt to prove their humanity without using any religious text. Like Ben Shapiro said, dacts don't care about your feelings.
cakerman

Con

I intend to demonstrate scientifically, ethically, not that fetuses aren't humans, but that the human incubating this organism until it becomes a viable life is responsible for whether or not that person must attached to that responsibility (up to a certain age), I refuse to advocate or debate in place of post 27-28 week (or third term) abortions.
Debate Round No. 1
KJVPrewrather

Pro

At fertilization, the human organism has his or her own genetic code. This is when they release early pregnancy factor into the mother'as body before implantation. 18 days after fertilixation, the human organism has a heartbeat. 6 1/2 weeks, the human organism has brainwaves, has a 90% chance of survival at the stage you're talking about. Serious ethical issues exist for killing a human organism when it's not self defense. With the availability of tubal ligation and contraception, do we need abortion? I make exceptions for the medical health of the mother.
cakerman

Con

Thank you, KJV, for giving me this opportunity to debate here with you today and in the following few.

When talking about as sensitive a topic as abortion is, it is always important to also terminate the realm of emotionally biased choices from the basket of arguments to choose from, I understand as well as anyone that the death of a potential human life can be a very sensitive or offensive thing, which is why in my thesis and rebuttal I will personally do my best to defend valiantly my position while simultaneously not trying to offend.

I contend that a fetus is not a sentient human being, a fetus is not capable of being aware of it's very own existence, and that the fetus' death does not hang any sort of moral predicament in front of us as human beings when an abortion is performed. It is in my sincere belief that the core word when talking about the legality, or morality for that matter, of abortion should always be "choice". Some like to say "where is the fetus' choice?", the fetus doesn't get a choice, the fetus isn't capable of making decisions, the fetus isn't capable of deciding to move it's own body or have conscious thought, therefore the fetus isn't endowed to the same rights that a born person, who has experience and knowledge and wisdom and an outlook on the world in some aspects would be, even if that born person is comatose. An argument I see very commonly put forth by Ben Shapiro himself and people who follow his beliefs on abortion, is "what about a comatose person?". What about a comatose person? That comatose person has already been developed, that born person already has senses, that born person has lived. But that isn't the only problem, see comatose people are allowed that choice, comatose people are endowed with that decision, but as we've already put forth a fetus cannot have a conscious thought or make a decision. This is where brain-dead individuals come into frame. We see it all too often, a man or woman who has suffered severe brain trauma and is permanently brain-dead with no thought, no control, no consciousness, and the families of those people are responsible for the choice of life or death of these victims. Given this fact are you also advocating that the family members of the person should have no say whatsoever in the life or death of the person that they are most likely paying to keep alive? Advocating that a woman who also pays money to keep a fetus alive, even if that fetus was conceived unintentionally, does NOT get that choice is simply an abuse on human rights, and gives the woman that harbors the fetus less rights than the organism that is feeding off of her and using her body's resources. A position that I don't agree with.

At fertilization, the human organism has his or her own genetic code.

So do all of the hundreds of thousands of zygotes that die due to implantation failure every time conception happens

has a 90% chance of survival at the stage you're talking about.

Whilst most babies born at 27 weeks do face severe birth complications, and weeks worth of medical support to survive, I do personally favor abortions being required to use pain reducing drugs as a failsafe at about 22-24 weeks more.

With the availability of tubal ligation and contraception, do we need abortion?

Yes, it can be repeatably proven time and time again that birth control, or other methods of contraception are NOT 100% fail-proof. This being said if abortion was illegal we would have hundreds of thousands of kids, unwanted due to condom or birth control failure, inflating the already broken adoption system, and most likely heightening the single motherhood rate by massive figures.

I make exceptions for the medical health of the mother.

So the woman's wishes are irrelevant, only the health of her, only so that way she can give birth to a child and rise the population even further are important?

Debate Round No. 2
KJVPrewrather

Pro

Contraception can be used to prevent ovulation or fertilization. That's why I had my tubes removed. I don't want children either, bu I choose to act before conception. If a woman does not want her tubes removed, she can prevent conception other ways, like the birth control pill. All I'm asking women is please choose before conception for ethical reasons.
cakerman

Con

Thank you for your swift mannered response, it is appreciated

This round will consist mainly of rebuttals since I don't have much else to defend or restate from my last round's argument.


Contraception can be used to prevent ovulation or fertilization.

Refer to my round 2 argument here, but here are some statistics that show the margin of error just with 3 popular contraception methods. http://www.mathscareers.org.uk...

If a woman does not want her tubes removed, she can prevent conception other ways, like the birth control pill. All I'm asking women is please choose before conception for ethical reasons.

i appreciate your ethical concern over reproduction, but I also know somebody who has became pregnant with tied tubes. Also, women don't always get that choice, in cases of rape what are you to do? Ignore the woman's rights to not have her rapists baby? I don't necessarily have a problem with your stance, it's just the fact that the right to choose these types of things are ignored under the ideas you're proposing. If a woman chooses to not have a baby but the contraception fails, do we still force them into having children?


Debate Round No. 3
KJVPrewrather

Pro

I guess my ethical concern is taking a human life when it's no self defense. I would have killed either of my two rapists in self defense. I do not believe in violence against those that can't defend themselves.
cakerman

Con

I guess my ethical concern is taking a human life when it's no self defense

That would be the primal, emotional response that would be given by pretty much anyone, but refer again to my round 2 argument about the brain-dead.

I would have killed either of my two rapists in self defense.

I wouldn't feel bad for either of them

I would formulate a longer response but your rather brief segments of response don't really open up that opportunity for me
Debate Round No. 4
KJVPrewrather

Pro

Ethically, I'm procontraception and for a woman consensually having her tubes removed, Proadoption, proparenting for non violent humans, prochoice before conception, prolife after.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by canis 7 hours ago
canis
"I intend to demonstrate scientifically, ethically, and politically, that all HOs (Human Organisms) should have equal legal rights to life and personhood under Constitutional American law, "..
Well all human organisms are not wellcome or wanted at all...
Posted by Bitch_Goddess 3 days ago
Bitch_Goddess
6 1/2 weeks until brainwaves? I think you should check your facts again, Pro. That is incredibly incorrect.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.