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

Should abortion be stopped/only allowed in certain situations?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,176 times Debate No: 118864
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)




I am against abortion. To clarify, I believe in abortion when health issues are prominent. If the mother can not have the baby or both of them die, Etc, It should be her choice. I do not believe that you should be allowed to kill a baby because you made a mistake! Rape is 0. 1 percent of all abortions and health issues is below 5%. Almost 2. 5 billion babies have been murdered since 1980! One of those babies could be the next Ellon Musk, Steve Jobs, Or Oprah, Whoever! I am pro-choice, You have many choices; Abstinence, Contraception, Adoption, Motherhood. Not murder! It is murder. Ending someone's life just as it's beginning is killing him/her. It is a terrible thing to do. If you take a pill or injection or whatever to prevent you from becoming pregnant that is different. The baby is never forming, Or becoming more mature, But once it is in the womb, Especially after a few weeks, It can feel, It has a small human body, It has a heartbeat! And you want to stop that heartbeat! Are 10 months worth it to give someone an entire life? Yes. They may have been a "mistake", Or you may not be ready, Or maybe you just plain don't want kids! That's ok. But killing a baby because of that is not ok. Give birth, Then give it up for adoption, Or if you want him to keep him! I'm pro-life, Your pro-murder.


Happy to think with you today.

There are many factors involved in the abortion debate. In order to ban abortions entirely you have to sacrifice a lot more than most people think. For this reason, I am currently pro-choice. However, Tech advancements and a few other things could make this a non-issue.

First of all, Abortion is distasteful. My opinion is that it should be done as little as possible. However, I acknowledge many benefits and see the necessity of it. Allow me to clarify the warring positions in this debate, To the best of my ability. It should be noted that in any respectable discussion of abortion one should list ways each problem could be solved. There are solutions to abortion that anti-abortion and pro-choice people are not discussing or investing in. The primary goal of anti-abortion people seems to be banning abortions without taking the steps that would make it possible for pro-choice people to accept that. They also fail to take steps that could reduce abortions as much as possible. Seeing as how the majority of society (in the US) agrees abortions should be legal, The priority for anti-abortion people should be to reduce the number and to improve technology to where abortion would not be necessary, Not to try to ban it against the will of the people.

Abortion Positions

1. Women's Bodily Autonomy versus the Life of the Fetus

Most people recognize that people have a right to decide what happens to their own body. There are many negative temporary effects of pregnancy, And several that are more permanent. To force a woman to carry a child to term would be to force both sets of negative effects on her. To terminate a fetus ranges from a non-issue if you draw the line any number of ways to infanticide if you draw the line at fertilization/conception.

For myself, A woman's bodily autonomy takes precedent prior to brain activity at the very least. More on this in #2.

2. Person vs Life and where the lines are drawn.

There is, In general, An arbitrary line drawn by most people as to where one becomes a 'person. ' This is often misconstrued as "when life begins, " but is in fact a distinct issue. Eggs and sperm are 'alive. ' A fertilized egg is 'alive. ' You can draw a distinction on the DNA level if you'd like and say human life begins at fertilization. This does not mean that one becomes a 'person' at conception. Your skin cells, Blood cells, Et cetera contain your DNA. That does not make them 'persons. ' Most people who give it thought will conclude that you become a 'person' around when brain activity begins. This does not mean conscious memories, But anything that changes the brain. You learned to babble, To crawl, To flop around et cetera long before you created long-term memories.

I accept brain waves + brain changes as the line to where personhood begins. This is more important to me than when 'life' begins. I don't care about when my full DNA strain was made. I don't care about any individual part of me. What makes me 'me' is my brain. It is therefore not killing a 'person' to kill a fetus that has not yet undergone brain waves. My arbitrary line, Supported with this logic is at that point. Roughly 2-3 months into a pregnancy. However, I don't draw the line at there currently for other reasons I will give later.

Let me expand. Most people agree that a person's death is when we experience brain death. Our full DNA still exists beyond this point, But brain activity has ceased. Why then do some take the opposite view on when personhood begins? That when the DNA exists and brain activity does not, One gains moral value? Few would call people who take their parents off life support after brain death to be 'murderers' yet so many believe allowing a woman to terminate a pregnancy before 'personhood' begins is killing a person. In my view, This is illogical. To say a fetus has a 'small human body' is also an emotional appeal. Dead people have large human bodies. That does not give their bodies moral value.

For life: Eggs and sperm can be said to be alive. Most people don't accept that when you masturbate, Have nocturnal emissions, Or have your period you are killing something by way of not fertilizing it. Every man is a mass murderer if this is your line. If you draw the line at fertilization/conception, You have to deal with the fact that many fertilized eggs never attach to the womb. This means the majority of "humans" to exist have died shortly after being 'created. ' This would be an issue far more important than abortion to you. Heartbeat is an insanely arbitrary line. We do not consider someone dead when their heart stops beating. This is an entirely emotional appeal based position. We can probably both agree nothing magical happens in the birth canal.

3. What constitutes abortions of convenience versus necessity?

You state that you're ok with abortions for rape and health of the mother. If you're being consistent, Why do you say rape? Does the life of the child have less moral value to you if it is a rape baby? Or do you value the cost of the woman's mental health more? How about the physical and mental health issues that arise from being forced to carry a child you do not wish to carry? This is how all women feel, It does not require them to be raped to feel this way. Many women do carry their rapists' child. It is a matter of if the woman is prepared for that sacrifice and financially prepared for the child or not.

If you agree with termination on the grounds of rape for mental health reasons, Why are the physical and mental problems associated with forced pregnancy not a problem for you? In some years over half of the women who got abortions stated they had used some form of contraception prior to having sex. Let's assume a 99% success rate for contraception. That means one out of every 100 chances you have to get pregnant will result in pregnancy. Some have higher chances, Some have lower. This means if we as a society improve contraception half of all abortions immediately go away, To the benefit of everyone. Citing contraception as if it is foolproof and everyone who got an abortion should be ashamed is a disastrously ill informed position. You cite abstinence. So you think all the people who can't find a partner should never have sex? That people who don't want kids should never have sex? You actively seek to diminish the lives of those who are living. Sex feels great and is essential for people to understand society and other people. It adds color to life. There is no reason, Particularly if you accept when personhood begins to be at brain activity, To deny yourself this. There is no reason everyone who exists should be forced to marry.

Not everyone wants to be a mother. Not everyone wants their children to be put up for adoption. Many women want to have kids but only when they're ready. More on this next section.

4. Practical Implications of Banning Abortion

Having a child in high school, Or during college, Or before your finances in order can be disastrous. This leads to single motherhood, Being poor, And destroying your personal career. All of these are negatives that effect the mother and the child. The bodily changes during pregnancy can be disastrous. Not everyone can afford to take weeks off of work. Olympic athletes may have contraceptive failures. Are you saying the moment they've been working towards their whole lives should be denied because of this? By denying women the ability to choose when to have their children, You are in fact killing the children they would otherwise have in the future. If a woman is allowed to fulfill her career, She may have 3 well-off kids rather than the 1 poor kid she would have if forced to carry the child. Poor children are more likely to commit crime, Be less educated, And have more sex in less protected ways, Resulting in even more abortions. Abortion bans actively cause this.

I will explain more points then solutions in R2.

May your thoughts be clear,

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you, And I am always happy to partake in civil dialogue. I would also agree with your statement that there are many factors involved, But there are some things I would like to point out. You start off saying that abortion is distasteful and should be done as little as possible. (I believe that is also the policy in some European countries, It is very rare) I would definitely agree, But would you say that murder is distasteful and should be done as little as possible? Would you say that taking a person future, And chances away should be done "as little as possible? " It is also possible for it to not be done at all. For me to clarify I think that there is one option where abortion should be allowed, And yes this may be a "non-issue" when our technological capacity increases. When a woman has certain health conditions, Or something stopping her from having a healthy pregnancy. If it is her life or the babies, Then she can choose to kill the baby and live. I must say though, That I completely find this choice distasteful, And I can't sympathize with it but I do understand. Moving on, You discussed how both sides of the abortion argument refuse to look at ways to solve it, Etc. Which I would agree with. You also sad that the majority of society in the IS agrees abortion should be legal. I have 2 comments/questions about this. If most people in the US waned murder to be legal, Or the "purge" to be legal, Would we make it legal? I certainly believe that my answer would be no because we cannot intentionally kill legally. I am not saying this as some die-hard Catholic. (I am not even Catholic. ) I would personally be against any sort of ending someone, Or something's life, Or chances at life or a future. You say that my side wants to ban it against the will of the people. Women didn't want the right to vote, Does that mean that they shouldn't have it. I think we can both agree that the majority of society is not only uneducated, But incapable of having a fair, And calm conversation about issues in our country. Simply because a poll has shown that society wants something does not mean that it is right, Moral, Or just. You added that when a person dies the brain activity ceases, And that is what defines death. You seemed to say that why we should not take the same stance on life. This is because there is not only a difference between life and death but a difference in what happens afterward. After you die you are no longer alive, But after you are born, You are alive. When some people are in a coma, They are brain dead. They are being solely kept alive by machines. I do not believe that those people are dead if they have a chance at life. I think it is inappropriate and wrong to believe that if something has a chance to be alive, Once something has gone through a process to start living in the future, Then it is not alive. Even if you believe it is not alive, Do you think it is okay to take a future humans chances away, Its future, Its emotions, Its life? I think that even at a moral standpoint, Abortion is not okay, And if we give exceptions to people who "didn't mean to, " or "don't want a boy, " or simply "are not ready. " You may be right that my opinion is not fully developed, Or correct, But yours is even further from it. To clarify 2 things, You went on for a while about rape, And other things like that, I never said I was okay with it. You also said something about a woman not wanting to be a mother, Not wanting their children to be put up for adoption, And only having a baby when they are ready. You go on to explain how poor children are more likely to commit a crime, Be less educated, And have more sex in less protected ways, Resulting in even more abortions. I would agree with this. The only problem is that it is completely and undeniably irrelevant. A woman may not be ready for a baby, That is fine. So don't have a baby. If she doesn't want to put her kid up for adoption, Then don't have a baby, Etc. Should we allow a woman to stop the chances of a baby because she isn't ready? Are 9 months of your time worth more than a life, And if so do you have to seise its existence? I would agree that you can spend 9 months how you want, Surely you don't have to be pregnant.

I simply disagree that a woman should not have the right to terminate another life. You are saying that a woman does have the right to terminate life. I think that murder is the forcible termination, Or killing with an intent. If it is a life, Then is abortion not killing, Not murder? I believe that once the unique human DNA is created that is separate from the mother and the father, I would not say that it is not okay to terminate that life. This shows that it is solely determined by when you consider a baby a life. You haven't really asserted your position, Or maybe I read it too fast (I don't have much time these days :() I hope you can really define where you stand so we can really set the premise for where we disagree and why. Thanks by the way, You seem like a really good person, Not like the people that come on here and start yelling and crying and screaming!


Interactions with people should be civil until their actions violate the law we have all agreed upon, Or their speaking shows they intentionally spread misinformation to their own benefit. Ignorance must be permitted, But intentional misinformation may not be. Courtesy and charity should be shown most of all to those with whom you disagree.


1. "Murder is wrong"

Murder is by definition wrong. There is a misunderstanding and a misuse of words when it comes to this subject. Murder by definition is unlawful killing. Killing is when you end something's life. So while you currently believe abortion is murder, Our society based on Roe v. Wade believes it is killing.

It is an important distinction. Police kill people all the time. People are killed in wars. Police do occasionally murder people.

The question of if abortion is murder or killing has an answer. It is currently killing. Your position should be that it SHOULD be considered murder, Which the majority disagrees with. At this point it is not murder, It is justified killing.

What you are currently saying when you say "You are saying Murder should be made legal" is that there are no current ways to kill people and have it not be considered murder. This is false. People kill people with due cause all the time. Even you accept this. Therefore, The question is "Do mothers have just cause to kill their fetuses? " The answer currently is yes, For the majority of the US.

It is not just a question of 9 months of their life.

1a. The fetus may prevent the mother from achieving her life's ambitions. An Olympic athlete being pregnant when she needs to compete would stop her from what she's trained for decades to do. The fetus is holding a gun to her head just as any kidnapper who stopped her from competing would, Or any mobster who threatened to break her legs.

1b. A fetus leeches resources from the mother directly, Resources she may need. A thief who comes into your home and steals things is a crime whether he intended to, Had good reason or not. The fetus costs money just to bring to term, Not to mention the cost of delivery, Pre and post-natal care, Not to mention the costs of raising a child both time-wise, Money-wise, And the sacrifice to achieving your own life and success. There is a cost to taking off work near the end of the pregnancy, Potentially a cost during pregnancy depending on your job, And a cost after pregnancy to recover. This number is in the thousands. Many women cite these financial reasons for abortion.

1c. The fetus leaves lasting effects on the woman for the rest of her life. Scarring from stretch marks, Being cut out, Damage to the vagina, Hormone effects, Et cetera.

1d. Mothers still die due to childbirth or in the process of. You claim that you're OK with abortion in these cases, But they are hardly all detected. The CDC claims 700 USdeaths a year from pregnancy-related complications et cetera. This is after all the women who choose abortion. In comparison, According to the ACOG and the AMA, The risk of death during abortions is 14x less than the risk of death from giving birth.

You have to say, To call abortion 'murder' that if a thief came into your house and stole thousands of dollars, Had some chance of killing you, Was intent on leaving scars on your body, And potentially was going to hold your body hostage for 9 months potentially stopping you from achieving any number of dreams, That killing that person is unjustified. I submit that you would call killing justified for far less than this.

You say that abortion ends one life, But about the lives of the children who were never born because their mothers were forced into the hardest financial times, Or whose careers were ended because of an early pregnancy they were not able to terminate? Their future could be a happy life with 3 children, Or the fate forced upon them could be a poor life with one child and a ruined life. To call abortion unjustified killing is to look at only one transaction and not the benefits both to the woman, Society, And potential other children in the future. Children born before the family is financially stable causes instability. Poor families are less likely to bring their child up successfully. Those children are more likely to commit crime. From a societal point of view, The benefits of allowing women to choose when to give birth, And to give birth when they are stable, Cannot be denied.

Women who go through this because they want children should be praised and supported with the full force of society. Women who aren't yet ready should not be vilified for choosing to exercise control over their reproductive cycles and their own bodily autonomy.

2. Brain Death

You seem to have taken one of Ben Shaprio's' lines here. Comatose people are not brain dead. No properly diagnosed person experiencing brain death has ever recovered. This is a red herring. I do claim that brain activity is the beginning of a person's life. It is still killing to kill a fetus prior to this, Because it is ending A life, But to me that is not killing a person. It is then not a question of murder. It is more along the lines of property damage. If someone else kills a fetus prior to brain activity, It is murder because the female was intending to let it develop. There is no inconsistency here. Brain death and coma patients are two extremely different cases. Please don't allow Shapiro, Or whomever you heard that argument from, Cloud your mind. Look it up yourself. A person's body can be kept alive via machines after brain death. The person, The brain activity, Will never return. It is not murder to pull the plug, But you are killing a human body. You aren't killing a person. The brain can be kept alive when other organs fail with machinery. It is killing to pull the plug in this case, Because the person is still there.

You are saying my view is inconsistent or not fully developed because I don't value killing something that has a chance to become a person, Or that will be become a person. This is mistaken. Sperm and Eggs could all become persons. The children of any animal we harvest for food may become persons down the line. I don't value the chance for personhood. I value personhood. If your argument is that I should value "life, " then I have to value eggs and sperm just as much. They all are potential persons and life. Fetuses are alive, But not persons. They have not developed the facilities required for personhood. Conception is the female developing a human body inside her. A fetus, A human body, Deserves no moral value. Killing a human body is OK. It's killing the brain, The person, That is wrong in my view.

Real brain dead patients still have human DNA. Your blood cells have human DNA. Valuing full strains of human DNA, Or valuing 'life, ' would be to say that killing a brain dead human's body via pulling the plug on support machinery is wrong because it is killing something, Even if all you're doing is keeping non-brain organs alive. I don't value this, And I believe that if I ask others this few will say they believe that is wrong.

I believe you misunderstand the definition of 'murder. ' Not all killing can be avoided.

I believe the majority of people value personhood, Not life itself, Not full strains of human DNA. I believe that when people dig into this they will come to the same conclusions.

Just so you have a chance to respond, I will briefly highlight solutions to abortion. I recognize that you won't have a chance if I leave this for R3.

1. Ending abstinence only education. Instituting full sex ed earlier and in more depth non-optional. (reduces abortions directly)

2. Full public funding of contraceptives for all, Particularly the more effective forms. (reduces abortions directly)

3. Funding Artificial Womb research, And fully funding and improving the care of Orphans and child care in the US. (Eliminates abortion entirely, Making a ban possible)

May your thoughts be clear,

Debate Round No. 2


realdanieldancuta forfeited this round.


As my opponent has forfeited, I will simply discuss solutions and leave my prior conclusions where they stand.

It is unfortunate that, Given the chance to discuss solutions, Opponents of abortion largely seem to not care or never respond. If you have debated a problem for so long that you feel strongly about, It is so easy to focus on the problem and not solutions. I implore all of you to not become that kind of person. The clashes we have between stances in reality oft have some possible solution that can be researched and developed given time.

No one can say I did not give her a chance to respond to the solutions.

1. Abstinence only Sex Ed vs full in-depth sex ed.

Abstinence only education, A form of education that opponents of abortion largely espouse, Has been objectively, Factually, Irrevocably proven to be ineffective at best, Damaging at worst. Alternatively, In countries that have implemented more in-depth sex ed classes, A direct link can be tied with lower teen pregnancy, Fewer STDs, Et cetera.

Around 50% of all abortions are had because birth control failed. Condoms are not 100%. Imagine a world where instead of teaching children to just wait despite all of their emotions that play to the contrary we teach them that condoms fail more often than we'd like to think. Imagine a world where we use logical arguments with children. As a teacher who teaches children as young as 2 how to play classical music, I submit you will be surprised at how children react when given a modicum of respect and well-thought ideas.

Some people, Laugh if you will, Still believe if you have sex in a hot tub that the female cannot get pregnant. They believe pulling out is an excellent form of birth control failing to understand precum in the slightest. They believe anal has a zero percent chance of pregnancy. This is the world of abstinence-only education.

This change alone may stop many abortions. There is no reason this should not be agreed upon by both sides. No reason that someone who lets reason rule emotion could possibly accept.

2. Publicly Funded Contraception

It has also been proven that for every dollar paid into public contraception (condoms currently typically) saves multiple dollars publicly by preventing the births of children most likely to go on welfare. This is again, Vastly preferable both economically and in regards to abortion. Imagine a world in which female could get access to forms of birth control that did not depend on their male sexual partners using a condom. How many males out there refuse to use condoms? Some forms of birth control are superior to condoms statistically in preventing pregnancy.

I submit that this is proven. It is economically more efficient, And the outcomes for society and empowerment of women cannot be denied.

Again, The anti-abortion crowd for some reason seems to not accept this, Calling it socialism, Calling it the government trying to enforce responsibility on people. This is the government saving money directly. The government doesn't force women to use this, It merely empowers them with a choice they can make that many cannot currently make. Call it socialism if you wish, But that is not an argument against a proven system. UHC would make this a reality immediately.

Other anti-abortionists merely disagree with contraceptives on religious grounds. To them, The spread of aids in Africa is an acceptable part of proselytizing their religion. Someone who argues against contraception on religious grounds is rarely an individual who will accept logic over emotion.

3. Funding Artificial Womb research and funding orphan care

This, Along with reducing the unwanted pregnancies via improving technology, Is the only solution to never allowing babies to be aborted. Instead of having an abortion, Females will have the zygote/fetus/etc removed from them, Implanted into an artificial womb, Who would then be born an orphan seeking adoption. With improvements to our adoption system, We may be able to find homes for all such births.

Are there problems with the implementation of artificial wombs, And associated tech? Of course. Is it easy? No. Is it possible? I don't see why not.

Why is our argument centered around what we will never agree upon, Arbitrary lines all around rather than partial solutions that are easily within reach, Easily agreeable by both sides, And a full solution that may be within reach in our lifetimes?

To conclude,

Abortions must be allowed for a variety of reasons. There are plenty of views on reality that have no problem with abortions. 3/4ths of society accept the position of limiting abortion to the first 20 weeks. Arguments against abortion are largely emotional in nature, Though some arguments do have merit. In the end, The benefits far outweigh the negatives. We should all agree that it is a nasty business that should be reduced or eliminated if possible, But the benefits of legal abortion are too numerous to accept that it should be eliminated until it is unnecessary for it to be done in the first place.

With that, I submit to the audience to vote as they will.

May your thoughts be clear,

Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago

I would like to express to you in as strong of terms as possible that I have no hostility towards anyone who discusses things with me, Debates things with me, Or even holds views contrary to my own as long as the discussion remains open.

Any hostility you sense in my writing is entirely frustration at myself for not being articulate enough to express my thoughts in writing in clear enough terms to be understood. That my own innate failings and ineptitude as a person contribute to misunderstandings among fellow humans. I view people not understanding my position perfectly as my failure as a human being.

I hold no one responsible for misinterpreting or having an unclear idea of my positions other than myself. I am my worst critic, And I would accept no less from myself. I should and always will demand more rigor from myself tenfold than I demand rigor from anyone else in existence.

You are an exemplar of people I wish to talk with. Please, Don't feel otherwise.

May your thoughts be clear,

Posted by SansSkeleton 3 years ago
Greetings. I would like to add my comment upon this subject. Well, Thoht you have pointed out a mistake I have made in my writing. Thank you, Although I do sense a little bit of hostility toward my writing. I would just like to say that I did not mean to exclude anyone part of the human race (considering my condition as well), And I do say that I really should be careful about my writing in the future!
Posted by realdanieldancuta 3 years ago
Missmedic I think that is completely irrational. To say that a person becomes a person when it exits the birth canal is probably one of the most unintelligent things I have ever heard. Many babies are saved even if the mother for one reason or another is forced to have an early pregnancy. If a baby can be born after 26 weeks and survive, Then is it not a person. In some countries maybe they don't have the technology to save it at 26 weeks, So there is an abortion and it is not considered murder. In the USA that baby could be taken out, Cut out, And survive. So then imagine it is out and you kill it. . . Is that murder? Yes. To say that something is living simply because it is outside not inside is ridiculous. Let's say a 1-month-old baby is put inside a woman, I know we don't have the technology to do that, But if we did would it be okay to have an abortion, Or kill that baby. If it is not, Then what is the difference, And do you still believe a baby is a person when it exits the birth canal?
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
So psychopaths, Alzheimer patients, And autistic persons aren't humans in your view?

By defining personhood and valuing that over a notion of humanity as I do, All are included.
Posted by SansSkeleton 3 years ago
Greetings. Thank you for your opinion Thoht. My opinion upon the subject has changed, So let me tell you what I think a human is now. I should add that know I don't really care if something does not look like a human, Just as long as it can do one of these things. First of all, It must have the ability to learn, And be able to learn from its mistakes. Secondly, It should be able to feel emotions. Lastly, It should be able to have born (or learned) the ability of empathy, Mercy, And compassion. That is my opinion.

Thank you for considering my Statement
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
There are nonreligious people who struggle with it as well. A belief in a god is not necessary to think moral value is assigned at fertilization
Posted by billsands 3 years ago
i am so sick of this, You catholics need to mind your won business, It aint nobodies business if we do
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
I should note that your definition of what makes a human is problematic.

You say you need 2 out of 3 things to be a human at least.

1. Looks like a human. 2. Someone is emotionally attached to it/you. And has a 'mind of thought'. Under these definitions I can craft a clay baby that looks human and when someone gets emotionally attached to it it is human to you. You can say all 3 things but then that also becomes problematic. What if a human is out in the wilderness and no one cares about him/her?

Homo sapiens will always be defined as one who has human-like DNA enough to breed with other homo sapiens. I believe "human" is a bit less of a precise definition that people have tons of different definitions for. "Person" and "human" are synonymous for most people, But not for me.

Language is unfortunately imprecise and we don't all agree on these definitions.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
I consider eggs and sperm to be human cells. They're all potential people. Homo sapiens is a biological distinction for me. So a fertilized egg is a complete human. Human life starts at fertilization/conception, But 'personhood' is separate.

If an alien life form contacted us, He would be a member of a different species. If humans populate the galaxy we will evolve to different species, But we will have to recognize the moral value of them still. If our morality is based around only what is 'human' instead of what is a 'person' then as soon as we make robots with consciousness we will have problems with our moralities. I don't know how to not value the lives of other animals if we don't value personhood instead of life. I don't know the defining characteristic besides sentient consciousness that would justify the killing of anything but not justify aliens killing us as humans.

Personhood starts when your pattern recognizer - the brain - starts collecting experiences. Whether something has a human form or not - what it looks like - doesn't matter to me. If someone doesn't have legs, Or hands, A heart and is kept alive with technology - is just a disembodied brain - that is a person to me. It has value. A body without a brain - without a person inside it - has no value to me. Do with them as you please.

We tend to extend bodily autonomy to the brain that was connected to it after death, But it's not treated as anything near as serious as murder when you maim a corpse. I personally don't care if someone chops up my limbs and whatnot after my brain death. This is why organ donation is acceptable to me. I value personhood, Not life.

I agree that in an ideal world we stop abortions when the brain starts collecting experiences. In our current world this is not practical yet. That should be the goal, And I'll explain my reasoning behind that in the next round.
Posted by SansSkeleton 3 years ago
Thank you for your sightful opinion Thoht. I then question everyone here a question. This is the question, What do YOU consider a human, A Homo Sapien, An actual person, Or a personal comrade? Think about this for a minute. In my personal opinion, A human, Or a Homo Sapien is a "thing" that looks like a human, Has a decent mind of thought, And must have an emotional connection to something or someone. If it has at least two of these characteristics, I consider them a human. Now, Some people may point out that the embryo I was talking about in my last comment is "only shaped like a human, And is not considered a human", Well here is my argument to that statement. This embryo looks a little like a human, Correct? Well, The brain is already developing, And in that brain, You have neurons that are currently being built. Well, With a fully developed brain, This embryo (and someday, It will become a "he" or "she") will have emotional attachments to certain objects and will have the ability to LEARN.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Topaet 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF by Pro constitutes poor conduct, therefore conduct to Con

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