The Instigator
dbox
Pro (for)
The Contender
InvincibleBlaze
Con (against)

A Zygote is a Human Being, Abortion is Murder

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
dbox has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/27/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 802 times Debate No: 117937
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

dbox

Pro

The debate is predicated on the set definitions of "organism", "murder", And "justification".

Organism: an individual (genetically distinct entity) constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of parts or organs more or less separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being

Murder: the unjustified killing of a human being by another human being

Justification: The action of showing something to be right, Reasonable, Or morally acceptable.

The opposition is free to contest the definitions provided they supply a scientific, Not semantic, Justification for the challenge.

My position is that human life begins at conception, And to unjustifiably end that life is murder. Con will be arguing against human life beginning at conception, And that unjustifiably ending the life is murder. If con concedes to it being murder, Then the discussion is open to the subject of what constitutes justification.

https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/organism
InvincibleBlaze

Con

My position is that it is a Person, Not a human, Who deserves moral consideration. Therefore, The unjustified killing of a non-person is not murder, And therefore not morally wrong.

At the moment of conception, The zygote is not yet a person and by extension, Does not have the rights normally granted to a person.

I would argue that a fetus should only be granted personhood after six weeks of development; this is when brain waves start to occur.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mosc 2 months ago
mosc
A jelly fish clearly aint a person. A blob of cells like wise. People with multiple amputations still live within the status of being human beings. Maybe someone sells them to the circus as human freaks but they still come under the heading as a human being.

C/P: "Say that five percent of men have the "spider gene" that when they turn 20 their bodies look similar to the structure of a spider, " Pie in the sky.

You want to express your opinion about a zygote being a human being, More power to ya.
Posted by cello242 2 months ago
cello242
@mosc

Why does having the shape of a human being determine person-hood? Would people with multiple amputations not have person-hood or people with major disabilities not be under moral consideration?

I offer the Spider Gene thought experiment

Say that five percent of men have the "spider gene" that when they turn 20 their bodies look similar to the structure of a spider, But still have the same personalities, Interests, Cognitive capabilities, Etc. On your view these people wouldn't be persons just because they don't have the shape of regular human beings.

I'd argue that shape does not determine person-hood, Therefore a zygote would retain person-hood as regarded in my argument for a fetus's person-hood

1. All human beings living between conception and brain death are persons
2. A fetus is a human being living post-conception and before brain death
3. A fetus is a person
Posted by mosc 2 months ago
mosc
A zygote exist as a cell that contains a complete set of chromosomes. Not till there exists the shape of a human being could any possible debate start about a human being. Roe vs. Wade simply requires a slight - doable - amendment. A woman could choose to abort an unwanted pregnancy up to 90 day. Starting with the 2nd trimester following conception abortion should have the criminal charge of murder.
Posted by dbox 2 months ago
dbox
mosc,

Actually to bring that in would be to take 3 steps backwards and none forward. The fundamental conversation is still concerning the artificial distinction of non person/person and the arbitrary line of potential. Their science is sorely outdated.
Posted by mosc 2 months ago
mosc
The debate has no foundation without mentioning Roe Vs. Wade.
Posted by dbox 2 months ago
dbox
I'm not sure what happened, I can not post the argument in the debate and it is just showing up in the comments. If you want, We can redo the debate and just copy the first round.
Posted by dbox 2 months ago
dbox
Thank you Con for your acceptance of the debate,

I would also like to say that while our positions are in stark opposition as they are fundamentally divided by the definition of what it means to be human, And what constitutes murder, I extend appreciation insofar as the position you present is representative of the current and strongest form of the position.

That being said, I will work to show that Cons position is based on what is by definition an arbitrary distinction between Person and Human. I posit that this distinction is unnatural and artificaial, And not mandated by any conclusive scientific evidence. The debate can not proceed past the equivocal use of Human and Person if it is to have any value, So this will be my focus.

Professor Thomasine Kushner is a biomedical ethicist has been working to determine the moral and existential implications attached to the presence of brainwaves in the early stages of human development. Her position is an attempted refinement of that proposed by Dr J. M. Goldenring who says since it is a given that 'brain death' has been accepted as the point where human life ends, Logic would suggest that since 'brain life' indicates the emergence of a functioning brain, Brain life should be considered the point when human life begins. Kushner argues that the "beginning" is indicated by the emergence of brain waves, And it is then that the human becomes a person, And gains moral significance and legal protection.

In my reading, The viewpoints on this are manifold (that is why this took so long to post), But I will present what I think are the most effective and relevant points against this unwarranted distinction.

It is indeterminate that the presence of brainwaves in infants have the same quality as that of adults. The brainwaves themselves merely express the potential for the qualities that are part and parcel of what has led to the declaration of brain death being the new death standard. It is said to be what ends t
Posted by picklerickfaggotboi 2 months ago
picklerickfaggotboi
i don't understand why murdering a baby is any different from murdering a infant/child/adult they are all living organisms starting when the sperm touched the egg so killing it is murder and abortion should be illegal. If a women gets raped and has a child and is not prepared for having a child, Give it up for adoption so that human being can live as God intended
Posted by MajikAzzumz 2 months ago
MajikAzzumz
Zygotes do not have any brain activity and have no thoughts, And cannot live without life support. They are still part of the mother and therefore are within the mother's choice to decide
Posted by dbox 2 months ago
dbox
I see that I worded this poorly.

Con will be arguing against human life beginning at conception, And that unjustifiably ending the life is murder. If con concedes to it being murder, Then the discussion is open to the subject of what constitutes justification.

1) Human life begins at conception
2) All humans have the right to life

Con) To take that life without just cause is murder (I think there may be some ways in which the baby can be killed, But not as the primary intention, That may not consititute murder. )

My thinking was that the primary point would be about life beginning at conception, Then if that life is human, Then if it is human then at what point does it gain right to life, And at what point can that right be justifibly overridden. Is that more clear?
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.