The Instigator
cello242
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
Lordess_2
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Abortion Debate

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 1 vote the winner is...
cello242
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/22/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,795 times Debate No: 118351
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)

 

cello242

Con

Con = Pro-Life
Pro = Pro-Choice

I will be defending two main assertions.

(1) There are good arguments that a fetus is a person and therefore has the right to live.

(2) There are no comparably good arguments that a fetus is not a person and/or is able to be justifiably killed via abortion.

Rather than beat a dead horse, I will wait for my opponent to present his/her argument before defending my second main assertion.

For the first assertion I would first like to point out that person is a moral term. It refers to a member of our moral community (therefore deserving consideration).

I argue that a fetus is a person based on the following argument

1. All human beings living from conception to brain death are persons
2. A fetus is a human being that is living post-conception and before brain death
3. A fetus is a person

To defend the first premise of my first argument I offer these scientific facts:

Life begins at the point of conception, And science confirms this. The zygote differs on a molecular level from both its parents and every other organism on earth. It also differs in behavior from the individual gametes, Preventing additional sperm from entering the cell within the first thirty minutes after conception. Based on the difference of behavior and molecular structure the most reasonable conclusion is that the zygote in question is not a cell of the mother's body, Rather an individual human cell of its own.

It is also not merely another human cell, Rather an organism. Let me explain. A human cell can differ between heart cells, Skin cells, Stomach cells, Etc. But an organism exhibits different behavior. The zygote begins constructing its own body, Using the resources provided by its mother. This process is organized and purposeful, Rather than random and chaotic behavior exhibited by a common tumor. Therefore we can conclude from this that the zygote from conception onward is a human organism or human being.

Since the zygote is a human being it deserves person-hood, Due to its state of being alive. Any differences between the zygote and human beings after birth would not affect the state of its person-hood.

This defends the first premise of the previous argument. Since the second premise is fairly straightforward we can lead to the conclusion with minimal effort, Namely

A fetus is a person

This would lead to the structure of my second argument

1. The unjustified killing of a person is homicide
2. A fetus is a person
3. Abortion is the unjustified killing of a fetus
4. Abortion is homicide

Since I have already established my argument in supporting premise two, I will start with premise three.

Abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, Accompanied by, Resulting in, Or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus

This definition (provided by Merriam-Webster) establishes that Abortion is a medical procedure designed to terminate a pregnancy by the intentional killing of the fetus.

Why is it unjustified?

The justification would come from woman's liberty. If she wants to terminate her pregnancy, Shouldn't that justify it? Unfortunately, It does not. However powerful the desire for abortion may be, The abortion process takes away a fetus's right to life, Which is required for the rights of liberty, And pursuit of happiness. Also, Killing another born human being is already a right no one has in the first place, It shouldn't make a difference of their size, Age, Structure, Development, Viability, Environment, Etc. In whether it can be killed or not.

Abortion takes all three unalienable rights away from the person in question (the fetus). On basis no one should be able to choose to take someone's life deliberately.

This is my starting defense of premise three, And, If standing, Proceeds to the conclusion.

Abortion is Homicide

Thanks to my opponent, Whoever they may be for participating in this debate. I am very excited to hear your best arguments for your position and to embark on this exciting dialogue.

If you want to see the article where I gathered my facts in supporting the first premise of my first argument, Here is the link

https://lozierinstitute. Org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

I have posted this opening statement several times, I request that whoever agrees to participate in this dialogue do so until the end.
Lordess_2

Pro

if it's legal to kill someone who breaks into your house, Shouldn't it be legal to terminate an unwanted pregnancy? If it's legal to swallow pills, Eat, And insert liquids into my body, It should be legal to remove a creature sucking off of the insides of my body. Basically, It should be legal have control over what's going on in your body.

Let's say that abortion was illegal. Then what? There will be still be attempts at aborting and or terminating an unwanted pregnancy, Just a lot unsafer.

If fighting to terminate sickness that consists of bacteria (which are living things) is legal, Because obviously it brings an unwanted outcome (possibly death), It should be legal to have an abortion, Because that too brings an unwanted outcome to many females. In which that outcome can possibly destroy their futures, Which also drags back the advancement of the human race, Because they are unable to get an education (referring to the teenage girls in this case).

Back to you!
Debate Round No. 1
cello242

Con

Thank you Lordess_2 for being my interlocutor in this debate. I greatly appreciate any critiques you have to my arguments against abortion.

In my opening statement I said I would defend two main contentions.

1. There are good arguments that a fetus is a person and therefore has the right to live.

2. There are no comparably good arguments that a fetus is not a person and/or is able to be justifiably killed via abortion.

From what I could tell in your arguments posted in your opening statement, They have not attacked either of my two main contentions or any of my premises in any of my arguments.

I am afraid your arguments are attacking a straw man. I have not asserted that abortion should not be legal in the United States and is not the topic of this debate. I am defending that Abortion is unethical.

I have not heard an argument opposing the person-hood of a fetus. I would like to ask whether or not you deny the proposition that a fetus is a person and if so if there are any criteria of person-hood you would like to bring forward to contend mine?

Your arguments assert that abortion should be legal, But not that it is unjustified. Your arguments are analogous to things that are legal, However we know that there are plenty of things that are legal and certainly unjustified.

The first conclusion we need to come to in this debate is whether or not a fetus is a person. If it is not a person then the pro life position falls apart, A woman can certainly have any abortion justifiably if the fetus is not a person. If it is a person then the pro choice position falls apart because then the woman shouldn't kill a fetus as a matter of personal choice; it is unjustified.

After that conclusion is met we can hear if there is any argument from the pro-choice side that dictates justified killing of a fetus.

Until this happens however, All of my arguments stand and my assertions uncontested. If my arguments remain unchallenged then the conclusion is that 1. A fetus is a person and 2. Abortion is homicide
Lordess_2

Pro

Lordess_2 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
cello242

Con

My arguments go unchallenged

1. All living human beings are persons
2. A fetus is a living human being
3. A fetus is a person

1. The unjustified killing of a person is homicide
2. A fetus is a person
3. Abortion is the unjustified killing of a fetus
4. Abortion is homicide

These have stood up throughout and remain standing. I thank my opponent for participating in this debate
Lordess_2

Pro

Lordess_2 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by billsands 5 days ago
billsands
I am not pro abortion, I would never encourage a person to have an abortion, Drink too much smoke pot or even tobacco, And yet i don't want people to be arrested because they won't live the way i want them to, This is an extremely personal issue, Extremely maybe the most personal issue, I may not be pro abortion, But i am pro privacy and i am pro the government staying out of peoples personal lives.
Posted by Alex_lrnr 1 week ago
Alex_lrnr
The scariest part of making abortions illegal is that government decides what person can or can not do with their body. That is much scarier than government spying on you. This will lead to woman hurting themselves. You can't make someone leave the life they don't want. Otherwise, It's not freedom, And I wouldn't want to leave in that country.
Posted by Porkloin 1 week ago
Porkloin
Being an "organism" or "human being" (if we use such a broad definition as to include everything after conception) is not the same thing as having personhood. Personhood is an attributed thing, Not a physical quantity. Regardless if we say the zygote-blastocyst-embryo-fetus is a "human being" or not, Vast numbers of them perish every day, Many from failure to implant, And many from having genetic faults/deficiencies that result in spontaneous abortions. It's unknown exactly how many this is, But it's a large percentage of pregnancies - as many as 75% of pregnancies end this way, Most of the time beyond the knowledge of the would-be-mother and father.

Certainly - when a wanted pregnancy is underway far enough that the parents are aware of it - the loss of it can be very sad for them. That is their desire at work, However, Not any physical fact nor "the way it has to be. " Society is not greatly harmed by the deaths of the unborn.
Posted by dustryder 1 week ago
dustryder
A potential human is not a human though
Posted by Ezpresso 1 week ago
Ezpresso
Killing a potential human for your own benefit is immoral, Although of course there are circumstantially-based argument both for and against abortion, The fundamental ethical implications of it maintain.
Posted by Fireculex 2 weeks ago
Fireculex
My view is just let people do what they want and evolution will sort it all out.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 weeks ago
John_C_1812
Female specific amputation does not describe anything as a parasite it is constitutional addressing the self-incrimination that has been perpetuated in a medical process that has been found by law to illegally invade privacy. The understanding that scientific community also takes part in this process of separation is simply not being represented openly to the public.

The debate is over woman"s right to independence and there is legal precedent set by marriage in this context to formation of person as citizen of Nation. As the United States Constitution has been publicly accused of negligence and discrimination. There is a public obligation to represent poignant objection.
Posted by missmedic 3 weeks ago
missmedic
One reason most biologists wouldn't characterize a fetus as a parasite is that a parasite and its host are typically from different species.

"Instead of being passive tissue that absorbs available nutrients from the mother, The placenta dynamically distributes nutrients between mother and fetus, Optimally ensuring the health of both mother and developing baby" [by] receiv[ing] metabolic signals from both the mother and fetus and respond[ing] to this input by regulating the nutrient amounts made available to the fetus. "

In other words, This research shows that pregnancy is not a competition between the rights of mother and child (as abortion advocates would have us believe).
Posted by SomeRandomTOKStudent 3 weeks ago
SomeRandomTOKStudent
Well, I know its quite weird, But by definition a fetus should be considered a parasite. A parasite is defined as: "an organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense. " If we think about the fetus, It basically is living in another organism (its mother) and benefits by deriving nutrients off its mother's expense. If we see it this way, It is entirely up to the hosts' decision whether to kill this "parasite" or not.
Posted by dustryder 3 weeks ago
dustryder
Just because a zygote is distinctive from other cells and exhibits directed behaviour, Doesn't mean it's an organism in its own right. I think it's a very handwavy argument.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 weeks ago
dsjpk5
cello242Lordess_2Tied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff over half the rounds.