The Instigator
boatfullogoats
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
BrutalTruth
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Abortion should be made illegal in most circumstances. (Repost)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
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: 11/18/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 478 times Debate No: 119049
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

boatfullogoats

Pro

This is the same debate as before, But I would like to challenge BrutalTruth. I think he will be a much more worthy opponent to debate with than my former opponent. Without further ado, Here is my argument, As posted in my first debate.

My basic argument is abortion is the ending of the life of a human being, And for that reason should be rendered illegal in most cases and classified as homicide, And the law should be changed to fit with this. In the same way there are clear definitions for when someone is dead, There should be clear definitions for when someone is living, And these would conform to the same reasoning. You are declared dead when your heart stops beating and your brain stops working. You should therefore be considered alive at the point your heart is formed and your brain is formed. A baby's heart if formed at 5 weeks. Their brain is formed at 6. Thus this is the latest reasonable point where their life starts, And with a right to life, They cannot be killed except under specific circumstances. It's not reasonable to assume that personhood is gained at the point of birth, As there is little separating the baby inside the womb from outside of it. They have their own genes, Organs, And body, The only difference is they are not connected to an umbilical cord anymore, Which means they are less dependent on their mother, But is not any reasonable indicator that they are anymore of a living thing. Abortion should have exceptions for when the mother's own life is put at risk, For example an ectopic pregnancy, Where killing the baby can be reasonably classified as justifiable homicide.
BrutalTruth

Con

Introduction

I accept your challenge. I take the position of fact, And the fact is: A fetus cannot be classified as a human life.

My opponent states: "In the same way there are clear definitions for when someone is dead, There should be clear definitions for when someone is living, "

There are. The scientific definition of a living human states that the organism must be self sustaining; The body be able to function independent of another body. This requires certain biological processes that a fetus does not possess. This is why a fetus cannot factually be classified as a human life. (source - https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Life (there are multiple references listed on that page))

My opponent states: "You are declared dead when your heart stops beating and your brain stops working. You should therefore be considered alive at the point your heart is formed and your brain is formed. "

My opponent's logic is horribly flawed, For this assertion implies that a body only needs a brain and a heart to live. I assure you, If I were to rip out all of your innards aside from your brain, And your heart, You would die a very, Very painful death. When you are able to prove that a human being only needs a heart and a brain to live, Then their assertion here may become valid. As of now, It is utterly false. The only reason a person is pronounced dead at the death of their brain and/or heart is because the rest of the body cannot live without the brain and/or the heart. That doesn't mean the body doesn't need everything else to live.

Conclusion: When my opponent proves that a fetus possesses the necessary biological processes to live independent of another organism(the mother's biological processes), Then my opponent's claims will have merit. Until then, Their entire premise is false.

My opponent has the floor.
Debate Round No. 1
boatfullogoats

Pro

The definition of when a human's life starts is a huge factor of this debate, Thus I'm not going to simply go by your concluded definition of a human life. There is much more to it. Human life is a continuum. Under this scientific definition that life is self-sustaining, Does this give us a right to pull the plug of someone on life support whenever we'd like, For example? It's flawed logic in itself. It's true though, I can concede that my own logic was flawed. There are people who live with improperly functioning hearts for example, It gives us no right to end their lives either. The problem with abortion is when you draw the line where a life begins at any point other than conception, The logic is flawed. There are people who survive totally reliant on machines and others, There are people who can live with certain organs missing. Thus it is not reasonable to assume that because the baby can't survive by itself we can kill it whenever we like.
BrutalTruth

Con

I apologize for my last minute response. I've had a horrible past few days and am actually just now(within the last 30 minutes of my argument being due) able to sit down and write an argument. My argument will therefore be short, But effective nonetheless.

The following will be quotes from my opponent's R2 argument, And my rebuttals in turn.

"The definition of when a human's life starts is a huge factor of this debate, Thus I'm not going to simply go by your concluded definition of a human life. "

My concluded definition? So I'm a scientist who spent hundreds of years studying life forms and determining what they all have in common at the most basic level of life? This isn't MY conclusion. It's a scientific factual conclusion.

"There is much more to it. "

There really isn't; Not when it comes to what constitutes life.

"Does this give us a right to pull the plug of someone on life support whenever we'd like, For example? It's flawed logic in itself. "

You're right. That is indeed flawed logic, Because that's not the same thing at all. That is consistent with the false equivalency fallacy. A person on life support has already been classified as a living human, And life support is actually supporting the biological processes they already have. A fetus, However, Does not have them, And so there's nothing to support.

"There are people who live with improperly functioning hearts for example, It gives us no right to end their lives either. "

Also false equivalency.

There are people who survive totally reliant on machines and others, There are people who can live with certain organs missing. Thus it is not reasonable to assume that because the baby can't survive by itself we can kill it whenever we like. "

Another false equivalency. My opponent seems to think that a living human who is missing a biological process or two is the same thing as a fetus. If that were the case, They would have been still born out of the womb. The very fact that machines are able to support their lives proves that they are not the same as a fetus, As these people have sufficient processes for a machine to be able to support them, Whereas a fetus does not. If a fetus does not develop into viability, No machine could ever turn it into a living human.

"The problem with abortion is when you draw the line where a life begins at any point other than conception, The logic is flawed. "

My opponent's entire argument rests on this assertion. As shown by my above rebuttals, My opponent fails to prove this assertion because their arguments are fallacious. They attempt to show that a fetus is a life by asserting that a living human with certain malfunctioning, Or nonexistent, Biological processes are logically synonymous with a fetus, Which is, For the reasons I specified in my above rebuttals, Incorrect. I therefore conclude that my opponent's argument here is false.

My opponent has the floor.
Debate Round No. 2
boatfullogoats

Pro

I will still rest on my assertion that there is no logical point other than conception.

Firstly, The scientific definition is still relatively irrelevant to this debate. A living human being is a huge conglomerate of different biological systems, Just as any other animal is. You have to essentially decide where you want to draw the line. Where is it that those various cells become a living being in itself? Science can give the base for life, But it can't give as logical an answer to where those various living beings become one. I've already stated it's illogical to be defining it at the point where it would be self-sustaining. There is many humans who can't live by themselves, Or have biological functions that don't work, Yet we still consider them living.

"A person on life support has already been classified as a living human, And life support is actually supporting the biological processes they already have. " But it persists that they cannot sustain their own life, And would have been dead if not for the life support? Yet we do not consider them a dead human being or anything similar. This is the same for people missing organs or with ones that are improperly functioning, And are supported by machines. They aren't considered dead, So why should a fetus be?

"My opponent seems to think that a living human who is missing a biological process or two is the same thing as a fetus. " Okay. So a fetus who has not developed a biological process or two is not a human either? They are absolutely the same thing. They are both humans.
BrutalTruth

Con

My opponent clings to the same already defeated argument, So I don't really need to say much. I'll just spell it out for them to an undeniable degree:

A human being kept alive by machines has a lot more than a heart and a brain in their body. They have literally thousands upon thousands of biological processes keeping them alive, And the machines help the couple that don't function properly.

A fetus who has just developed a heart and a brain has NO other biological processes. The two are therefore not comparable. If my opponent wants to explain how anything, Human or otherwise, Could live with nothing but a heart and a brain, Their argument may actually resemble something that isn't utterly ridiculous. However, Until that happens, It remains ridiculous and obviously invalid. A fetus is incapable of living until it reaches viability. It is not living inside the womb, And it would not be living if taken out of the womb. It has not ACHIEVED life yet. A fetus is to a living human as a single line of code is to a computer program. A single line of code cannot be a computer program. A fetus cannot be a living human. This is a fact, So my opponent can deny it all they wish to, And it will remain true.

To conclude, If a living human in a hospital being kept alive by machines were to suddenly transform internally to the same biological development as a fetus, That living human would quite instantly become a dead human, Regardless of what machine it's hooked up to.

Source: http://americanpregnancy. Org/while-pregnant/first-trimester/
Debate Round No. 3
boatfullogoats

Pro

boatfullogoats forfeited this round.
BrutalTruth

Con

Plainly spoken: My opponent has been presented with proven facts that cannot be argued against, Which is, I'm guessing, The reason why they forfeited their final argument. A fetus does not meet the criteria of a living human, And no amount of fallacious argumentation will ever prove otherwise. I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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