Total Posts:101|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

On Abortion and the History of Human Rights

xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 7:37:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
That biological humanity does not depend on human choice, pluralistic consensus, or social recognition is a good thing for Jews in anti-semitic societies, slaves dominated by slaveholders, and women not recognized by patriarchal domination. History provides strong evidence in favor of an inclusive society in which all human beings are respected as persons having dignity as opposed to an exclusive society. Indeed, when considered in light of history it seems apparent that every single time the performance view has been chosen over the endowment view, gross moral mistakes were made. Although the legacy of discrimination is not entirely behind us, virtually no one today (at least in the West) would publicly defend any of the applications of the performance view - slavery, misogyny, racism, sexism, anti-Catholocism, or anti-Semitism. Every previous division of humankind was divided into two classes by some version of the performance evaluation in which one half was permitted to dispose of the other at will - men exploiting women, whites selling blacks, the young dispatching the old, the rich utilizing the poor, the healthy overpowering the sickly - and are nearly universally recognized as evil. Is abortion just one more episode of a long line of exploitation of the powerful over the weak?

-The Ethics of Abortion: Women's Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice by Christopher Kaczor
Nolite Timere
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 10:44:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why should human rights be extended to that which is not a human?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 11:03:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 10:44:04 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Why should human rights be extended to that which is not a human?

I think you mean, "not a person" rather than "not a human,"
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 11:06:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 10:44:04 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Why should human rights be extended to that which is not a human?

Of course this is the matter of dispute, and I think this is what distinguishes abortion as a particularly interesting case compared to past problems with sexism and racism. Why don't you think a fetus is a person?
Nolite Timere
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 11:07:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 11:03:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/5/2014 10:44:04 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Why should human rights be extended to that which is not a human?

I think you mean, "not a person" rather than "not a human,"

To me, the terms are largely interchangeable--my finger has human DNA, but it is not "a" human. The same goes for a fetus.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 11:10:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 11:06:32 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 11/5/2014 10:44:04 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Why should human rights be extended to that which is not a human?

Of course this is the matter of dispute, and I think this is what distinguishes abortion as a particularly interesting case compared to past problems with sexism and racism. Why don't you think a fetus is a person?

An acorn is not yet a tree. Similarly, a fetus is not yet a human/a person.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 11:16:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 11:10:19 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 11/5/2014 11:06:32 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 11/5/2014 10:44:04 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Why should human rights be extended to that which is not a human?

Of course this is the matter of dispute, and I think this is what distinguishes abortion as a particularly interesting case compared to past problems with sexism and racism. Why don't you think a fetus is a person?

An acorn is not yet a tree. Similarly, a fetus is not yet a human/a person.

"acorn" to "tree" are different stages of the life of a single species. "human" is the species. "acorn" to "tree" would be better related to "fetus" to "adult."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 11:20:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 11:16:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/5/2014 11:10:19 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 11/5/2014 11:06:32 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 11/5/2014 10:44:04 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Why should human rights be extended to that which is not a human?

Of course this is the matter of dispute, and I think this is what distinguishes abortion as a particularly interesting case compared to past problems with sexism and racism. Why don't you think a fetus is a person?

An acorn is not yet a tree. Similarly, a fetus is not yet a human/a person.

"acorn" to "tree" are different stages of the life of a single species. "human" is the species. "acorn" to "tree" would be better related to "fetus" to "adult."

Perhaps this is where the person/human distinction is relevant then.

The acorn lacks the traits of the tree, and so cannot reasonably be called a tree. Similarly, a fetus lacks the traits of a human (or person, if that makes more sense to you) and so cannot reasonably be described as such.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 4:59:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
As far as I am concerned, I would have children aborted that have been conceived outside wedlock. The planet has far to many people, and policies such as mine would not only reduce the population, but make people take procreation more seriously.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 5:16:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Do sperm have legal rights?

Do unfertilized eggs have legal rights?

Should eggs that have been fertilized but are now multiplying in cell count but lack a functioning brain and nervous system have rights?

My answer to all of these is a "No". And they shouldn't.


Of the billions of sperm that are released in the testes in search of an egg, the vast, vast, vast majority fail to accomplish this goal and go on to die! They have no rights.

The only beings worthy of rights are those with functioning relatively higher-brain activity or that provide a critical service to life in general. Animals should have rights, as should plants--they provide us with life-sustaining O2; humans should also have rights, as in those already born.

But a small clump of cells whose only link to being human is human DNA, but that lacks a central nervous system and functioning brain? No. It's rights should primarily be dependent on the creature carrying it to te
rm.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 5:19:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Correction:

But a small clump of cells whose only link to being human is human DNA, but that lacks a central nervous system and functioning brain--should this have rights? No. Its rights should primarily be dependent on the decisions of the creature carrying it to term.
Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 5:43:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 5:19:35 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Correction:

But a small clump of cells whose only link to being human is human DNA, but that lacks a central nervous system and functioning brain--should this have rights? No. Its rights should primarily be dependent on the decisions of the creature carrying it to term.

lol if sperm and egg cells have rights and are considered human, blowjobs would be considered cannibalism, and masturbation and menstruation would be considered genocide,
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 7:34:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 11:10:19 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 11/5/2014 11:06:32 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 11/5/2014 10:44:04 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Why should human rights be extended to that which is not a human?

Of course this is the matter of dispute, and I think this is what distinguishes abortion as a particularly interesting case compared to past problems with sexism and racism. Why don't you think a fetus is a person?

An acorn is not yet a tree. Similarly, a fetus is not yet a human/a person.

First, this explains no distinction in personhood, only a physical distinction. Second, this argument implies an inequality in life value throughout all stages of life. A fetus is different from a toddler, a toddler different from a teenager, and a teenager different from an adult. Each are in a different stage of physical and mental development. By your logic, only adults posess full personhood.

Specifically, what are the necessary traits for personhood?
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 7:37:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 11:07:44 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 11/5/2014 11:03:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/5/2014 10:44:04 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Why should human rights be extended to that which is not a human?

I think you mean, "not a person" rather than "not a human,"

To me, the terms are largely interchangeable--my finger has human DNA, but it is not "a" human. The same goes for a fetus.

Personhood simply means something (human or not) that has moral rights.
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 7:41:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 4:59:19 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
As far as I am concerned, I would have children aborted that have been conceived outside wedlock. The planet has far to many people, and policies such as mine would not only reduce the population, but make people take procreation more seriously.

If the fetus is a person with full moral rights, then we have sufficient reason to believe abortion is morally wrong and is an act that should not be committed. Problems like overpopulation are only accidental propeties, irrelevent to abortion itself.
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 7:45:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 5:16:55 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Do sperm have legal rights?

Do unfertilized eggs have legal rights?

Sperm nor eggs are not humans. Each have 23 chromosomes. It is when they come together as the 43 chromosomes that the process of growth as as a human begins.

Should eggs that have been fertilized but are now multiplying in cell count but lack a functioning brain and nervous system have rights?

My answer to all of these is a "No". And they shouldn't.


Of the billions of sperm that are released in the testes in search of an egg, the vast, vast, vast majority fail to accomplish this goal and go on to die! They have no rights.

The only beings worthy of rights are those with functioning relatively higher-brain activity or that provide a critical service to life in general. Animals should have rights, as should plants--they provide us with life-sustaining O2; humans should also have rights, as in those already born.

When you are asleep you lack the function of a higher brain process and you provide no critical service to humanity. Its okay for me to murder to right?

But a small clump of cells whose only link to being human is human DNA, but that lacks a central nervous system and functioning brain? No. It's rights should primarily be dependent on the creature carrying it to term.
Nolite Timere
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 7:55:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 7:45:50 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 11/6/2014 5:16:55 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Do sperm have legal rights?

Do unfertilized eggs have legal rights?


Sperm nor eggs are not humans. Each have 23 chromosomes. It is when they come together as the 43 chromosomes that the process of growth as as a human begins.

I think you need to be made aware of some basic science: liver cells and stomach cells have the 46 chromosomes found in all cells of the human body. But is a liver cell a human? What about a stomach cell?

Nope. A human is an organism that is made up of organs working in tandem to keep the human alive. These organs are made up of tissues, which are made of cells, which each have 46 chromosomes (which contain DNA that provide instructions in the creation life-giving proteins). I think when you look at your argument this way, it's clearly wrong.

Just because a cell has 46 chromosomes found in humans, it doesn't make the cells a human; rather, it makes the cell a human cell and that is all. But does that cell have rights?

No. Only humans, that consist of organ systems, which are constituted of cells containing human DNA, have rights. Human cells, which contain all 46 chromosomes and die much rapidly, do not on their own have human rights.


Should eggs that have been fertilized but are now multiplying in cell count but lack a functioning brain and nervous system have rights?

My answer to all of these is a "No". And they shouldn't.


Of the billions of sperm that are released in the testes in search of an egg, the vast, vast, vast majority fail to accomplish this goal and go on to die! They have no rights.

The only beings worthy of rights are those with functioning relatively higher-brain activity or that provide a critical service to life in general. Animals should have rights, as should plants--they provide us with life-sustaining O2; humans should also have rights, as in those already born.


When you are asleep you lack the function of a higher brain process and you provide no critical service to humanity. Its okay for me to murder to right?

But a small clump of cells whose only link to being human is human DNA, but that lacks a central nervous system and functioning brain? No. It's rights should primarily be dependent on the creature carrying it to term.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 8:19:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Crypto, if you want to argue that an under-developed human fetus should only be killed in specific ways, to minimize pain during the process, there I can see some legitimacy in your argument.

But if you claim is that an under-developed human fetus should have the same right to life as a human that has already been birthed and that has higher-brain activity, there I'm going to have to rebut you as absolutely wrong, based on the plethora of evidence that paints the fetus as underdeveloped and mentally very primitive!
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 9:24:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 7:55:56 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 11/6/2014 7:45:50 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 11/6/2014 5:16:55 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Do sperm have legal rights?

Do unfertilized eggs have legal rights?


Sperm nor eggs are not humans. Each have 23 chromosomes. It is when they come together as the 43 chromosomes that the process of growth as as a human begins.

I think you need to be made aware of some basic science: liver cells and stomach cells have the 46 chromosomes found in all cells of the human body. But is a liver cell a human? What about a stomach cell?

Nope. A human is an organism that is made up of organs working in tandem to keep the human alive. These organs are made up of tissues, which are made of cells, which each have 46 chromosomes (which contain DNA that provide instructions in the creation life-giving proteins). I think when you look at your argument this way, it's clearly wrong.

Just because a cell has 46 chromosomes found in humans, it doesn't make the cells a human; rather, it makes the cell a human cell and that is all. But does that cell have rights?

No. Only humans, that consist of organ systems, which are constituted of cells containing human DNA, have rights. Human cells, which contain all 46 chromosomes and die much rapidly, do not on their own have human rights.


It is widely accepted among scientists that conception is the beginning of human life.

"The formation, maturation, and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual. This penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization." - (Arey 1974 pg. 55)

The U.S Senate report on Senate Bill 158 stated:

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

The zygote begins producing the stem cells which are coded to creating the human being.

Should eggs that have been fertilized but are now multiplying in cell count but lack a functioning brain and nervous system have rights?

My answer to all of these is a "No". And they shouldn't.


Of the billions of sperm that are released in the testes in search of an egg, the vast, vast, vast majority fail to accomplish this goal and go on to die! They have no rights.

The only beings worthy of rights are those with functioning relatively higher-brain activity or that provide a critical service to life in general. Animals should have rights, as should plants--they provide us with life-sustaining O2; humans should also have rights, as in those already born.


When you are asleep you lack the function of a higher brain process and you provide no critical service to humanity. Its okay for me to murder to right?

But a small clump of cells whose only link to being human is human DNA, but that lacks a central nervous system and functioning brain? No. It's rights should primarily be dependent on the creature carrying it to term.
Nolite Timere
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 1:07:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 7:37:51 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 11/5/2014 11:07:44 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 11/5/2014 11:03:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/5/2014 10:44:04 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Why should human rights be extended to that which is not a human?

I think you mean, "not a person" rather than "not a human,"

To me, the terms are largely interchangeable--my finger has human DNA, but it is not "a" human. The same goes for a fetus.

Personhood simply means something (human or not) that has moral rights.

I know.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 2:12:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 7:34:08 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 11/5/2014 11:10:19 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 11/5/2014 11:06:32 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 11/5/2014 10:44:04 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Why should human rights be extended to that which is not a human?

Of course this is the matter of dispute, and I think this is what distinguishes abortion as a particularly interesting case compared to past problems with sexism and racism. Why don't you think a fetus is a person?

An acorn is not yet a tree. Similarly, a fetus is not yet a human/a person.

First, this explains no distinction in personhood, only a physical distinction.

Frankly, I think it does. An acorn is not yet a tree, so why should the acorn be entitled to all the same benefits a tree might have (if it had any)? I think there is definitely a difference in moral significance there, and it goes right to the heart of personhood.

Second, this argument implies an inequality in life value throughout all stages of life. A fetus is different from a toddler, a toddler different from a teenager, and a teenager different from an adult. Each are in a different stage of physical and mental development. By your logic, only adults posess full personhood.

I never said only adults have personhood--that mischaracterizes my position. An acorn might not be a tree, but a sapling definitely is.

Specifically, what are the necessary traits for personhood?

Okay--so what we're getting down to is where we draw the line between a person and non-person. Frankly, I am not 100% sure where that line lies, but I am certain, however, that the line lies somewhere around the later fetal stages and birth. In other words, I don't think any reasonable understanding of personhood could be applied to a zygote or fetus in a stage of very early development.

I think some possibilities for that brightline are (1) survival outside of the womb, (2) feeling pain, and (3) full development. I'll discuss each in a way that I hope is fair and relatively unbiased.

I've heard a lot of people talk about the ability to survive outside of the womb being the brightline for whether a fetus gains personhood. To me, this seems to work in the sense that it would not exclude any human being (already outside of the womb) from being viewed as a person. It is also nice in that it draws a distinction between parasitism and independent life. A fetus is currently viable around 24 weeks [http://en.wikipedia.org...] My reservations with this view, however, are numerous. My primary concern is that this brightline is changeable, and that implies arbitrariness. Let's take a look at two identical mothers (A and B), with two identical fetuses--the only difference between them is one mother is pregnant in 2014, and another is pregnant in 2020.

Both have their babies during the 23 week of gestation. Due to insufficient technological advancement, mother A's fetus doesn't survive. Yet, six years later, the technology has grown enough that mother B's baby does survive. Under the fetal viability threshold to personhood, the first baby isn't a person, but the second baby is. It seems to unacceptably tie whether something is a person to how advanced we are technologically...and technological prowess doesn't seem like it should have anything to do with the issue.

Feeling pain seems like a better criterion for personhood in the sense that it more directly relates to what a person is. Right and wrong have a lot to do with pain and pleasure, and so it would seem that a being capable of feeling pain has moral worth. A fetus, or so it appears, can feel pain around 24 weeks. [http://www.motherjones.com...] I also like this standard because it isn't changeable in the way that fetal viability is. But, even though feeling pain succeeds where fetal viability fails, feeling pain fails where fetal viability succeeds. There are people alive--the comatose, perhaps--who may be unable to feel pain (either physical or emotional.) Insofar as even one person (outside of the womb) cannot feel pain, pain is an unacceptable criterion, because it would exclude someone who deserves personhood from having it.

Personally, I think the most viable standard is full development. By "full" development, I don't mean to adulthood, but rather, I mean until the fetus has developed all of the biological facets of a recognizable human. "Full" might be a confusing term for me to use here, a bit of a misnomer, but it's the best I can come up with for the time being. Looking at the pattern of fetal development, [http://www.nlm.nih.gov...] I would say sometime around week 35 to week 37 the fetus is at a point of "full" development. It's blood vessels, muscles, and bones have finally developed, "completing" most of the development cycle. I think, perhaps, there is also a case to be made for the 31st to 34th week as being far enough along.

I think this standard works because, if we look at someone who is undeniably a person (e.g. you or me), we see certain physical traits (blood vessels, a brain, bones, skin, fat cells, etc.) A fetus in these very later weeks is the most recognizable to a person, so it seems to be the most likely candidate for personhood. This standard too, sadly, is not without its issues, because it would seem to imply that fetuses born before the 31st week and who manage to pull through are somehow not persons when they're born, still alive. That seems, to me, morally untenable.

Notice that I have conspicuously left conception and implantation off of the list of possible brightlines. These are the two brightlines most commonly employed by the pro-life crowd, and they are nice in that they are very conveniently measured, objectively verifiable, and straightforward to understand. They both fail, in my opinion, for the same reason: that they are just obviously not persons. An acorn is obviously not a tree, and it would be silly to talk about it in the same way we talk about trees (e.g. it would be silly to say that an acorn has leaves and is taller than a house.) Similarly, it would be foolish to talk of a zygote, blastocyst, or embryo as a full person. There is just too much measurable difference to make the necessary links.

I am not nearly smart enough or knowledgeable enough to say exactly where the brightline lies--and I am not going to pretend that I am. However, my personal opinion is that the brightline is probably some combination of the first three criteria I outlined.

But, even if we grant personhood at conception or implantation, I don't think that invalidates abortion.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 2:17:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
@Crypto-

Would you ever consider flipping the issue in a debate? By this I mean, would you be willing to take a debate where you took the pro-choice side, and I took the pro-life side?

I think it might be an interesting, informative, and challenging experience...
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
cb123
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 2:27:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A fetus has a heartbeat, that would mean the fetus whilst in the womb is in essence a person/human and most definitely is alive and a living thing, an abortion is taking a living fetus' life away.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 2:47:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 2:17:41 PM, bsh1 wrote:
@Crypto-

Would you ever consider flipping the issue in a debate? By this I mean, would you be willing to take a debate where you took the pro-choice side, and I took the pro-life side?

I think it might be an interesting, informative, and challenging experience...

I'll respond to your post when I can. That does sound like an interesting debate, perhaps one I would be interested it. It would be my first Devil's Advocate debate. I only just recently started looking into the ethics of abortion. In fact, I made this forum for the sole purpose of defending the knowledge on abortion I have recently attained.
Nolite Timere
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 2:51:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 2:27:38 PM, cb123 wrote:
A fetus has a heartbeat, that would mean the fetus whilst in the womb is in essence a person/human and most definitely is alive and a living thing, an abortion is taking a living fetus' life away.

That's really not a sufficient standard for life. Under this view, it would also be okay to abort implanted embryos prior to the development of a heart, which many pro-lifers oppose.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 2:52:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 2:47:33 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 11/6/2014 2:17:41 PM, bsh1 wrote:
@Crypto-

Would you ever consider flipping the issue in a debate? By this I mean, would you be willing to take a debate where you took the pro-choice side, and I took the pro-life side?

I think it might be an interesting, informative, and challenging experience...

I'll respond to your post when I can.

Okie dokie.

That does sound like an interesting debate, perhaps one I would be interested it. It would be my first Devil's Advocate debate.

Cool. Lemme know if/when you want to do it!

I only just recently started looking into the ethics of abortion. In fact, I made this forum for the sole purpose of defending the knowledge on abortion I have recently attained.

I only really began considering the issue early last year.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
cb123
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 3:07:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 2:51:37 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 2:27:38 PM, cb123 wrote:
A fetus has a heartbeat, that would mean the fetus whilst in the womb is in essence a person/human and most definitely is alive and a living thing, an abortion is taking a living fetus' life away.

That's really not a sufficient standard for life. Under this view, it would also be okay to abort implanted embryos prior to the development of a heart, which many pro-lifers oppose.

So would you also argue a person in a coma or a person who is paralysed should have there lives ended immediately, a heartbeat and brain activity are what determines a human being alive a fetus has both, a fetus as I said is alive, its a living growing human at all stages there for an abortion is ending the fetus' life. I would not say though that abortion should be made illegal completely but it should be accepted that the fetus is an individual life which you are ending should you choose to have an abortion and should be treated in the same manner as euthanasia
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 3:08:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 2:52:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 2:47:33 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 11/6/2014 2:17:41 PM, bsh1 wrote:
@Crypto-

Would you ever consider flipping the issue in a debate? By this I mean, would you be willing to take a debate where you took the pro-choice side, and I took the pro-life side?

I think it might be an interesting, informative, and challenging experience...

I'll respond to your post when I can.

Okie dokie.

That does sound like an interesting debate, perhaps one I would be interested it. It would be my first Devil's Advocate debate.

Cool. Lemme know if/when you want to do it!

Yeah, it sounds like it would be an fun and interesting experience. Let me see how I feel about defending abortion and seeing the arguments presented in favor of abortion through forums and I'll get back to you about doing the debate.

I only just recently started looking into the ethics of abortion. In fact, I made this forum for the sole purpose of defending the knowledge on abortion I have recently attained.

I only really began considering the issue early last year.
Nolite Timere
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 3:12:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 3:07:20 PM, cb123 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 2:51:37 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 2:27:38 PM, cb123 wrote:
A fetus has a heartbeat, that would mean the fetus whilst in the womb is in essence a person/human and most definitely is alive and a living thing, an abortion is taking a living fetus' life away.

That's really not a sufficient standard for life. Under this view, it would also be okay to abort implanted embryos prior to the development of a heart, which many pro-lifers oppose.

So would you also argue a person in a coma or a person who is paralysed should have there lives ended immediately

Absolutely not.

a heartbeat and brain activity are what determines a human being alive a fetus has both, a fetus as I said is alive, its a living growing human at all stages there for an abortion is ending the fetus' life.

Okay, let's separate life from personhood. It is a fetus's lack of personhood that means it can't claim the same rights as other "living" humans.

But even if a fetus did have personhood, that doesn't mean abortion is wrong. Abortion can be justified through the concepts of self-defense and privacy.

I would not say though that abortion should be made illegal completely but it should be accepted that the fetus is an individual life which you are ending should you choose to have an abortion and should be treated in the same manner as euthanasia

At what stage does a fetus gain these rights?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 3:16:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 3:12:21 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 3:07:20 PM, cb123 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 2:51:37 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 2:27:38 PM, cb123 wrote:
A fetus has a heartbeat, that would mean the fetus whilst in the womb is in essence a person/human and most definitely is alive and a living thing, an abortion is taking a living fetus' life away.

That's really not a sufficient standard for life. Under this view, it would also be okay to abort implanted embryos prior to the development of a heart, which many pro-lifers oppose.

So would you also argue a person in a coma or a person who is paralysed should have there lives ended immediately

Absolutely not.

Why?

a heartbeat and brain activity are what determines a human being alive a fetus has both, a fetus as I said is alive, its a living growing human at all stages there for an abortion is ending the fetus' life.

Okay, let's separate life from personhood. It is a fetus's lack of personhood that means it can't claim the same rights as other "living" humans.

But even if a fetus did have personhood, that doesn't mean abortion is wrong. Abortion can be justified through the concepts of self-defense and privacy.

I would not say though that abortion should be made illegal completely but it should be accepted that the fetus is an individual life which you are ending should you choose to have an abortion and should be treated in the same manner as euthanasia

At what stage does a fetus gain these rights?
Nolite Timere