Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Consider This Argument

ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 8:47:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I. Murder denies a person the right to live life to its end without interference (interference in this case meaning someone ending your life prematurely through actions of their own).
II. Denying a person the right to live life to its end without interference is wrong.
Hence murder is wrong.

This seems like a sound argument that is not very controversial. Now consider this...

I. A fetus, if left free of interference, will grow to be a person.
II. A person has a right to live life to its end without interference.
III. Abortion denies a fetus the chance to grow into a person.
Thus, abortion denies a person their right to live life to its end without interference.

These two arguments are shockingly similar. We find murder wrong because it denies a person the right to live out their life. Yet a fetus has the same potential as a person, to continue to live on but abortion is not as universally abhorred as murder.

Why? Discuss.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 9:07:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 8:47:00 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I. Murder denies a person the right to live life to its end without interference (interference in this case meaning someone ending your life prematurely through actions of their own).
II. Denying a person the right to live life to its end without interference is wrong.
Hence murder is wrong.

This seems like a sound argument that is not very controversial. Now consider this...

I. A fetus, if left free of interference, will grow to be a person.
II. A person has a right to live life to its end without interference.
III. Abortion denies a fetus the chance to grow into a person.
Thus, abortion denies a person their right to live life to its end without interference.

These two arguments are shockingly similar. We find murder wrong because it denies a person the right to live out their life. Yet a fetus has the same potential as a person, to continue to live on but abortion is not as universally abhorred as murder.

Why? Discuss.

The argument presumes that a fetus is something more than just a potential. Namely, that the fetus is somehow "more" than the everyone's potential to have a baby. Is a fetus really any different than all of that "unseen" potential? A fetus will eventually grow into a person, but is contraception not the "murder", then, of whatever person would have been born?
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 9:08:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 8:47:00 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I. Murder denies a person the right to live life to its end without interference (interference in this case meaning someone ending your life prematurely through actions of their own).
II. Denying a person the right to live life to its end without interference is wrong.

Why? This argument is full of holes. War, to name just one.

Hence murder is wrong.

This seems like a sound argument that is not very controversial. Now consider this...

I. A fetus, if left free of interference, will grow to be a person.

Not always.

II. A person has a right to live life to its end without interference.

Again, why?

III. Abortion denies a fetus the chance to grow into a person.
Thus, abortion denies a person their right to live life to its end without interference.

These two arguments are shockingly similar. We find murder wrong because it denies a person the right to live out their life. Yet a fetus has the same potential as a person, to continue to live on but abortion is not as universally abhorred as murder.

Why? Discuss.

It's generally because a fetus is not a human and because abortions generally have good reasons for occurring. I would certainly hope a woman didn't just get up one day and think 'well, I feel like having an abortion today.' When there are just reasons behind an action (rape or endangering the mother for abortion), the action becomes justifiable.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 9:33:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 8:47:00 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I. Murder denies a person the right to live life to its end without interference (interference in this case meaning someone ending your life prematurely through actions of their own).
II. Denying a person the right to live life to its end without interference is wrong.
Hence murder is wrong.

This seems like a sound argument that is not very controversial. Now consider this...

I. A fetus, if left free of interference, will grow to be a person.
II. A person has a right to live life to its end without interference.
III. Abortion denies a fetus the chance to grow into a person.
Thus, abortion denies a person their right to live life to its end without interference.

These two arguments are shockingly similar. We find murder wrong because it denies a person the right to live out their life. Yet a fetus has the same potential as a person, to continue to live on but abortion is not as universally abhorred as murder.

Why? Discuss.

Because a fetus cannot "become" a person without interference.
My work here is, finally, done.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2014 7:31:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 9:07:02 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The argument presumes that a fetus is something more than just a potential.

No it doesn't, it is specifically about potentials. i.e. when you murder someone you have not destroyed their life up to that moment, only the potential of the rest of their life.

Namely, that the fetus is somehow "more" than the everyone's potential to have a baby. Is a fetus really any different than all of that "unseen" potential?

Biologically yes. It requires support just as child does but it is the exact same organism that will die at the age of 85 surrounded by descendents.

Theoretically with a machine providing the correct temperature, nutrients, etc... you could go from embryo to an 18 year old. That is not true of either a sperm or an egg.

A fetus will eventually grow into a person, but is contraception not the "murder", then, of whatever person would have been born?

The organism does not exist before conception to be destroyed. It does afterward. As for destroying the 'person' it is a fully arbitrary decision to say there is a person in the brain of the organism until it can prove it.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2014 8:08:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 8:47:00 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I. Murder denies a person the right to live life to its end without interference (interference in this case meaning someone ending your life prematurely through actions of their own).

Rights don't exist as a matter of principle. Right is a very good and very useful starting point when considering utility in an imperfect, uncontrollable, and unrelenting world like ours, but it doesn't have the final say.

II. Denying a person the right to live life to its end without interference is wrong.

Self-defense. Capital punishment. Euthanasia. You may argue differently, but I'm certain you can find certain cases where murder is justified; your Bible is littered with examples.

Hence murder is wrong.
This seems like a sound argument that is not very controversial. Now consider this...

It's not controversial for most of us because it's so obviously wrong. Only the pacifists, like the Buddhists, who will let others kill them, believe it is 100% inerrant.

I. A fetus, if left free of interference, will grow to be a person.

Must it do so inside of a woman's body?

II. A person has a right to live life to its end without interference.

You phrase this as if you don't believe that a fetus is a person. I'm not sure if this is your intention, but it is irrelevant whether a fetus is a person anyway.

III. Abortion denies a fetus the chance to grow into a person.

I am not obligated to save the starving children in this world; I, with my top 15% privilege, am not required to maintain someone else's life at the expense of my personal welfare. I'm denying rights by exerting my own right. So are you.

Thus, abortion denies a person their right to live life to its end without interference.

Separating a rapist and a menstruating young female from a dark alley does the same thing. Sure, one could argue that life begins at conception, but that's just as arbitrary a distinction as cutting an umbilical cord.

These two arguments are shockingly similar. We find murder wrong because it denies a person the right to live out their life. Yet a fetus has the same potential as a person, to continue to live on but abortion is not as universally abhorred as murder.

They are not the same because your average human doesn't live inside of someone else's uterus or incapable of swallowing food; and nor is neglect the same as killing. I find neither inherently wrong, although neither are beneficial to survival. But as humans, we can improve our welfare using reasoning,something few other species have, instead of dogma.

Why? Discuss.
0x5f3759df
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2014 9:42:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/1/2014 7:31:52 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:07:02 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The argument presumes that a fetus is something more than just a potential.

No it doesn't, it is specifically about potentials. i.e. when you murder someone you have not destroyed their life up to that moment, only the potential of the rest of their life.


Murder destroys the potential of an actual, while abortion merely destroys the potential of a fetus to develop into a person.

Namely, that the fetus is somehow "more" than the everyone's potential to have a baby. Is a fetus really any different than all of that "unseen" potential?

Biologically yes. It requires support just as child does but it is the exact same organism that will die at the age of 85 surrounded by descendents.


Why should we care about that?

Theoretically with a machine providing the correct temperature, nutrients, etc... you could go from embryo to an 18 year old. That is not true of either a sperm or an egg.

A fetus will eventually grow into a person, but is contraception not the "murder", then, of whatever person would have been born?

The organism does not exist before conception to be destroyed. It does afterward. As for destroying the 'person' it is a fully arbitrary decision to say there is a person in the brain of the organism until it can prove it.

The question is not whether the fetus is an "organism", but whether it is human. We value humans because of their ability to think and feel in ways that animals cannot (mere biology does not get to the issue). Something which has never been conscious does not meet these criteria.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2014 10:02:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/1/2014 8:08:50 PM, Bullish wrote:
Rights don't exist as a matter of principle. Right is a very good and very useful starting point when considering utility in an imperfect, uncontrollable, and unrelenting world like ours, but it doesn't have the final say.

Translation: I can ignore rights when I subjectively decide that imaginary, undefined, immeasurable quantities like 'utility' or 'happiness' are big enough (aka whenever I want).

Rights don't exist for you if you don't know why they should.

Self-defense. Capital punishment. Euthanasia. You may argue differently, but I'm certain you can find certain cases where murder is justified; your Bible is littered with examples.

If it's justified it's called killing not murder, and if it's justified it is the target that interfered first.

I am not obligated to save the starving children in this world; I, with my top 15% privilege, am not required to maintain someone else's life at the expense of my personal welfare. I'm denying rights by exerting my own right. So are you.

Then why not go ahead and violate the 'rights' of women not to carry babies?

nor is neglect the same as killing.

All the marxist (and derivatives who don't want to admit to being marxist) seem to disagree with you.

At 2/1/2014 9:42:39 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/1/2014 7:31:52 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:07:02 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The argument presumes that a fetus is something more than just a potential.

No it doesn't, it is specifically about potentials. i.e. when you murder someone you have not destroyed their life up to that moment, only the potential of the rest of their life.


Murder destroys the potential of an actual, while abortion merely destroys the potential of a fetus to develop into a person.

A difference without disticntion. Why is potential more sacred when some of it has been realized already?

Biologically yes. It requires support just as child does but it is the exact same organism that will die at the age of 85 surrounded by descendents.


Why should we care about that?

You asked the quesiton.

The organism does not exist before conception to be destroyed. It does afterward. As for destroying the 'person' it is a fully arbitrary decision to say there is a person in the brain of the organism until it can prove it.


The question is not whether the fetus is an "organism", but whether it is human. We value humans because of their ability to think and feel in ways that animals cannot (mere biology does not get to the issue). Something which has never been conscious does not meet these criteria.

A human is an individual organism of the human species, so yes it's human and indeed a human.

Humans are animals, and what must we all value in man that cannot be found in another species?
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
DudeStop
Posts: 1,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 5:21:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 8:47:00 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I. Murder denies a person the right to live life to its end without interference (interference in this case meaning someone ending your life prematurely through actions of their own).
II. Denying a person the right to live life to its end without interference is wrong.
Hence murder is wrong.

This seems like a sound argument that is not very controversial. Now consider this...

I. A fetus, if left free of interference, will grow to be a person.
II. A person has a right to live life to its end without interference.
III. Abortion denies a fetus the chance to grow into a person.
Thus, abortion denies a person their right to live life to its end without interference.

These two arguments are shockingly similar. We find murder wrong because it denies a person the right to live out their life. Yet a fetus has the same potential as a person, to continue to live on but abortion is not as universally abhorred as murder.

Why? Discuss.
I am going to become 21 supposedly. Do I have the right to drink alcohol? Of course not...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 6:36:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 8:47:00 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I. Murder denies a person the right to live life to its end without interference (interference in this case meaning someone ending your life prematurely through actions of their own).
II. Denying a person the right to live life to its end without interference is wrong.
Hence murder is wrong.

This seems like a sound argument that is not very controversial. Now consider this...

I. A fetus, if left free of interference, will grow to be a person.
II. A person has a right to live life to its end without interference.
III. Abortion denies a fetus the chance to grow into a person.
Thus, abortion denies a person their right to live life to its end without interference.

These two arguments are shockingly similar. We find murder wrong because it denies a person the right to live out their life. Yet a fetus has the same potential as a person, to continue to live on but abortion is not as universally abhorred as murder.

Why? Discuss.

The argument comes back to 2 things:

1) Women's right to Privacy (The right to Abortion is merely an extension). Of course here we have two rights conflicting, and the more important right must come first. That would be the Right to Life.

2) The only viable argument... Whether or not the fetus is alive. I've argued this a few times... Mikal dropped that part of the argument and tried for a philosophical argument instead, and Pozzessed didn't try fighting it either.

If you do not believe the fetus is alive, you wouldn't expect Abortion to be a violation of the Right to Life.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 6:36:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 9:08:01 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:47:00 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I. Murder denies a person the right to live life to its end without interference (interference in this case meaning someone ending your life prematurely through actions of their own).
II. Denying a person the right to live life to its end without interference is wrong.

Why? This argument is full of holes. War, to name just one.

Exceptions to the law do not prove the law wrong.

Hence murder is wrong.

This seems like a sound argument that is not very controversial. Now consider this...

I. A fetus, if left free of interference, will grow to be a person.

Not always.

II. A person has a right to live life to its end without interference.

Again, why?

III. Abortion denies a fetus the chance to grow into a person.
Thus, abortion denies a person their right to live life to its end without interference.

These two arguments are shockingly similar. We find murder wrong because it denies a person the right to live out their life. Yet a fetus has the same potential as a person, to continue to live on but abortion is not as universally abhorred as murder.

Why? Discuss.

It's generally because a fetus is not a human and because abortions generally have good reasons for occurring. I would certainly hope a woman didn't just get up one day and think 'well, I feel like having an abortion today.' When there are just reasons behind an action (rape or endangering the mother for abortion), the action becomes justifiable.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 6:38:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/1/2014 9:42:39 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/1/2014 7:31:52 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:07:02 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The argument presumes that a fetus is something more than just a potential.

No it doesn't, it is specifically about potentials. i.e. when you murder someone you have not destroyed their life up to that moment, only the potential of the rest of their life.


Murder destroys the potential of an actual, while abortion merely destroys the potential of a fetus to develop into a person.

I could argue that a fetus is already a person.


Namely, that the fetus is somehow "more" than the everyone's potential to have a baby. Is a fetus really any different than all of that "unseen" potential?

Biologically yes. It requires support just as child does but it is the exact same organism that will die at the age of 85 surrounded by descendents.


Why should we care about that?

Theoretically with a machine providing the correct temperature, nutrients, etc... you could go from embryo to an 18 year old. That is not true of either a sperm or an egg.

A fetus will eventually grow into a person, but is contraception not the "murder", then, of whatever person would have been born?

The organism does not exist before conception to be destroyed. It does afterward. As for destroying the 'person' it is a fully arbitrary decision to say there is a person in the brain of the organism until it can prove it.


The question is not whether the fetus is an "organism", but whether it is human. We value humans because of their ability to think and feel in ways that animals cannot (mere biology does not get to the issue). Something which has never been conscious does not meet these criteria.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 6:47:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 6:36:55 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:08:01 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:47:00 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I. Murder denies a person the right to live life to its end without interference (interference in this case meaning someone ending your life prematurely through actions of their own).
II. Denying a person the right to live life to its end without interference is wrong.

Why? This argument is full of holes. War, to name just one.

Exceptions to the law do not prove the law wrong.

Then you can look at that from 2 other ways. That abortion is also an exception or that abortion is irrelevant to the point since a foetus isn't alive anyway.

Hence murder is wrong.

This seems like a sound argument that is not very controversial. Now consider this...

I. A fetus, if left free of interference, will grow to be a person.

Not always.

II. A person has a right to live life to its end without interference.

Again, why?

III. Abortion denies a fetus the chance to grow into a person.
Thus, abortion denies a person their right to live life to its end without interference.

These two arguments are shockingly similar. We find murder wrong because it denies a person the right to live out their life. Yet a fetus has the same potential as a person, to continue to live on but abortion is not as universally abhorred as murder.

Why? Discuss.

It's generally because a fetus is not a human and because abortions generally have good reasons for occurring. I would certainly hope a woman didn't just get up one day and think 'well, I feel like having an abortion today.' When there are just reasons behind an action (rape or endangering the mother for abortion), the action becomes justifiable.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 6:48:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 6:47:00 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:36:55 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:08:01 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:47:00 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I. Murder denies a person the right to live life to its end without interference (interference in this case meaning someone ending your life prematurely through actions of their own).
II. Denying a person the right to live life to its end without interference is wrong.

Why? This argument is full of holes. War, to name just one.

Exceptions to the law do not prove the law wrong.

Then you can look at that from 2 other ways. That abortion is also an exception or that abortion is irrelevant to the point since a foetus isn't alive anyway.

1) Abortion isn't an exception because war is... You have to prove that Abortions an exception.

2) Only in denial can someone say a fetus isn't alive. It very much lives. Unless you wish to debate it.

Hence murder is wrong.

This seems like a sound argument that is not very controversial. Now consider this...

I. A fetus, if left free of interference, will grow to be a person.

Not always.

II. A person has a right to live life to its end without interference.

Again, why?

III. Abortion denies a fetus the chance to grow into a person.
Thus, abortion denies a person their right to live life to its end without interference.

These two arguments are shockingly similar. We find murder wrong because it denies a person the right to live out their life. Yet a fetus has the same potential as a person, to continue to live on but abortion is not as universally abhorred as murder.

Why? Discuss.

It's generally because a fetus is not a human and because abortions generally have good reasons for occurring. I would certainly hope a woman didn't just get up one day and think 'well, I feel like having an abortion today.' When there are just reasons behind an action (rape or endangering the mother for abortion), the action becomes justifiable.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 6:50:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 6:47:00 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:36:55 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:08:01 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:47:00 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I. Murder denies a person the right to live life to its end without interference (interference in this case meaning someone ending your life prematurely through actions of their own).
II. Denying a person the right to live life to its end without interference is wrong.

Why? This argument is full of holes. War, to name just one.

Exceptions to the law do not prove the law wrong.

Then you can look at that from 2 other ways. That abortion is also an exception or that abortion is irrelevant to the point since a foetus isn't alive anyway.

Besides, in War, you still can't kill an innocent person. Only opposing soldiers.

Hence murder is wrong.

This seems like a sound argument that is not very controversial. Now consider this...

I. A fetus, if left free of interference, will grow to be a person.

Not always.

II. A person has a right to live life to its end without interference.

Again, why?

III. Abortion denies a fetus the chance to grow into a person.
Thus, abortion denies a person their right to live life to its end without interference.

These two arguments are shockingly similar. We find murder wrong because it denies a person the right to live out their life. Yet a fetus has the same potential as a person, to continue to live on but abortion is not as universally abhorred as murder.

Why? Discuss.

It's generally because a fetus is not a human and because abortions generally have good reasons for occurring. I would certainly hope a woman didn't just get up one day and think 'well, I feel like having an abortion today.' When there are just reasons behind an action (rape or endangering the mother for abortion), the action becomes justifiable.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 6:54:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 6:48:48 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:47:00 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:36:55 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:08:01 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:47:00 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I. Murder denies a person the right to live life to its end without interference (interference in this case meaning someone ending your life prematurely through actions of their own).
II. Denying a person the right to live life to its end without interference is wrong.

Why? This argument is full of holes. War, to name just one.

Exceptions to the law do not prove the law wrong.

Then you can look at that from 2 other ways. That abortion is also an exception or that abortion is irrelevant to the point since a foetus isn't alive anyway.

1) Abortion isn't an exception because war is... You have to prove that Abortions an exception.

Then your argument can't reside on exceptions and law if you arbitrarily declare what is and is not an exception.

2) Only in denial can someone say a fetus isn't alive. It very much lives. Unless you wish to debate it.

A foetus has no heartbeat for the first 4-6 weeks during its conception. Something without a heartbeat certainly can't be called alive.

Hence murder is wrong.

This seems like a sound argument that is not very controversial. Now consider this...

I. A fetus, if left free of interference, will grow to be a person.

Not always.

II. A person has a right to live life to its end without interference.

Again, why?

III. Abortion denies a fetus the chance to grow into a person.
Thus, abortion denies a person their right to live life to its end without interference.

These two arguments are shockingly similar. We find murder wrong because it denies a person the right to live out their life. Yet a fetus has the same potential as a person, to continue to live on but abortion is not as universally abhorred as murder.

Why? Discuss.

It's generally because a fetus is not a human and because abortions generally have good reasons for occurring. I would certainly hope a woman didn't just get up one day and think 'well, I feel like having an abortion today.' When there are just reasons behind an action (rape or endangering the mother for abortion), the action becomes justifiable.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 6:57:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 6:54:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:48:48 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:47:00 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:36:55 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:08:01 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:47:00 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I. Murder denies a person the right to live life to its end without interference (interference in this case meaning someone ending your life prematurely through actions of their own).
II. Denying a person the right to live life to its end without interference is wrong.

Why? This argument is full of holes. War, to name just one.

Exceptions to the law do not prove the law wrong.

Then you can look at that from 2 other ways. That abortion is also an exception or that abortion is irrelevant to the point since a foetus isn't alive anyway.

1) Abortion isn't an exception because war is... You have to prove that Abortions an exception.

Then your argument can't reside on exceptions and law if you arbitrarily declare what is and is not an exception.

War has already been established long ago as an exception to the rule. Abortion hasn't.


2) Only in denial can someone say a fetus isn't alive. It very much lives. Unless you wish to debate it.

A foetus has no heartbeat for the first 4-6 weeks during its conception. Something without a heartbeat certainly can't be called alive.

Funny... Neither do trees or jellyfish...


Hence murder is wrong.

This seems like a sound argument that is not very controversial. Now consider this...

I. A fetus, if left free of interference, will grow to be a person.

Not always.

II. A person has a right to live life to its end without interference.

Again, why?

III. Abortion denies a fetus the chance to grow into a person.
Thus, abortion denies a person their right to live life to its end without interference.

These two arguments are shockingly similar. We find murder wrong because it denies a person the right to live out their life. Yet a fetus has the same potential as a person, to continue to live on but abortion is not as universally abhorred as murder.

Why? Discuss.

It's generally because a fetus is not a human and because abortions generally have good reasons for occurring. I would certainly hope a woman didn't just get up one day and think 'well, I feel like having an abortion today.' When there are just reasons behind an action (rape or endangering the mother for abortion), the action becomes justifiable.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 7:01:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 6:57:28 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:54:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:48:48 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:47:00 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:36:55 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:08:01 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:47:00 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I. Murder denies a person the right to live life to its end without interference (interference in this case meaning someone ending your life prematurely through actions of their own).
II. Denying a person the right to live life to its end without interference is wrong.

Why? This argument is full of holes. War, to name just one.

Exceptions to the law do not prove the law wrong.

Then you can look at that from 2 other ways. That abortion is also an exception or that abortion is irrelevant to the point since a foetus isn't alive anyway.

1) Abortion isn't an exception because war is... You have to prove that Abortions an exception.

Then your argument can't reside on exceptions and law if you arbitrarily declare what is and is not an exception.

War has already been established long ago as an exception to the rule. Abortion hasn't.


2) Only in denial can someone say a fetus isn't alive. It very much lives. Unless you wish to debate it.

A foetus has no heartbeat for the first 4-6 weeks during its conception. Something without a heartbeat certainly can't be called alive.

Funny... Neither do trees or jellyfish...

Human, if you prefer. Jellyfish and trees are both already fully formed and developed. A sapling is a baby tree like a baby is a baby human, but an acorn is not an oak tree any more than a foetus is a human.


Hence murder is wrong.

This seems like a sound argument that is not very controversial. Now consider this...

I. A fetus, if left free of interference, will grow to be a person.

Not always.

II. A person has a right to live life to its end without interference.

Again, why?

III. Abortion denies a fetus the chance to grow into a person.
Thus, abortion denies a person their right to live life to its end without interference.

These two arguments are shockingly similar. We find murder wrong because it denies a person the right to live out their life. Yet a fetus has the same potential as a person, to continue to live on but abortion is not as universally abhorred as murder.

Why? Discuss.

It's generally because a fetus is not a human and because abortions generally have good reasons for occurring. I would certainly hope a woman didn't just get up one day and think 'well, I feel like having an abortion today.' When there are just reasons behind an action (rape or endangering the mother for abortion), the action becomes justifiable.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 7:09:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 7:01:21 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:57:28 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:54:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:48:48 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:47:00 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:36:55 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:08:01 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:47:00 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I. Murder denies a person the right to live life to its end without interference (interference in this case meaning someone ending your life prematurely through actions of their own).
II. Denying a person the right to live life to its end without interference is wrong.

Why? This argument is full of holes. War, to name just one.

Exceptions to the law do not prove the law wrong.

Then you can look at that from 2 other ways. That abortion is also an exception or that abortion is irrelevant to the point since a foetus isn't alive anyway.

1) Abortion isn't an exception because war is... You have to prove that Abortions an exception.

Then your argument can't reside on exceptions and law if you arbitrarily declare what is and is not an exception.

War has already been established long ago as an exception to the rule. Abortion hasn't.


2) Only in denial can someone say a fetus isn't alive. It very much lives. Unless you wish to debate it.

A foetus has no heartbeat for the first 4-6 weeks during its conception. Something without a heartbeat certainly can't be called alive.

Funny... Neither do trees or jellyfish...

Human, if you prefer. Jellyfish and trees are both already fully formed and developed. A sapling is a baby tree like a baby is a baby human, but an acorn is not an oak tree any more than a foetus is a human.

You know why jellyfish are alive despite no heartbeat? Because a heart beat isn't a Characteristic of Life. This is basic Biology that seems lost in the debate, but there are 7-10 accepted characteristics of life that are used to determine if something is living, and Heartbeat isn't among them. These are universal, applying to humans as well. The Characteristics need not be implemented immediately, just that, in time, you will fulfill them all (with Reproduction being an example, a 3 year old can not reproduce yet.) The heartbeat is an excuse by Pro-lifers to cut off Abortion, but it's not actually important. Sure, you will die without heart beat... But it's not the heart beat you need, it's the respiration. So long as you require air, you have what you need.



Hence murder is wrong.

This seems like a sound argument that is not very controversial. Now consider this...

I. A fetus, if left free of interference, will grow to be a person.

Not always.

II. A person has a right to live life to its end without interference.

Again, why?

III. Abortion denies a fetus the chance to grow into a person.
Thus, abortion denies a person their right to live life to its end without interference.

These two arguments are shockingly similar. We find murder wrong because it denies a person the right to live out their life. Yet a fetus has the same potential as a person, to continue to live on but abortion is not as universally abhorred as murder.

Why? Discuss.

It's generally because a fetus is not a human and because abortions generally have good reasons for occurring. I would certainly hope a woman didn't just get up one day and think 'well, I feel like having an abortion today.' When there are just reasons behind an action (rape or endangering the mother for abortion), the action becomes justifiable.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 7:20:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 7:09:53 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:01:21 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:57:28 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:54:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:48:48 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:47:00 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:36:55 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:08:01 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:47:00 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I. Murder denies a person the right to live life to its end without interference (interference in this case meaning someone ending your life prematurely through actions of their own).
II. Denying a person the right to live life to its end without interference is wrong.

Why? This argument is full of holes. War, to name just one.

Exceptions to the law do not prove the law wrong.

Then you can look at that from 2 other ways. That abortion is also an exception or that abortion is irrelevant to the point since a foetus isn't alive anyway.

1) Abortion isn't an exception because war is... You have to prove that Abortions an exception.

Then your argument can't reside on exceptions and law if you arbitrarily declare what is and is not an exception.

War has already been established long ago as an exception to the rule. Abortion hasn't.


2) Only in denial can someone say a fetus isn't alive. It very much lives. Unless you wish to debate it.

A foetus has no heartbeat for the first 4-6 weeks during its conception. Something without a heartbeat certainly can't be called alive.

Funny... Neither do trees or jellyfish...

Human, if you prefer. Jellyfish and trees are both already fully formed and developed. A sapling is a baby tree like a baby is a baby human, but an acorn is not an oak tree any more than a foetus is a human.

You know why jellyfish are alive despite no heartbeat? Because a heart beat isn't a Characteristic of Life. This is basic Biology that seems lost in the debate, but there are 7-10 accepted characteristics of life that are used to determine if something is living, and Heartbeat isn't among them. These are universal, applying to humans as well. The Characteristics need not be implemented immediately, just that, in time, you will fulfill them all (with Reproduction being an example, a 3 year old can not reproduce yet.) The heartbeat is an excuse by Pro-lifers to cut off Abortion, but it's not actually important. Sure, you will die without heart beat... But it's not the heart beat you need, it's the respiration. So long as you require air, you have what you need.

The question isn't whether the foetus is alive or not (which was poor wording on my part, I admit). The question is whether or not a foetus can reasonably be called a human and if so, when. I do not believe a foetus is a human at conception.



Hence murder is wrong.

This seems like a sound argument that is not very controversial. Now consider this...

I. A fetus, if left free of interference, will grow to be a person.

Not always.

II. A person has a right to live life to its end without interference.

Again, why?

III. Abortion denies a fetus the chance to grow into a person.
Thus, abortion denies a person their right to live life to its end without interference.

These two arguments are shockingly similar. We find murder wrong because it denies a person the right to live out their life. Yet a fetus has the same potential as a person, to continue to live on but abortion is not as universally abhorred as murder.

Why? Discuss.

It's generally because a fetus is not a human and because abortions generally have good reasons for occurring. I would certainly hope a woman didn't just get up one day and think 'well, I feel like having an abortion today.' When there are just reasons behind an action (rape or endangering the mother for abortion), the action becomes justifiable.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 7:26:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 7:20:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:09:53 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:01:21 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:57:28 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:54:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:48:48 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:47:00 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:36:55 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:08:01 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:47:00 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I. Murder denies a person the right to live life to its end without interference (interference in this case meaning someone ending your life prematurely through actions of their own).
II. Denying a person the right to live life to its end without interference is wrong.

Why? This argument is full of holes. War, to name just one.

Exceptions to the law do not prove the law wrong.

Then you can look at that from 2 other ways. That abortion is also an exception or that abortion is irrelevant to the point since a foetus isn't alive anyway.

1) Abortion isn't an exception because war is... You have to prove that Abortions an exception.

Then your argument can't reside on exceptions and law if you arbitrarily declare what is and is not an exception.

War has already been established long ago as an exception to the rule. Abortion hasn't.


2) Only in denial can someone say a fetus isn't alive. It very much lives. Unless you wish to debate it.

A foetus has no heartbeat for the first 4-6 weeks during its conception. Something without a heartbeat certainly can't be called alive.

Funny... Neither do trees or jellyfish...

Human, if you prefer. Jellyfish and trees are both already fully formed and developed. A sapling is a baby tree like a baby is a baby human, but an acorn is not an oak tree any more than a foetus is a human.

You know why jellyfish are alive despite no heartbeat? Because a heart beat isn't a Characteristic of Life. This is basic Biology that seems lost in the debate, but there are 7-10 accepted characteristics of life that are used to determine if something is living, and Heartbeat isn't among them. These are universal, applying to humans as well. The Characteristics need not be implemented immediately, just that, in time, you will fulfill them all (with Reproduction being an example, a 3 year old can not reproduce yet.) The heartbeat is an excuse by Pro-lifers to cut off Abortion, but it's not actually important. Sure, you will die without heart beat... But it's not the heart beat you need, it's the respiration. So long as you require air, you have what you need.

The question isn't whether the foetus is alive or not (which was poor wording on my part, I admit). The question is whether or not a foetus can reasonably be called a human and if so, when. I do not believe a foetus is a human at conception.

It's genetically human. Nothing else is needed. As soon as conception begins, the DNA is human, and thus the fetus is human.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

There is no other reason to assume it isn't human. Just because it looks different, or isn't as developed... A baby isn't has developed as an adult... At conception, the sperm and egg mix, and the immediate combination of Chromosomes is human.



Hence murder is wrong.

This seems like a sound argument that is not very controversial. Now consider this...

I. A fetus, if left free of interference, will grow to be a person.

Not always.

II. A person has a right to live life to its end without interference.

Again, why?

III. Abortion denies a fetus the chance to grow into a person.
Thus, abortion denies a person their right to live life to its end without interference.

These two arguments are shockingly similar. We find murder wrong because it denies a person the right to live out their life. Yet a fetus has the same potential as a person, to continue to live on but abortion is not as universally abhorred as murder.

Why? Discuss.

It's generally because a fetus is not a human and because abortions generally have good reasons for occurring. I would certainly hope a woman didn't just get up one day and think 'well, I feel like having an abortion today.' When there are just reasons behind an action (rape or endangering the mother for abortion), the action becomes justifiable.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 8:05:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 7:26:26 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:20:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:09:53 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:01:21 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:57:28 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:54:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:48:48 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:47:00 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:36:55 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:08:01 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:47:00 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I. Murder denies a person the right to live life to its end without interference (interference in this case meaning someone ending your life prematurely through actions of their own).
II. Denying a person the right to live life to its end without interference is wrong.

Why? This argument is full of holes. War, to name just one.

Exceptions to the law do not prove the law wrong.

Then you can look at that from 2 other ways. That abortion is also an exception or that abortion is irrelevant to the point since a foetus isn't alive anyway.

1) Abortion isn't an exception because war is... You have to prove that Abortions an exception.

Then your argument can't reside on exceptions and law if you arbitrarily declare what is and is not an exception.

War has already been established long ago as an exception to the rule. Abortion hasn't.


2) Only in denial can someone say a fetus isn't alive. It very much lives. Unless you wish to debate it.

A foetus has no heartbeat for the first 4-6 weeks during its conception. Something without a heartbeat certainly can't be called alive.

Funny... Neither do trees or jellyfish...

Human, if you prefer. Jellyfish and trees are both already fully formed and developed. A sapling is a baby tree like a baby is a baby human, but an acorn is not an oak tree any more than a foetus is a human.

You know why jellyfish are alive despite no heartbeat? Because a heart beat isn't a Characteristic of Life. This is basic Biology that seems lost in the debate, but there are 7-10 accepted characteristics of life that are used to determine if something is living, and Heartbeat isn't among them. These are universal, applying to humans as well. The Characteristics need not be implemented immediately, just that, in time, you will fulfill them all (with Reproduction being an example, a 3 year old can not reproduce yet.) The heartbeat is an excuse by Pro-lifers to cut off Abortion, but it's not actually important. Sure, you will die without heart beat... But it's not the heart beat you need, it's the respiration. So long as you require air, you have what you need.

The question isn't whether the foetus is alive or not (which was poor wording on my part, I admit). The question is whether or not a foetus can reasonably be called a human and if so, when. I do not believe a foetus is a human at conception.

It's genetically human. Nothing else is needed. As soon as conception begins, the DNA is human, and thus the fetus is human.

The DNA in a piece of dandruff is human by that standard. That is a ridiculous argument.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

There is no other reason to assume it isn't human. Just because it looks different, or isn't as developed... A baby isn't has developed as an adult... At conception, the sperm and egg mix, and the immediate combination of Chromosomes is human.

No. An acorn is not an oak tree; an egg is not an omelet; a foetus is not a human.

I already said a foetus has no heartbeat for the first 4-6 weeks. That may not be a condition for life, but it is certainly a condition to be considered human (or even animal).



Hence murder is wrong.

This seems like a sound argument that is not very controversial. Now consider this...

I. A fetus, if left free of interference, will grow to be a person.

Not always.

II. A person has a right to live life to its end without interference.

Again, why?

III. Abortion denies a fetus the chance to grow into a person.
Thus, abortion denies a person their right to live life to its end without interference.

These two arguments are shockingly similar. We find murder wrong because it denies a person the right to live out their life. Yet a fetus has the same potential as a person, to continue to live on but abortion is not as universally abhorred as murder.

Why? Discuss.

It's generally because a fetus is not a human and because abortions generally have good reasons for occurring. I would certainly hope a woman didn't just get up one day and think 'well, I feel like having an abortion today.' When there are just reasons behind an action (rape or endangering the mother for abortion), the action becomes justifiable.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 9:14:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 7:26:26 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:20:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:09:53 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:01:21 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:57:28 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:54:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:48:48 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:47:00 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:36:55 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:08:01 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:47:00 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I. Murder denies a person the right to live life to its end without interference (interference in this case meaning someone ending your life prematurely through actions of their own).
II. Denying a person the right to live life to its end without interference is wrong.

Why? This argument is full of holes. War, to name just one.

Exceptions to the law do not prove the law wrong.

Then you can look at that from 2 other ways. That abortion is also an exception or that abortion is irrelevant to the point since a foetus isn't alive anyway.

1) Abortion isn't an exception because war is... You have to prove that Abortions an exception.

Then your argument can't reside on exceptions and law if you arbitrarily declare what is and is not an exception.

War has already been established long ago as an exception to the rule. Abortion hasn't.


2) Only in denial can someone say a fetus isn't alive. It very much lives. Unless you wish to debate it.

A foetus has no heartbeat for the first 4-6 weeks during its conception. Something without a heartbeat certainly can't be called alive.

Funny... Neither do trees or jellyfish...

Human, if you prefer. Jellyfish and trees are both already fully formed and developed. A sapling is a baby tree like a baby is a baby human, but an acorn is not an oak tree any more than a foetus is a human.

You know why jellyfish are alive despite no heartbeat? Because a heart beat isn't a Characteristic of Life. This is basic Biology that seems lost in the debate, but there are 7-10 accepted characteristics of life that are used to determine if something is living, and Heartbeat isn't among them. These are universal, applying to humans as well. The Characteristics need not be implemented immediately, just that, in time, you will fulfill them all (with Reproduction being an example, a 3 year old can not reproduce yet.) The heartbeat is an excuse by Pro-lifers to cut off Abortion, but it's not actually important. Sure, you will die without heart beat... But it's not the heart beat you need, it's the respiration. So long as you require air, you have what you need.

The question isn't whether the foetus is alive or not (which was poor wording on my part, I admit). The question is whether or not a foetus can reasonably be called a human and if so, when. I do not believe a foetus is a human at conception.

It's genetically human. Nothing else is needed. As soon as conception begins, the DNA is human, and thus the fetus is human.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

There is no other reason to assume it isn't human. Just because it looks different, or isn't as developed... A baby isn't has developed as an adult... At conception, the sperm and egg mix, and the immediate combination of Chromosomes is human.

A living human, I mean.



Hence murder is wrong.

This seems like a sound argument that is not very controversial. Now consider this...

I. A fetus, if left free of interference, will grow to be a person.

Not always.

II. A person has a right to live life to its end without interference.

Again, why?

III. Abortion denies a fetus the chance to grow into a person.
Thus, abortion denies a person their right to live life to its end without interference.

These two arguments are shockingly similar. We find murder wrong because it denies a person the right to live out their life. Yet a fetus has the same potential as a person, to continue to live on but abortion is not as universally abhorred as murder.

Why? Discuss.

It's generally because a fetus is not a human and because abortions generally have good reasons for occurring. I would certainly hope a woman didn't just get up one day and think 'well, I feel like having an abortion today.' When there are just reasons behind an action (rape or endangering the mother for abortion), the action becomes justifiable.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 12:08:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 8:05:11 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:26:26 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:20:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:09:53 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:01:21 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:57:28 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:54:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:48:48 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:47:00 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:36:55 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:08:01 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:47:00 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I. Murder denies a person the right to live life to its end without interference (interference in this case meaning someone ending your life prematurely through actions of their own).
II. Denying a person the right to live life to its end without interference is wrong.

Why? This argument is full of holes. War, to name just one.

Exceptions to the law do not prove the law wrong.

Then you can look at that from 2 other ways. That abortion is also an exception or that abortion is irrelevant to the point since a foetus isn't alive anyway.

1) Abortion isn't an exception because war is... You have to prove that Abortions an exception.

Then your argument can't reside on exceptions and law if you arbitrarily declare what is and is not an exception.

War has already been established long ago as an exception to the rule. Abortion hasn't.


2) Only in denial can someone say a fetus isn't alive. It very much lives. Unless you wish to debate it.

A foetus has no heartbeat for the first 4-6 weeks during its conception. Something without a heartbeat certainly can't be called alive.

Funny... Neither do trees or jellyfish...

Human, if you prefer. Jellyfish and trees are both already fully formed and developed. A sapling is a baby tree like a baby is a baby human, but an acorn is not an oak tree any more than a foetus is a human.

You know why jellyfish are alive despite no heartbeat? Because a heart beat isn't a Characteristic of Life. This is basic Biology that seems lost in the debate, but there are 7-10 accepted characteristics of life that are used to determine if something is living, and Heartbeat isn't among them. These are universal, applying to humans as well. The Characteristics need not be implemented immediately, just that, in time, you will fulfill them all (with Reproduction being an example, a 3 year old can not reproduce yet.) The heartbeat is an excuse by Pro-lifers to cut off Abortion, but it's not actually important. Sure, you will die without heart beat... But it's not the heart beat you need, it's the respiration. So long as you require air, you have what you need.

The question isn't whether the foetus is alive or not (which was poor wording on my part, I admit). The question is whether or not a foetus can reasonably be called a human and if so, when. I do not believe a foetus is a human at conception.

It's genetically human. Nothing else is needed. As soon as conception begins, the DNA is human, and thus the fetus is human.

The DNA in a piece of dandruff is human by that standard. That is a ridiculous argument.

A piece of hair isn't human because it's part of the human... it's only an addition to organism, but isn't it's own organism. A fetuses dna is different from the mother, so it's it's own organism.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

There is no other reason to assume it isn't human. Just because it looks different, or isn't as developed... A baby isn't has developed as an adult... At conception, the sperm and egg mix, and the immediate combination of Chromosomes is human.

No. An acorn is not an oak tree; an egg is not an omelet; a foetus is not a human.

Technically, an accorn is of the same species... it's an oak. A tree isn't a species, but a stage of developement, like an adult, and the accorn is the sperm. Like the fetus, the sapling is a oak, even though it's not yet a tree (while of the same species, an accorn is more the sperm or egg.)

I already said a foetus has no heartbeat for the first 4-6 weeks. That may not be a condition for life, but it is certainly a condition to be considered human (or even animal).

Hardly. By whoms standards? Many species have heart beats, but they aren't human. Are you implying a jellyfish isn't an animal? While you will surely die without one (unless you are like a fetus, and respirate by different means) having one is a requirement to be human. Dna is the only requirement... Unique Dna.



Hence murder is wrong.

This seems like a sound argument that is not very controversial. Now consider this...

I. A fetus, if left free of interference, will grow to be a person.

Not always.

II. A person has a right to live life to its end without interference.

Again, why?

III. Abortion denies a fetus the chance to grow into a person.
Thus, abortion denies a person their right to live life to its end without interference.

These two arguments are shockingly similar. We find murder wrong because it denies a person the right to live out their life. Yet a fetus has the same potential as a person, to continue to live on but abortion is not as universally abhorred as murder.

Why? Discuss.

It's generally because a fetus is not a human and because abortions generally have good reasons for occurring. I would certainly hope a woman didn't just get up one day and think 'well, I feel like having an abortion today.' When there are just reasons behind an action (rape or endangering the mother for abortion), the action becomes justifiable.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 12:15:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 9:14:34 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:26:26 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:20:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:09:53 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:01:21 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:57:28 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:54:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:48:48 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:47:00 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:36:55 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:08:01 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:47:00 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I. Murder denies a person the right to live life to its end without interference (interference in this case meaning someone ending your life prematurely through actions of their own).
II. Denying a person the right to live life to its end without interference is wrong.

Why? This argument is full of holes. War, to name just one.

Exceptions to the law do not prove the law wrong.

Then you can look at that from 2 other ways. That abortion is also an exception or that abortion is irrelevant to the point since a foetus isn't alive anyway.

1) Abortion isn't an exception because war is... You have to prove that Abortions an exception.

Then your argument can't reside on exceptions and law if you arbitrarily declare what is and is not an exception.

War has already been established long ago as an exception to the rule. Abortion hasn't.


2) Only in denial can someone say a fetus isn't alive. It very much lives. Unless you wish to debate it.

A foetus has no heartbeat for the first 4-6 weeks during its conception. Something without a heartbeat certainly can't be called alive.

Funny... Neither do trees or jellyfish...

Human, if you prefer. Jellyfish and trees are both already fully formed and developed. A sapling is a baby tree like a baby is a baby human, but an acorn is not an oak tree any more than a foetus is a human.

You know why jellyfish are alive despite no heartbeat? Because a heart beat isn't a Characteristic of Life. This is basic Biology that seems lost in the debate, but there are 7-10 accepted characteristics of life that are used to determine if something is living, and Heartbeat isn't among them. These are universal, applying to humans as well. The Characteristics need not be implemented immediately, just that, in time, you will fulfill them all (with Reproduction being an example, a 3 year old can not reproduce yet.) The heartbeat is an excuse by Pro-lifers to cut off Abortion, but it's not actually important. Sure, you will die without heart beat... But it's not the heart beat you need, it's the respiration. So long as you require air, you have what you need.

The question isn't whether the foetus is alive or not (which was poor wording on my part, I admit). The question is whether or not a foetus can reasonably be called a human and if so, when. I do not believe a foetus is a human at conception.

It's genetically human. Nothing else is needed. As soon as conception begins, the DNA is human, and thus the fetus is human.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

There is no other reason to assume it isn't human. Just because it looks different, or isn't as developed... A baby isn't has developed as an adult... At conception, the sperm and egg mix, and the immediate combination of Chromosomes is human.

A living human, I mean.

Well... it's genetically human... and it's alive...



Hence murder is wrong.

This seems like a sound argument that is not very controversial. Now consider this...

I. A fetus, if left free of interference, will grow to be a person.

Not always.

II. A person has a right to live life to its end without interference.

Again, why?

III. Abortion denies a fetus the chance to grow into a person.
Thus, abortion denies a person their right to live life to its end without interference.

These two arguments are shockingly similar. We find murder wrong because it denies a person the right to live out their life. Yet a fetus has the same potential as a person, to continue to live on but abortion is not as universally abhorred as murder.

Why? Discuss.

It's generally because a fetus is not a human and because abortions generally have good reasons for occurring. I would certainly hope a woman didn't just get up one day and think 'well, I feel like having an abortion today.' When there are just reasons behind an action (rape or endangering the mother for abortion), the action becomes justifiable.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 8:32:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why are people acting as if the fetus isn't a person?
After all, we are all scientifically human so should we not all be treated as such?
Nolite Timere
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 8:54:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 12:15:19 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 9:14:34 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:26:26 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:20:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:09:53 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:01:21 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:57:28 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:54:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:48:48 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:47:00 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:36:55 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:08:01 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:47:00 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I. Murder denies a person the right to live life to its end without interference (interference in this case meaning someone ending your life prematurely through actions of their own).
II. Denying a person the right to live life to its end without interference is wrong.

Why? This argument is full of holes. War, to name just one.

Exceptions to the law do not prove the law wrong.

Then you can look at that from 2 other ways. That abortion is also an exception or that abortion is irrelevant to the point since a foetus isn't alive anyway.

1) Abortion isn't an exception because war is... You have to prove that Abortions an exception.

Then your argument can't reside on exceptions and law if you arbitrarily declare what is and is not an exception.

War has already been established long ago as an exception to the rule. Abortion hasn't.


2) Only in denial can someone say a fetus isn't alive. It very much lives. Unless you wish to debate it.

A foetus has no heartbeat for the first 4-6 weeks during its conception. Something without a heartbeat certainly can't be called alive.

Funny... Neither do trees or jellyfish...

Human, if you prefer. Jellyfish and trees are both already fully formed and developed. A sapling is a baby tree like a baby is a baby human, but an acorn is not an oak tree any more than a foetus is a human.

You know why jellyfish are alive despite no heartbeat? Because a heart beat isn't a Characteristic of Life. This is basic Biology that seems lost in the debate, but there are 7-10 accepted characteristics of life that are used to determine if something is living, and Heartbeat isn't among them. These are universal, applying to humans as well. The Characteristics need not be implemented immediately, just that, in time, you will fulfill them all (with Reproduction being an example, a 3 year old can not reproduce yet.) The heartbeat is an excuse by Pro-lifers to cut off Abortion, but it's not actually important. Sure, you will die without heart beat... But it's not the heart beat you need, it's the respiration. So long as you require air, you have what you need.

The question isn't whether the foetus is alive or not (which was poor wording on my part, I admit). The question is whether or not a foetus can reasonably be called a human and if so, when. I do not believe a foetus is a human at conception.

It's genetically human. Nothing else is needed. As soon as conception begins, the DNA is human, and thus the fetus is human.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

There is no other reason to assume it isn't human. Just because it looks different, or isn't as developed... A baby isn't has developed as an adult... At conception, the sperm and egg mix, and the immediate combination of Chromosomes is human.

A living human, I mean.

Well... it's genetically human... and it's alive...

It is not a living human if it does not have a heartbeat. Humans cannot survive without a heart.


Hence murder is wrong.

This seems like a sound argument that is not very controversial. Now consider this...

I. A fetus, if left free of interference, will grow to be a person.

Not always.

II. A person has a right to live life to its end without interference.

Again, why?

III. Abortion denies a fetus the chance to grow into a person.
Thus, abortion denies a person their right to live life to its end without interference.

These two arguments are shockingly similar. We find murder wrong because it denies a person the right to live out their life. Yet a fetus has the same potential as a person, to continue to live on but abortion is not as universally abhorred as murder.

Why? Discuss.

It's generally because a fetus is not a human and because abortions generally have good reasons for occurring. I would certainly hope a woman didn't just get up one day and think 'well, I feel like having an abortion today.' When there are just reasons behind an action (rape or endangering the mother for abortion), the action becomes justifiable.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 1:25:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 8:54:55 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/3/2014 12:15:19 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 9:14:34 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:26:26 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:20:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:09:53 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:01:21 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:57:28 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:54:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:48:48 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:47:00 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:36:55 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:08:01 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:47:00 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I. Murder denies a person the right to live life to its end without interference (interference in this case meaning someone ending your life prematurely through actions of their own).
II. Denying a person the right to live life to its end without interference is wrong.

Why? This argument is full of holes. War, to name just one.

Exceptions to the law do not prove the law wrong.

Then you can look at that from 2 other ways. That abortion is also an exception or that abortion is irrelevant to the point since a foetus isn't alive anyway.

1) Abortion isn't an exception because war is... You have to prove that Abortions an exception.

Then your argument can't reside on exceptions and law if you arbitrarily declare what is and is not an exception.

War has already been established long ago as an exception to the rule. Abortion hasn't.


2) Only in denial can someone say a fetus isn't alive. It very much lives. Unless you wish to debate it.

A foetus has no heartbeat for the first 4-6 weeks during its conception. Something without a heartbeat certainly can't be called alive.

Funny... Neither do trees or jellyfish...

Human, if you prefer. Jellyfish and trees are both already fully formed and developed. A sapling is a baby tree like a baby is a baby human, but an acorn is not an oak tree any more than a foetus is a human.

You know why jellyfish are alive despite no heartbeat? Because a heart beat isn't a Characteristic of Life. This is basic Biology that seems lost in the debate, but there are 7-10 accepted characteristics of life that are used to determine if something is living, and Heartbeat isn't among them. These are universal, applying to humans as well. The Characteristics need not be implemented immediately, just that, in time, you will fulfill them all (with Reproduction being an example, a 3 year old can not reproduce yet.) The heartbeat is an excuse by Pro-lifers to cut off Abortion, but it's not actually important. Sure, you will die without heart beat... But it's not the heart beat you need, it's the respiration. So long as you require air, you have what you need.

The question isn't whether the foetus is alive or not (which was poor wording on my part, I admit). The question is whether or not a foetus can reasonably be called a human and if so, when. I do not believe a foetus is a human at conception.

It's genetically human. Nothing else is needed. As soon as conception begins, the DNA is human, and thus the fetus is human.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

There is no other reason to assume it isn't human. Just because it looks different, or isn't as developed... A baby isn't has developed as an adult... At conception, the sperm and egg mix, and the immediate combination of Chromosomes is human.

A living human, I mean.

Well... it's genetically human... and it's alive...

It is not a living human if it does not have a heartbeat. Humans cannot survive without a heart.

I ready discussed that. It's not the heartbeat you need. Its the respiration, so if you can respirate without a heartbeat (which a fetus can at this stage) than you're still living. You and me can't get air throughout our body without a heartbeat, but the fetus can with the placenta.



Hence murder is wrong.

This seems like a sound argument that is not very controversial. Now consider this...

I. A fetus, if left free of interference, will grow to be a person.

Not always.

II. A person has a right to live life to its end without interference.

Again, why?

III. Abortion denies a fetus the chance to grow into a person.
Thus, abortion denies a person their right to live life to its end without interference.

These two arguments are shockingly similar. We find murder wrong because it denies a person the right to live out their life. Yet a fetus has the same potential as a person, to continue to live on but abortion is not as universally abhorred as murder.

Why? Discuss.

It's generally because a fetus is not a human and because abortions generally have good reasons for occurring. I would certainly hope a woman didn't just get up one day and think 'well, I feel like having an abortion today.' When there are just reasons behind an action (rape or endangering the mother for abortion), the action becomes justifiable.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 8:59:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 1:25:44 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/3/2014 8:54:55 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/3/2014 12:15:19 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 9:14:34 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:26:26 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:20:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:09:53 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:01:21 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:57:28 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:54:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:48:48 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:47:00 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:36:55 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:08:01 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:47:00 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I. Murder denies a person the right to live life to its end without interference (interference in this case meaning someone ending your life prematurely through actions of their own).
II. Denying a person the right to live life to its end without interference is wrong.

Why? This argument is full of holes. War, to name just one.

Exceptions to the law do not prove the law wrong.

Then you can look at that from 2 other ways. That abortion is also an exception or that abortion is irrelevant to the point since a foetus isn't alive anyway.

1) Abortion isn't an exception because war is... You have to prove that Abortions an exception.

Then your argument can't reside on exceptions and law if you arbitrarily declare what is and is not an exception.

War has already been established long ago as an exception to the rule. Abortion hasn't.


2) Only in denial can someone say a fetus isn't alive. It very much lives. Unless you wish to debate it.

A foetus has no heartbeat for the first 4-6 weeks during its conception. Something without a heartbeat certainly can't be called alive.

Funny... Neither do trees or jellyfish...

Human, if you prefer. Jellyfish and trees are both already fully formed and developed. A sapling is a baby tree like a baby is a baby human, but an acorn is not an oak tree any more than a foetus is a human.

You know why jellyfish are alive despite no heartbeat? Because a heart beat isn't a Characteristic of Life. This is basic Biology that seems lost in the debate, but there are 7-10 accepted characteristics of life that are used to determine if something is living, and Heartbeat isn't among them. These are universal, applying to humans as well. The Characteristics need not be implemented immediately, just that, in time, you will fulfill them all (with Reproduction being an example, a 3 year old can not reproduce yet.) The heartbeat is an excuse by Pro-lifers to cut off Abortion, but it's not actually important. Sure, you will die without heart beat... But it's not the heart beat you need, it's the respiration. So long as you require air, you have what you need.

The question isn't whether the foetus is alive or not (which was poor wording on my part, I admit). The question is whether or not a foetus can reasonably be called a human and if so, when. I do not believe a foetus is a human at conception.

It's genetically human. Nothing else is needed. As soon as conception begins, the DNA is human, and thus the fetus is human.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...


It is not a living human if it does not have a heartbeat. Humans cannot survive without a heart.

I ready discussed that. It's not the heartbeat you need. Its the respiration, so if you can respirate without a heartbeat (which a fetus can at this stage) than you're still living. You and me can't get air throughout our body without a heartbeat, but the fetus can with the placenta.

A heartbeat is for more than just respiration. The fetus does not have an essential part of what all living humans have; thus it cannot be placed in the same category.

There are plenty of other aspects found in living humans but lacking in a fetus as well. For example, a fetus cannot feel pain for the first 24 weeks of its formation.



Hence murder is wrong.

This seems like a sound argument that is not very controversial. Now consider this...

I. A fetus, if left free of interference, will grow to be a person.

Not always.

II. A person has a right to live life to its end without interference.

Again, why?

III. Abortion denies a fetus the chance to grow into a person.
Thus, abortion denies a person their right to live life to its end without interference.

These two arguments are shockingly similar. We find murder wrong because it denies a person the right to live out their life. Yet a fetus has the same potential as a person, to continue to live on but abortion is not as universally abhorred as murder.

Why? Discuss.

It's generally because a fetus is not a human and because abortions generally have good reasons for occurring. I would certainly hope a woman didn't just get up one day and think 'well, I feel like having an abortion today.' When there are just reasons behind an action (rape or endangering the mother for abortion), the action becomes justifiable.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 9:02:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 8:59:39 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/3/2014 1:25:44 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/3/2014 8:54:55 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/3/2014 12:15:19 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 9:14:34 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:26:26 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:20:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:09:53 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:01:21 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:57:28 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:54:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:48:48 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:47:00 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/2/2014 6:36:55 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:08:01 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:47:00 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I. Murder denies a person the right to live life to its end without interference (interference in this case meaning someone ending your life prematurely through actions of their own).
II. Denying a person the right to live life to its end without interference is wrong.

Why? This argument is full of holes. War, to name just one.

Exceptions to the law do not prove the law wrong.

Then you can look at that from 2 other ways. That abortion is also an exception or that abortion is irrelevant to the point since a foetus isn't alive anyway.

1) Abortion isn't an exception because war is... You have to prove that Abortions an exception.

Then your argument can't reside on exceptions and law if you arbitrarily declare what is and is not an exception.

War has already been established long ago as an exception to the rule. Abortion hasn't.


2) Only in denial can someone say a fetus isn't alive. It very much lives. Unless you wish to debate it.

A foetus has no heartbeat for the first 4-6 weeks during its conception. Something without a heartbeat certainly can't be called alive.

Funny... Neither do trees or jellyfish...

Human, if you prefer. Jellyfish and trees are both already fully formed and developed. A sapling is a baby tree like a baby is a baby human, but an acorn is not an oak tree any more than a foetus is a human.

You know why jellyfish are alive despite no heartbeat? Because a heart beat isn't a Characteristic of Life. This is basic Biology that seems lost in the debate, but there are 7-10 accepted characteristics of life that are used to determine if something is living, and Heartbeat isn't among them. These are universal, applying to humans as well. The Characteristics need not be implemented immediately, just that, in time, you will fulfill them all (with Reproduction being an example, a 3 year old can not reproduce yet.) The heartbeat is an excuse by Pro-lifers to cut off Abortion, but it's not actually important. Sure, you will die without heart beat... But it's not the heart beat you need, it's the respiration. So long as you require air, you have what you need.

The question isn't whether the foetus is alive or not (which was poor wording on my part, I admit). The question is whether or not a foetus can reasonably be called a human and if so, when. I do not believe a foetus is a human at conception.

It's genetically human. Nothing else is needed. As soon as conception begins, the DNA is human, and thus the fetus is human.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...


It is not a living human if it does not have a heartbeat. Humans cannot survive without a heart.

I ready discussed that. It's not the heartbeat you need. Its the respiration, so if you can respirate without a heartbeat (which a fetus can at this stage) than you're still living. You and me can't get air throughout our body without a heartbeat, but the fetus can with the placenta.

A heartbeat is for more than just respiration. The fetus does not have an essential part of what all living humans have; thus it cannot be placed in the same category.

Heartbeats are for respiration and the movement of nutrients. Not much more... A fetus does that without needing a heartbeat. A heartbeat isn't essential to being human, not at all. DNA is the only requirement.

There are plenty of other aspects found in living humans but lacking in a fetus as well. For example, a fetus cannot feel pain for the first 24 weeks of its formation.

Many people can't feel pain. Some can't feel a thing. So what? DNA is the only requirement. You need only be genetically human (unique of other humans) to be human.



Hence murder is wrong.

This seems like a sound argument that is not very controversial. Now consider this...

I. A fetus, if left free of interference, will grow to be a person.

Not always.

II. A person has a right to live life to its end without interference.

Again, why?

III. Abortion denies a fetus the chance to grow into a person.
Thus, abortion denies a person their right to live life to its end without interference.

These two arguments are shockingly similar. We find murder wrong because it denies a person the right to live out their life. Yet a fetus has the same potential as a person, to continue to live on but abortion is not as universally abhorred as murder.

Why? Discuss.

It's generally because a fetus is not a human and because abortions generally have good reasons for occurring. I would certainly hope a woman didn't just get up one day and think 'well, I feel like having an abortion today.' When there are just reasons behind an action (rape or endangering the mother for abortion), the action becomes justifiable.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --