The Instigator
ConservativeDebating
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Wizofoz
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Abortion, In most instances, Is wrong and ought to be illegal.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 643 times Debate No: 122649
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (49)
Votes (0)

 

ConservativeDebating

Pro

Let's debate! I'm friendly and open to be persuaded!

R1 - Presentation of Arguments
R2 - Secondary Presentation of Arguments & Refutation
R3 - Refutation
R4 - Refutation & Conclusion

Clarification: When I say "in most instances" in the topic, I'm specifically refering to cases of lethal harm to the mother, More on this at the bottom.

I'm debating to learn, Not just fight. Let's get this show on the road!

-----

A Premise:
I'm going to begin with a premise.
I believe there is an ethical standard that it is morally wrong for one human being to take the life of another innocent human being. It should go without saying that this means there is no exception. This ethical standard is protected by law in our right to life.

Nexus Question:
Building from the premise, I think the nexus question of this debate is determining when life begins. Because, If that baby inside the womb is considered a life, Then it ought to be protected, And if it is not considered a life, Then its protection is not neccessary.
If the con disagrees with this proposition (or the premise), Then it is their burden to provide reasoning for why this question is not the nexus, And even provide a different determinant.

Answering the Nexus Question:
When it comes to the beginning of human life, There is only one consistent point, In my opinion, Which is at conception. Scientifically (my position is explictly not based on religion) speaking, Conception marks the creation of an entirely unique set of dna that defines this new human. Again, Hereinlies another burden of proof for the con. If there is disagreement on the answer to this question, Simply responding "your point is wrong" is not good enough. There is a neccessity to argue for a different point of conception, Because we can all agree that wherever it is, There is that point, And this debate is about finding it.

Exceptions:
Rape and incest are commonly cited in the debate for abortion. I ask the con, Would you be okay with a ban on all other instances if that is the case? If the answer is still no, Then bringing up these fringe cases are irrelevant to the broader question.
While the child's life is protected, The mother's is as well, Which allows a special (and the only) caviat: abortion is acceptable in the case of lethal danger to the mother.

Law:
I think the legal side of the sitaution simply evolves from the question of ethics. Our law, At a core level, Should protect ethical actions and forbid unethical actions. To be put simply, If abortion is unethical, Then it ought to be illegal.

Conclusion of R1:
Thanks for taking the time to read my argument. I want to make this an enjoyable debate, Please understand this is coming from a position of switch-side education, Not a place of hate!
Wizofoz

Con

I'm going to begin with a premise.
I believe there is an ethical standard that it is morally wrong for one human being to take the life of another innocent human being. It should go without saying that this means there is no exception. This ethical standard is protected by law in our right to life.

This premise is very clearly false.

There are many examples of the deliberate taking of human life being both legal and ethical.

If a member of law enforcement believes it is neccesary to kill in order to preserve his own or another saftey, He is entiled, Indeed he is REQUIRED to do so- even if it turns out he was mistaken, For instance in the Tamir Rice case where it was a twelve year old with what turned out to be a toy gun, The officer was not held crimminally responsible because he BELIEVED there was a threat. The child was innocent, But the shooting was not criminal.

In warfare, It would be wrong to call an enemy combatant anything but "innocent"- they are simply serving their country in the same way as an allied soldier is, Yet his death is consider ethical, And more over, Millions of completely innocent civilians have and continue to be killed, Often delibertly, To further the aims of the arggressor- aims which are often no more than politocal and ecconomic- a country, Especially the USA, Will kill innocent civilians with no more excuse than that it is in the "National interest".

ALL these people- victims of police shootings, Soldiers and civilians killed in warfare, Had a basic human right to life, Yet were killed as it was judged COMPETEING rights were more pressing.

ANd this is the nexus of the abortion debate.

I have shown it is clearly ridiculous to say that where there is a right to life, There are no exceptions to the ethicality of prserving it, And have given clear examples where it is not so.

It is naive to assume that there are only clear cut rights thaqt have no exceptions. There are many, Many cases where two parties will have perfectly valid, But COMPETEING rights.

Let's say someone needs a kidney transplant- this is someone you don't know. Maybe someone you don't like- let's say a jailed child molester. They may be a criminal, But they are still a human being and have the right to life.

The only compatible kidney on the planet is yours.

Thus, This persons' right to life is in direct competition to your right to choose if and to whom you donate a kidney.

Should you be compelled to do so?

Similarly, A fetus may have a right to life (though I am not conceeding this point), But the mother also has a right to bodily autonomy. One human being is under no obligation to use their body to ensure the survival of another, And a person cannot be compelled to keep another person inside their body if they do not choose to do so.

I do not like abortion. I feel it means one persons rights are being curtailed because of the carlessness of another in many cases. But after long reflection I have to accept that the bodily autonomy of a person is immutable, And if exercizing that right infringes on anothers, That is not the responsibility on the personn exerting the choice as to what happens in their own body.
Debate Round No. 1
ConservativeDebating

Pro

Hello Wizofoz, Thanks for accepting the debate!

Regarding my premise, Con mentions: "There are many examples of the deliberate taking of human life being both legal and ethical. "
Con cites examples of cops killing people because they believe their life is in imminent danger.

Obviously this is true. Con missed a critical part of my premise, Which is the word innocent. In the case of police shootings, This holds true. For ex. , If an office shoots a person who committed is surrendering (or running away with their back turned), This is forbidden, those peoples' right to life are protected, And the officer would rightfully be prosecuted.

In the case of Tamir Rice, This is a tragedy indeed because Tamir was an innocent juvenile. Unfortunately, Officers facing threats sometimes have to make judgements about the threat, And that is why there is a standard of reasonableness for officers as to justify the use of lethal force in scenarios where there is a percieved lethal threat. The key distinction here is that a baby in a womb, Is not a lethal threat to anyone, And cannot reasonably be percieved as such.

Con points to warfare. Fighting an enemy on a battlefield does not come with presumption of innocence. While I would argue that war itself is unethical, Killing an enemy that is conspiring with their nation to kill you, Is justified.
Con says: "Especially the USA, Will kill innocent civilians. . . In the "National interest". Someehow, Con suggests our current world thinks killing civilians is okay. It's not. No one thinks this ethically. If the persident ordered a targeting killing on an innocent civilian because of "national interest", It would not only be against international law, But the president would be committing murder. Unfortunately, Innocent civilians are casualties of war, But no one thinks that is good/ethical.

Con presents a new argument:
"someone needs a kidney transplant. . . They are still a human being and have the right to life.
The only compatible kidney on the planet is yours.
Thus, This persons' right to life is in direct competition to your right to choose. . .
Should you be compelled to do so? "
Absolutely not. In fact, You are not compelled to give you kidney to anyone, even you're family if you don't agree.
Con is making a conflation of the two types of rights, positive vs. negative.
Positive rights are rights that requires someone to afford a good or service to you, I. E. Right to heathcare forces doctors to provide services and medicine.
Negative rights are rights that requires other individuals to not interfere with your action, I. E. Freedom of religion prevents other people from forcing their religion onto you.
The Right to Life is, And should be, negative, Meaning that it protects and thus prevents other people from taking your life. It does not mean that other people ought to be forced to ensure you stay alive. This devolves from the question of freedom and liberty, Which is another debate on its own.

Furthermore, The con begins the next argument:
"Similarly, A fetus may have a right to life (though I am not conceeding this point), "
If you're not conceding this point, Explain why they do not have a right to life? You don't seem to offer an explanation anywhere else. In preempt of that, all life should have a right to life, And because you have forgone answering the quesiton of where life begins, Then it is a life and thus has the right to live.

Con continues:
"One human being is under no obligation to use their body to ensure the survival of another, . . . "

We might be able to establish some common ground, Concerning the liberty of ones decisions and about negative rights. If one human being is not under obligation to ensure the life of another, It seems you would answer no to your kidney question as well.
However, Con is missing a key difference. In the issue of a mother and a fetus inside her womb, she did make that decision to have the child. So they have chosen to carry this child, They cannot retroactively take this choice and kill the child instead.
Unfortunately, There is the issue of rape. While con did not present this argument, And I already mentioned this in my first round, This is the logical next step of this specific argument because in cases of rape, That mother did not choose to concieve a child.
The fact of the matter is that the right to life trumps the right of the mother to kill a life (because she does not have that right). In that scenario, The only individual who must be punished is the rapist.

Con concludes:
"I do not like abortion. . . I have to accept that bodily autonomy of a person is immutable".
Throughout con's argument, There has been no contestation of the child in the womb as being its own unique life, And thus its own body. The mother doesn't have 20 fingers and toes because the baby is not part of her body.
Abortion isn't just the baby's 'rights being curtailed', But all of their rights are, Because the baby is being killed.

Con has not provided an answer to where life begins, Default to mine.
Wizofoz

Con

Con has not provided an answer to where life begins, Default to mine.


I did not do so as it is irrelevant to my argument. There simply IS no answer to when life begins, It is a process. It is like asking when does paint become a painting. The idea that one cell (like a sperm or an ovum) isn't life, But two cells (like a zygote) is is an arbitrary assertion with no real justification.

In the case of Tamir Rice, This is a tragedy indeed because Tamir was an innocent juvenile. Unfortunately, Officers facing threats sometimes have to make judgements about the threat, And that is why there is a standard of reasonableness for officers as to justify the use of lethal force in scenarios where there is a percieved lethal threat. The key distinction here is that a baby in a womb, Is not a lethal threat to anyone, And cannot reasonably be percieved as such.

While I understand this distinction, I was using this as an example where it IS permotted for innocent life to be taken, Where it is judged REASONABLE. Every police officer knows innocent, Unarmed people get shot every year, Yet they are permitted to risk this if it is judged reasonable.

I would also point out that a fetus IS a risk to life. Pregnancy is one of the riskiest medical conditions, And deaths in childbirth number millions worldwide each year. It is reasonable for a women to not take this risk if she so chooses.

Killing an enemy that is conspiring with their nation to kill you, Is justified.

Many soldiers are COMPELLED to serve their nations, But in any case it re-enforces the pont- the taken of life is often justified.

If the persident ordered a targeting killing on an innocent civilian because of "national interest", It would not only be against international law, But the president would be committing murder. U

Then your current and previous presidents have commited murder. They have often ordered strikes knowing it would necessarily lead to civilian deaths, Not to mention things like to allide bombing campaigns during WW2.

Even if they know commbatants are present, They are knowingly killing innocents, Something you state is not permissable under any circumstances.

Meaning that it protects and thus prevents other people from taking your life. It does not mean that other people ought to be forced to ensure you stay alive.

Precicely my point.

If you're not conceding this point, Explain why they do not have a right to life?

I said they may do so, But it is a right that may be in conflict with the mothers. As I explained, Human rights are not neccessarily mutually exclusive. Two people may have rights that conflict.

. In the issue of a mother and a fetus inside her womb, She did make that decision to have the child.

Firstly, This would completely negate pros stance that rape and incest should not be exemtions. In those cases the mother made NO such choice, And should not have her right to bodily autonomy curtailed.

It would also be hard to argue that a woman who used birth control, But which failed, Had "chosen" to be pregnant.

But none of this is particularly relevant. Consent to sex is not an automatic ceding of the right to bodily autonomy. Peo[le have a right to do what they wish with their body, And this includes bioth having sex, And NOT having to carry a baby to term.

They cannot retroactively take this choice and kill the child instead.

Actually, They can. Rights can be asserted at any time, And a woman can most definatley decide they don't want to be pregnant after the start of the pregnancy. You cannot TELL someone they must hold another person in themselves of they don't want to. You said it yourself- it's THEIR womb.

The fact of the matter is that the right to life trumps the right of the mother to kill a life

Because you say so? That idea has been tried in many jurisdictions, Including your own supreme court, And in every western democracy that recognizes the right to personal freedom, The rights of the mother have been held paramount.

hroughout con's argument, There has been no contestation of the child in the womb as being its own unique life,

Nor has there been agreement. There has been an explanation of it's irrelevence.

The mother doesn't have 20 fingers and toes because the baby is not part of her body.

And, As such, Has no right to use the mothers body.

Abortion isn't just the baby's 'rights being curtailed', But all of their rights are, Because the baby is being killed.

Yes. Which is why I find it distatful. But your or my distatse does not mean one persons rights can be legislated away to suit anothers, Hence the kidney annalogy.

You are suggesting a person be forced to endure months of discomfort and pain, Followed by risk and life-long physical changes to accomadste the rights of another.

YOU don't have that right.





Debate Round No. 2
ConservativeDebating

Pro

I'm going to try and organize this as best as possible.

Beginning of Life:
"The idea that one cell (like a sperm or an ovum) isn't life, But two cells (like a zygote) is is an arbitrary assertion with no real justification. "
Science. Conception marks the beginning of a new life, It is where an entirely new unique set of dna that will determine everything about that human is formed. It cannot get simpler than this. Life must start somewhere, Con hasn't told you where, So the only option is mine.
It is important. If it is a life, You can't kill them.

Exceptions to Killings:
Con acknowledges the distinction, And states that this was being used "as an example where it IS permotted for innocent life to be taken". Okay, Fine by me. This example shows that killing is okay when the target is reasonably perceived to present a lethal risk. Pregnancy, In countries with first world healthcare, Is not usually a lethal risk. When it is, Abortion is acceptable (see uncontested argument explanation from round one).

Warfare:
Warefare is unethical. Con did not respond to this argument. It is essentialy because warfare is a lose-lose ethical situation. People are often conscripted and don't have the choice to kill or not to kill.
When Presidents target civilians, They are committing murder, I'm more than willing to accept that. As such, When Doctors target unborn babiees, They are committing murder. Presidents should not target innocent civilians.

Right to Life vs Right to Bodily Autonomy:
Con would like to make this debating about competing rights, Which is fine. Rights are not absolute, I think we could agree on that. However, The question becomes when are they not absolute and how is this used to determine which right trumps another. Let's look at the baby. This human has an innate right to life, And has not doing any action to forfeit this right. Let's look at the mother. This human has a right to do with her body what she wants. As such, She can get a tattoo, Dye her hair, Or pierce her ears. When the mother becomes pregnant, There is a body inside her womb. How many fingers does the mother have? 10 or 20? Toes? What about eyes and eyes? Obviously, None of those numbers change, Because that is a different body. The mother cannot exercise her "bodily autonomy" on a body that isn't hers.
Con says consent is irrelevant, I'll concede that point. Consent or not does not change the right of that baby to live.

Using the Mother's Body:
There's a key distinction to be made here which is best illustrated through con's use of the kidney analogy. In the kidney scenario, Inaction from the donor means the ill person would die, Thus the donor was not directly involved in an action that kills the ill person. However, In pregnancy inaction from the mother means the baby will live, And instead, Action from the mother is acting to kill that baby, Thus the mother was directly involved in an action that kills the baby.
It is not okay to actively kill people.

Consent and Rape:
In cases of consensual sex, The mother makes a decision understanding she would be 'ceding bodily autonomy' if she were to get pregnant. In this scenario, The mother must deal with the unintended, But very possible, Consequences of her actions.
In cases of rape, This decision is not made, However, This is not a license to kill. It is terribly tragic that this mother was not afforded her right to choose, Which is why the criminal deserves to be maximally punished, Not the baby.

Conclusion:
Con's logic is dangerous, Please draw the line of this mother's right in the next round, Because it seems very broad and vague. Take for example a mother that doesn't want to breastfeed or provided food for or provided shelter/care for her born one week old baby. That child is dependent on her in every single way, Without her devotion that baby will die. Let's say for this ethical question that there is no other option (i. E. Adoption/orphanage) and the mother can only choose to kill or not to kill the baby. Would that be unethical under con's framework? Under the con's logic, That mother's right would seem to trump the baby's right to life and she could kill the baby ethically.

Regardless, Con is wrapping this debate in rights conflicts, When it should be really much more simple.
If the baby is a life, It is and should be protected, And thus, Should not be killed.
Wizofoz

Con

Science. Conception marks the beginning of a new life,

Science? Then site the peer reviewed papaer that has established this as the scientific consensus. You can't because it doesen't exist. You havbe used a very low threshold of evidence throughout the debate, Stating opinion as fact, You don't now get to yell "science" and think you have made a pont.

There is no scientific principle that establiushes that a cluster of non-sentient cells clinging to a uterus qualifies as "life".

Life must start somewhere, Con hasn't told you where, So the only option is mine.

I may start a logicl falacy bingo card!

This is false dichotomy. It's the same as "if you can't explain why X happened, Then I can say God did it".

I can't give you a point where life sytarts because there isn't one, And you asserting there is doesn't make it so. Indeed, There was a paper published in England which explaine that a NEW BORN BABAY doesn't actually have the characteristics sufficient to identify it as a human being!

I any case, You argument ammountsx to "because I said so" and is thus effectivley invalidataed with "Nope".

Pregnancy, In countries with first world healthcare, Is not usually a lethal risk.

Then I assume you are an ardent proponent of socialised health care, As the US has one of the higest rates of death in child birth in the developed world.

But "not usually" is not sufficient. It is a risk. One person is not required to risk their lives in protection of another.

Warefare is unethical.

Again, "Because I said so". Every government on the planet disagrees with you.

Rights are not absolute,

Thank you, You're getting there.

Let's look at the baby. This human has an innate right to life,

Aside from your bare assertion, We have not established aa fetus IS a humen.

Let's look at the mother. This human has a right to do with her body what she wants.

Exactely. Including expelling another being she doesn't want inside her.

on says consent is irrelevant, I'll concede that point. Consent or not does not change the right of that baby to live.

Nor the mother right to not carry it.

Look, I'M not just asserting this. This has been tested in courts all over the world, And anywhere that has a system that even vaugley recognises rights as we percieve them has agreed with me.

There's a key distinction to be made here which is best illustrated through con's use of the kidney analogy. In the kidney scenario, Inaction from the donor means the ill person would die, Thus the donor was not directly involved in an action that kills the ill person. However, In pregnancy inaction from the mother means the baby will live, And instead, Action from the mother is acting to kill that baby, Thus the mother was directly involved in an action that kills the baby.
It is not okay to actively kill people.

Again bare assertion- why is inacton OK with action is not? In either caase, Someones right to life, Which you hold paramount, Is lost? You have failed to establish, In any way, That there is not a moral equivelence in the two senerios. If you shouldn't be forced to give up a kidney, A mother shouldn't be forced to go through child-birth.

, The mother makes a decision understanding she would be 'ceding bodily autonomy' if she were to get pregnant.

No, She doesn't. See how easy it is to overturn bare assertions?

In cases of rape, This decision is not made, However, This is not a license to kill. It is terribly tragic that this mother was not afforded her right to choose,

And this completeley invalidates your entire argument. If you won't draw a distinction between consent and non consent, Then neither will I. Thus you are advocating a complete cessetion of awomans rihts. She can be forced to get pregnant, Sand then forced to hav the baby. AThat issimply barbaric and has been shown over and over to not be acceptable in a civiliseed country.

Regardless, Con is wrapping this debate in rights conflicts, When it should be really much more simple.
If the baby is a life, It is and should be protected, And thus, Should not be killed.

So much wrong in so few words-

YES it's a rights issue
No it isn't simple.
No we have not established a zygote is a life
Killing is sometime the only way to resolve an issue of competing rights.





Debate Round No. 3
ConservativeDebating

Pro

Beginning of Life:

I'm going to invest a lot of time here because its the nexus question of this debate.

I'm sorry that you don't like science. These studies illustrate the point pretty clearly. Some quotes:

"The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, Based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, Peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, It is entirely independent of any specific ethical, Moral, Political, Or religious view of human life or of human embryos. "

"A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception, ” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i. E. , Human beings. "

[Sources in Comments b/c Hyperlink Bug]
^ four sources in comments, Many of which are citing collections of studies.

Con is not versed in the literature of his own argument, You should not be arguing it is not a life. Becuase that fetus is objectively a life. You should be asking if it deserves to be valued. My first source clarifies:

"Indeed, This definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development? "

In my argument, All lives are equal. Unborn babies ought to have the same value and same rights as a fully grown person. There is no basis to assert that one type of human should be worth less than another, That is the foundation of discrimination.

Con claims this argument, Sorry, Fact, Is somehow a false dichotomy bingo card. Let me explain a false dichotomy: two options are presented as the only choices, When there are many more.
I am not doing that, I've simply asked con, From the begging, To give me THEIR option, Which by definition is not a false DICHOTOMY. If its not conception, Then Con could've stated that life begins at viability (the most common pro-choice position) or at personhood, Or pain, Or conciousness. Unfortunately, Con did not do this, And instead relegated to arguing "There is no scientific principle that establiushes that a cluster of non-sentient cells clinging to a uterus qualifies as "life", which is actually one of the only baseless, And just absurd (think about that for a second) claims made (literally no one in the mainstream democratic party shares this view).

"There was a paper published in England which explaine that a NEW BORN BABAY doesn't actually have the characteristics sufficient to identify it as a human being! " - Jeez I really hope you don't believe its okay to abort a new born baby. . .

Lethal Pregnancies:
I don't know how many times I need to say this, If there is a lethal risk to the mother, Abortion is allowed. That ends this part of the debate.

Warfare:
No effect whatsoever on the debate. War is unethical. Leaders don't like war. It's not allowed. No one likes war. You're probably the only person that likes war if you think its ethical.

Baby's Right to Life:
"Aside from your bare assertion, We have not established aa fetus IS a humen. "
So now con wants to play this game. See above for this debate.

Mother's Right:
"Including expelling another being she doesn't want inside her. "
She's not 'expelling' a being, She's killing them. It is an essential difference as explained above.

"This has been tested in courts all over the world, And. . . Has agreed with me. "
Obviously I don't agree with court decisions, That's kind of the entire point of my argument and why this is a debate in the first place because I have facts and reason to diagree with some courts' interpretation of law.


Kidney:
"You have failed to establish, In any way, That there is not a moral equivelence in the two senerios. "
There are morally equivalent because in each scenario a decision is made that affects the life of another human. You haven't given any reason why they aren't, You just said no, At least I provided some level of logic.

Conclusion:
Con's entire last argument consisted of "you made an assertion so I can reject it without providing any facts of my own". Con did not cite a single source, Yet called me out for not citing sources. Furthermore, With every single argument I made, I provided lengthy analysis using logic, Examples, And reason. Con simply said no or you're wrong, With a quip of less than a sentence.
Con is making this a rights focused issue and literally ignore the fetus's rights to side with the mother. Literally no regard is given to the fetus, Con won't even acknowledge that if the fetus is alive then they do have rights!
In conclusion, Kill should not be a way to resolve competing rights, As con suggests. Instead, We should recognize the dignity of life and protect all forms of life, In every scenario, Including if that life is located inside a mother's womb.
Wizofoz

Con

You have provided links to sources pre-disposed to philosophically agree with you.


Not one does as you state- provide evidence according to the scientific method- for one simple reason- the DEFINITION as to what constitutes life is not a scientificly objective fact, And is thus not a scientific question. Saying it is is a simple appeal to authority, And is thus invalid. It is rejected on it's face.


You also strawman (BINGO! ) by saying i did not value the fetuses rights- I did not acknowldge they EXIST, But was fine to assume so for the sake of the argument.


But where there are competeing rights, One must cede.


You cannot insist a woman remain pregnant.


Yhis is her right, Is paramount, And thus carries the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dr.Franklin 3 weeks ago
Dr.Franklin
Debateart. Com
Posted by Wizofoz 4 weeks ago
Wizofoz
Yes, But you don't campaign against killing fungus. The fact that this fungus may eventually become a human doesn't give it any extra rights. It comes down to the point we've discussed- yes, Fungus is life- but is it A life?

All your doing is confirming how arbitrary ANY line is- but conception is simply ridiculous. It's a clump of cells at that point.

And NONE of that deals with the fact a woman has dominion over her own body.
Posted by Rsloan 4 weeks ago
Rsloan
"His entire argument was that a fetus is alive. This is irrelevant to the "wrongness" of abortion, And most definitely not to it's legality".

Not so if the human being is part of the human family which embryology textbooks uniformly state. Then we as a liberal society should give them the same protections.

The only arguments for abortion can be classed in the following acronym SLED

Size, Level of development, Environment, And depenacy.

And none of these reasons are good or rational, Intellectually honest reasons to say abortion should be legal there is no relevant difference between you the embryo and you the adult that justifies killing you at that earlier stage of development. Differences of size, Level of development, Environment, And degree of dependency are not good reasons for saying you could be killed then but not now.

Premise #1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.

Premise #2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.

Conclusion: Therefore, Abortion is morally wrong.
Posted by Rsloan 4 weeks ago
Rsloan
Conservative debating you should argure your point so differently I suggest Scott Klusendorf listen to his debates and lectures online he has books on how to debate this issue.

https://www. Youtube. Com/results? Search_query=scott+klusendorf

This link is good but he does videos under five minutes that would help your argument immeasurably.
Posted by ConservativeDebating 4 weeks ago
ConservativeDebating
So you have provided the standard at which you consider a human to be a life:
"Complex biology, Formed organs, Detectable brain activity. "
"Before that, It is basically fungus. "

Firstly, Fungus is alive and considered an organism, Humans are just a different type of organism, So that last statement doesn't make any contextual sense whatsoever.

You provided three standards: (1) Complex Biology, (2) Formed Organs, (3) Detectable Brain Activity
All standards are pretty problematic, Mainly because they are all very vague, With no clear objective meaning that can be applied.

(1) Complex Biology:
What does it mean fro biology to be complex? How complex is enough complex to be considered life?
In my reading of the science, An organism is an example of quite complex biology, And this complex biology begins at conception.
From my previous post: "Human embryos from the single-cell (zygote) stage forward show a uniquely integrated set of structures that behavior in the ways of a single organism, Unlike behavior of mere human-related clump of cells. Of key importance is that the zygote begins developing increasing complex structure coordinated for the common whole goal, Especially because the zygote itself is creating these structure for its own use. "
That seems to pass your qualification of complex biology to me. Why wouldn't it?

(2) Formed Organs
Again, This is too vague. Is it when we first see the signs of essential organs or is it when they are completely and fully developed? What about individuals that are missing essential organs, Or their essential organs that don't work, For example relying on a pacemaker to regulate the heart and keep the person alive? Is that individual worth less than a person without that problem?

(3) Detectable Brain Activity
Brian activity is detectable as early as five weeks, Is that your proposition of a brightline? Again, This would create an artificial line with people who are unconscious, I. E. In a coma. (I am most re
Posted by Dr.Franklin 4 weeks ago
Dr.Franklin
last
Posted by Dr.Franklin 4 weeks ago
Dr.Franklin
lat intellignet debate
Posted by Wizofoz 4 weeks ago
Wizofoz
"Please, TELL ME YOUR STANDARD"

Complex biology, Formed organs, Detectable brain activity.

Before that, It is basically fungus.
Posted by ConservativeDebating 4 weeks ago
ConservativeDebating
<< 3 of 3 >>

"one thing is for sure- before truncating one persons rights you better have a damn good reason. You put the "rights" os a clump of cells before the right or a woman to not carry a human being in her body at considerable risk. . . Discomfort and often economic hardship.
That is unreasonable. "

Again, Its not a clump of cells its a unique human, That will grow up to do who knows what in our world.

Pregnant women may indeed go through many problems during their pregnancy, But that is not justification to kill another human being. I believe we should have much more investment in our support system to help pregnant mothers and mothers that cannot effectively take care of their children, But I don't think we should fund efforts to kill the child because its unwanted.

And, I'd say that killing our generation's children is a pretty 'damn good reason'.
Posted by ConservativeDebating 4 weeks ago
ConservativeDebating
<< 2 of 3 >>

"I gave you the example of a rat fetus- your response was "I value humans higher". Is that a biologically based fact, Or a subjective opinion? It is clearly the latter. "

Value is subjectively based of course. This is not a response to my argument. I still think the rat fetus is 'a life'. There is no biological difference except of course one is a human and one is a rat.
Let's say I valued both equally, Then I would also be protesting rat abortions (lol).

"Similarly, Saying a newly fertilized zygote is "A life" and "A person" is not a biological fact. It is a subjective opinion drawn FROM a biological fact. Take any reasonable measure of what constitutes a "person", And four cells stuck to a uterine wall do dot meet that standard. "

This is not similar to the rat scenario for my explanation above, Conception is beginning of life so both the human and rat fetuses are a life. Its not a subjective opinion drawn from fact, It's literally the fact itself.

**Here is maybe the biggest problem, You say: "Take any reasonable measure of what constitutes a 'person', And four cells stuck to a. Uterine wall do not meet that standard. "
Please, TELL ME YOUR STANDARD. You still have yet to do so. What is does it mean for a human to become alive? When does the life begin? What are those necessary standards?
Because, Obviously, They are not as reasonable as you might presume, Because all the standards that I think are required for life are developed at fertilization.

"For my part I think you have come to realize my point about competing rights- you do not dispute a woman's right to bodily autonomy, But you believe the fetuses right to life is paramount. "
I don't think they conflict. The woman can do whatever she wants with HER body, Get tattoos, Piercings, Or even a voluntary amputation for all I care. That new baby is not her body, So she cannot kill it, Plain and simple. There is no conflict of bodily autonomy.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.