The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
14 Points


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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,671 times Debate No: 16323
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)




I am a busy high school student who doesn't always have a bunch of time, so it may take me a while to reply, and also I haven't debated on here in 2 years, so excuse my questionable manners.**

Allow me to start by telling you the first argument in your head. "the fetus isn't a Unborn" Allow me to quickly disprove that argument, for the acronym "sled" can make quite a good argument, and Women who are forced into pregnancy have options.

The Acronym SLED will prove this argument invalid, S.L.E.D. stands for Size, Level of Development, Environment, Degree of Dependency. Size- I am a 6'2" giant, does this make me any more human than a fully grown and capable "little person?" the answer, is no, no greater then a little fetus that can fit in the palm of your hand either.Environment- If a Midget were to climb into a box, would he be less human then he? would a man on the other side of the earth be any less human then me? no- nor is a fetus in a womb. Level of Development- A four year old girl's reproductive systems are not fully formed compared to that of a 16 year old girl, there for is a toddler less human then a teenager? again, surprise surprise-no, and therefore a toddler is just a human as a fetus. dependency- If a 30 year old man at risk of heart attack is Dependant on blood thinners, am I any more Human then He? again, no- nor am I any more of a human then a little fetus in a womb, who needs his mother to stay alive. Sled is an acronym standing for Size, Level of Development, Environment, Degree of Dependency and this is why a fetus is human.

Women are sometimes forced into pregnancy via rape, and some find children to be a burden, such as a students and people heavily involved in the workforce, however there are other options besides abortion such as adoption or birth control. Rape victims may see children as a scar, but the gift of life is not in their hands to take, for as convent as it may seem, taking life (life which I have already established above) is considered murder, and yes childbirth is painful, but adoption is an option and the scar is gone, and life is saved. Hundreds of children are adopted, and putting up for adoption is very easy to do, you can even drop off babies at your local fire station in the state of California. Also, people like high school or collage students may see babies as an annoyance, but enjoy sex, and for this they created birth control. Birth control can be inexpensive, and since there are youngsters around here, I wont go into detail for their sake. Adoption and Birth control can be alternatives to abortion for victims of rape and students alike.

SLED is an acronym used for proving live inside of a mother's womb, and Birth control or adoption is a suitable alternative to abortion.

~~best of luck to you.~~~


I would like to thank my opponent for posting an argument in his R1 rather than doing as others and wasting a round on introductions.

There is no argument that "A fetus isn't a Unborn". It is completely incorrect as a fetus isn't born, it lies inside the mothers womb and thus has not been born.


fe�tus/ˈfētəs/ Noun: An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby.

By definition a fetus is not born. Therefore my opponent agrees with me.

Unfortunately my opponent probably meant to say:

A fetus is an unborn


A fetus isn't born

Which is more of a statement of fact that doesn't further his unnamed resolution.

What he actually meant to say was probably

A fetus deserves to have the same inherent rights a human and is no less of a human. Which is a workable phrase which would have furthered his resolution.

He goes on to go about proving why a fetus is as a human as everyone else by setting up some bizarre analogies about dependency on medicine, height, productive organs of a child, etc.

What really classifies a human as a human is the amount of brain activity. A fetus does not have the same mental capacity as a retarded person or the same capacity as an average human.

Does brain capacity make someone less of a human? Actually yes it does according to the eyes of the law. If someone is at a low mental capacity they are not considered fully human under the eyes of the law and thus are assigned a guardian to make decisions for them.

Imagine a slobbering person who in all physical respects resembled a human being. However this slobbering person goes around eating human flesh and has no brain capacity. It just is hungry and knows how to eat. Would we call this a human? Of course not, we call this a zombie. It is in this function that humans are recognized, by their brain capacity.

Somewhere along the lines we have to draw the lines between zombie and human and a line is clearly drawn. Why can we not do the same between human and nonhuman?

My opponent then sets up a strawman regarding rape, adoption, and birth control which have no bearing on the present debate.

I await my opponent's next argument and wish him the best of luck in the debate!
Debate Round No. 1


Ah, my mind has been taxed by an AP World history exam, my arguments may have become jumbled within my head.

Here is what I meant by "a fetus is unborn"- Life begins upon conception, and fetus therefore should have rights of a breathing human being.

My opponent had brought up the argument that mental capacity legally can define weather a human is human or not. Well, the fact that 6 weeks after conception, brainwaves are detectable, and that enough think that is enough to be spared of life. In weeks 10 and 11, a baby can "breathe" and grasp objects, and in some cases that is better then a mentally disabled person. And at 17 weeks, a fetus could dream and achieve rem sleep. And at 20 weeks, when partial birth abortions can be preformed, a fetus or better yet baby at this point, can recognize Its its mother's voice.

I think that is quite a good point that a fetus having a reasonable mental capacity, and proving that Fetus's are intact not zombies simply feeding of the mother.

And as a side note, the third paragraph in my argument in round 1, was aimed as useful alternatives to an abortion.

Don't kill the living.


Unfortunately my opponent has still provided absolutely no resolution in order to guide the debate. He has made the argument that life begins upon conception, and anything that is alive should not be killed. My opponent has established no viable definition of life
A. A heartbeat is not even present until the 21st day after conception
B. A human with no heartbeat is not considered to be alive
C. Therefore, as a human, a fetus is not alive at conception.

Brainwaves are also detectable in Chickens and chickens undergo REM Sleep (dreaming) [1]

If my opponent is arguing that everything with brain waves and REM sleep should be denoted as a human, then he is advocating vegetarianism.

My opponent has not made a resolution nor even attempted at proving it. He has used opinionated arguments which have all been debunked as false.

[1] -
Debate Round No. 2


I fear my opponent does not understand the nature of the debate, for this under the category of "philosophy" and facts don't always back up theories, and you did agree to take sides with "pro" on on this debate, naturally making my arguments "con". And as for all arguments being false, I query thy to be blind? Round 1 clearly lays out an argument for fetus being alive, and deserving the rights of a Human. Come round two, you debunk my REM sleep idea but say nothing to the statements of the ability to breathe, and grasp objects, and for the severely handicapped which i have worked with on occasion- that is a great step forward. And you say that Humans that have no heart beat are not alive, yet If your heart stops, you have four minuets without brain damage. And longer if you include brain Damage.

Life. what is life? well parasites are alive, for they can move on their own, and can travel from host to host and can be on celled Organisms, so using that they are indeed alive, a fetus under 21 days, is too alive, for it is growing.

So a fetus is indeed alive.

I have seen via video recording live abortions, and the images of them make me want to puke my guts out. seeing the tiny hands, the little head and oh all the blood!

here is where i reach a problem, these images are FAR to graphic for me to post on this debate, so my argument can not reach full impact. but if you want a text description here you go: imagine a toy doll, only with tiny rubbery arms and legs, that are slightly transparent, in a pool of blood. switch screens, a fountain of blood erupting from the underside of a woman, and in this river of blood you see a thing that looks like a doll's head, only you know it isn't a doll. it was a child. Abortion is murder.

"Murder is always a mistake - one should never do anything one cannot talk about after dinner"
-Oscar Wilde

"Murder is not the crime of criminals, but that of law-abiding citizens."
-Emmanuel Teney

the first three passages or so, are from the Christian Bible, in which i believe, and the rest are from the Qur'an, in which i do not believe, but seems relevant and right in this case.

The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being (Genesis 2:7).
And life is therefore a Gift, no? We need to protect this life, infant Doctors vow to protect life.

And do you want to know what else God thinks about Fetus?
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16)."

"Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you (Isaiah 46:3-4)"

I dont believe in this god, but if you do here is what Allah has to say about abortion, he may have the right idea:

"Losers are those who killed their children foolishly, due to their lack of knowledge, and prohibited what God has provided for them, and followed innovations attributed to God. They have gone astray, they are not guided." (6:140)

"You shall not kill any (Nafs) person - for GOD has made life
sacred - except in the course of justice……."(17:33)

"You shall not kill your children due to fear of poverty. We provide for them, as well as for you. Killing them is a gross offense"(17:31)

"Say, "Come let me tell you what your Lord has really prohibited for you: You shall not set up idols besides Him. You shall honor your parents. You shall not kill your children from fear of poverty - we provide for you and for them. You shall not commit gross sins, obvious or hidden. You shall not kill any (Nafs) person - GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. These are His commandments to you, that you may understand."

You can discredit facts all you want, but Life is life. And the moment you don't respect it, it can walk out on you, and you can guess where that leaves you.


My opponent's fear unfortunately stems from his ability to present a clear argument. The category of which the debate is in doesn't give him the freedom to not use logic or back up or even create a resolution.

My opponent then again attempts to make some semblance of an argument for which he says:

that breathing and grasping are two innate characteristics of being a human.

As the reader can clearly see, this is false. Apes grasp objects and breathe yet are not humans. Cats grasp objects with their paws and breathe, yet cats are not human.

Life has a definition which is specific for species. My opponent is attempting to draw upon the definitions of life for inferior species and apply it to humans in order to futher his point. This is incorrect.

The definition of life for humans is the presence of a beating heart and most major functioning organs as death is the stoppage of the heart and the end of most major functioning organs.

A fetus at age of 20 days has no heart and no major functioning organs. It is not alive.

My opponent then seeks to use anecdotal evidence, bizzare quotations about murder and passages from the Bible and the Qu ran which do nothing to further the resolution.

My opponent has given no resolution, has set up no to little argumentation and pasted a bunch of irrelevant quotations.

I have shown that a fetus before 21 days is not alive, is not a human until it has reached a level of sentience.

Justification for why a mother should have the right to eliminate an alive being with the potential of reaching setience.

A mother has the right to eliminate the potential life, because this life interferes with her own. She is responsible during the pregnancy for feeding and housing the life with potential sentience within her own body. A state or government has no right to dictate what an individual does with their body. A woman could easily choose to kill the child without an abortion by killing herself. As she has the ability and the right to kill herself, she inherently has the right and the ability to kill the child.
Debate Round No. 3


Something is telling me that my opponent isn't fully comprehending my arguments, or just not reading them, so to keep myself composed allow me to submit my concluding statements and let you, the reader, decide who is right.


The thing that grows inside of a pregnant woman is a fetus, and is alive, I can prove this by means of of Size, Level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. The though here is "if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacked like a duck, it must be a duck!" Given the fetus is alive, Abortion becomes Murder. Some people say that the lack of Heartbeat makes a fetus not alive, but there are alive humans rite now without a heart beat. If a woman is forced into a pregnancy there are alternatives to abortion. Multiple religions disagree with abortion agreeing on the fact that it is murder.

-Size: Are Tall people any more Human the those who are vertically Challenged? No. Given that relation, is a Big toddler any more human that a premature baby? No. Is there any difference between a baby out of the womb, then the baby inside the womb just one day ago? again- No. therefore, Tall person:short person::baby:fetus.
-Level of dependency- Is a normal, healthy person any more human then someone who is on blood thinners? no. Are there any differences between a baby on a ventilator and a baby? no. Given the relation again, a Baby outside the womb should be no less human then a baby attached to His/Her mother via umbilical cord in the womb.
-Environment- Is someone in a Isolation unite in a Hospital any less human then a person in the waiting room waiting to see his new baby sister? No. Am I any more human then the person in a box that i am sitting on now?no. Given all this, shouldn't any baby inside the womb be just as human as his/her big brother sitting on his mother's lap? they should.
Degree of dependency- You say the baby is completely reliant on their mother, but isnt a toddler completely reliant on their care taker? Aye, it be so.

"so yeah the baby is alive, but it has no heart beat for 21 days." Well during a Heart bypass surgery, there is no heartbeat in a human, the CBP takes over, allowing the doctors to stop, or cut open a heart. []

So say a Girl is taken advantage of, and becomes pregnant, or becomes pregnant and doesn't want the baby. She can give the child up for adoption, rite there in the Hospital room. She also could take a paid maturity leave from here work, and rest while the baby matures. Also, say it is in inconvenience, Just because you grandmother is an inconvenience, it is still murder if you kill them, and the same goes for a spouse or sibling. Murdering Babies in the womb is wrong.

Here are some religions that agree abortion is wrong



My opponent has decided to completely ignore my arguments and instead due a copy and paste of his round one.

Killing something that is alive is not murder. Under this feeble definition we murder every single day.

Websters defines murder as the killing of another human being by another.

My opponent then attempts to negate my heart argument by talking about a CBP or an artificial heart of which no fetus before 21 days possesses. Therefore a red herring.

I already debunked his SLED argument in R1, he has offered no attempt at counter-argument.

He also continued his appeal to religion in his last round.

A fetus is not human due to its mental capacity.

A fetus is not alive until it develops a fully functioning heart.

Murder is not killing something that is alive.

I've already given logical justification for why a mother has the inherent right to kill an alive being with potential sentience.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by askbob 7 years ago
RFD's are required
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by boredinclass 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments go unanswered
Vote Placed by JoshBrahm 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I would recommend that Con spend some time reading the literature on SLED. That section could have been written more clearly. Con quoted scripture and other famous people to back up his argument, which didn't help his case. Pro's argument that humans aren't alive until after they have a heartbeat is biologically inaccurate, as the technical signs of life are growth, metabolism and reaction to stimuli, but Pro still made better arguments. Keep reading, Con. You have great potential!
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: askbob actually used an source.
Vote Placed by detachment345 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03