frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Abortion?

Debate Information

     In recent years the topic of abortion has become extremely relevant, and this discussion is to ignore all religious and personal beliefs to find the truth (remember, this is a persuasion debate so you have to have an open mind, that doesn't mean totally changing your mind, but at least be open to opposition and think about what the opposite side is saying.) Everyone should agree murder is a horrible act, if you refute that you need serious psychological help. Also, nobody is refuting rape and incest are bad acts nor are we condoning these acts, but remember there is no need to avoid these topics, nor waste time repeatedly stating you understand these are horrible acts.
     If you turn on the news almost any day in America, you will likely hear people protesting for or against abortion, side note, there is a series on youtube called middle ground check it out, but abortion has become extremely problematic as women where women used to have abortions to save their lives, now they are killing their children because they have down syndrome or because they are boys and not girls. Also, women are aborting their children because they are raped or incest has occurred, again we don't refute these are horrible acts we just need to make a point. I see people all the time go out and protest, "This is my body, a sacred ground, and I don't have to carry something that isn't me and then raise it." The problem is though, when you kill a baby, it isn't your body, it is the babies, and if you say the baby isn't your responsibility to raise, why did you have sex or an ivf I mean I understand you wanting to have sex, but can't you protect yourself. You also have so many women who once they have an abortion they regret what they have done and try to reaffirm other people support their choices even if they know they aren't right. I also have a question, if your body is this sacred temple, why did you let this man invade you? I will keep this first point short ending with one last major point and then expanding these points later, You are raped and or incest occurs, and many people argue you will always think of being raped or the incest event when you see the baby. If you talk to women who has let their baby lived after they are raped you see they do think about the rape sometimes, but they love the kid with all their heart and just because they were raped doesn't make them love that kid any less. People also need to understand the kid committed no crime, so why should he be punished with death. The person who commited the crime should be subject to penalization, but why does what they did justify killing a kid. I have spoke to women who are pro choice, and they say they would give their life for their kids, but when I say would you die for your unborn baby to live they say why should they die for it. I have a question, if you would give your life for a three year old kid why not give your life for a kid that won't be born for a month. The only case to commit an abortion that has any ground is if a mother and the child will die, but an abortion will save the mother. I hate that option, but it is the only case with any ground. 
     There is no greater love than to give your life for a friend, and I would give my life for many of my friends, then why would I not give my life for my child? If I was to give my life for a friend, say Emma, why not for my soon to be born kiddo? 
aarong
  1. Live Poll

    Is Abortion Bad

    12 votes
    1. Yes
      50.00%
    2. No
      41.67%
    3. Yes unless the mother will die
        8.33%
About Persuade Me

Persuaded Argument

  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    I tell the truth. We kill the human and say it's okay.

    Simple.

    Pro-choice, done deal.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    Rebuttal 1 - Who outlaws who?
    I notice in your entire speech, you never once take into account which sides rules out the other to act out their urges.
    You say you would lay down your life for your unborn fetus  in the closing statement. You are in no way whatsoever inhibited in doing so in a pro-choice society. A pro-choice society is not an enforced-abortion society.

    Rebuttal 2 - The way you justify the killing of a fetus being wrong is assuming that the fetus 'deserves' to live.
    I'm going to go ahead and assume you are not anti-contraception and not anti masturbation. The 'wasted seed' is as much killing off potential life as is abortion, it's just less blatant and invasive into the uterus in doing so (unless it's cutting the tubes because that is very invasive). The fetus is a potential life, a potential baby to be born and raised. The state doesn't really want to have to pay its tax money on that baby's welfare, it also doesn't really want abusive, or neglectful parents to raise a being they never intended to exist for most of its conception and who would absolutely have aborted it ASAP given the choice.

    The point being, unless the baby is in the third trimester and they have clearly gone past what can be justified as 'time to opt out' which even in the act of masturbating is what you are doing, you are opting your sperm out of the gamble to have a baby (a miscarriage means it is indeed a gamble to have a baby as there is chance it will still amount to nothing in terms of living human beings).

    I'm gonna leave those 2 rebuttals as the main holes in your case. If you can't defend against even those 2, I will then push further to achieve the 'persuade me'. I want to see if you can defend against those two and focus on ensuring your case is already weak based on them.
    whiteflameVaulk
  • FredsnephewFredsnephew 361 Pts   -  
    Thing is, the issue of abortion, like most everything else can ultimately be boiled down to the big question.

    What is the reason for the existence of everything?

    Unless you can truly answer this question, you cannot truly decide if "abortion is bad". 


    I would suggest that the word "bad" is somewhat insipid anyway. It would be far more questioning to ask, is abortion  wrong.


    If you conclude that everything has purpose, then realistically abortion may or may not be wrong.

    If you conclude that everything is chance, then realistically abortion becomes irrelevant.

    If you cannot come to a conclusion, then realistically abortion may or may not be wrong.


    What we are actually discussing is. 

    Is abortion wrong, in a modern social context?

    But of course. No one person has the real authority to make such a decision?

    In a fair society, we can only legislate, based on a consensus of opinion.


    someone234
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    @Fredsnephew you are advocating an individual to think their way into sheep mentality. The irony is not lost on me.

  • shadowCorbinshadowCorbin 17 Pts   -  
    @Fredsnephew Sorry about the mistake I meant is abortion morally wrong since, and especially in America, everyone should have a right to life.
  • FascismFascism 344 Pts   -  
    I support abortion before the second trimester because the baby doesn't have a mind at that point. It is no different from any other organ. Sure it has living cells, but so does any other organ. 
    So what is the difference between a normal organ and a fetus then? Both the organ and the fetus have living cells but no mind. It can be argued that the fetus will eventually become a child and the organ won't, but that doesn't change the fact that the fetus itself isn't living. This would make ejaculation genocide due to the fact that sperm cells contain cells, no mind, and will eventually become a child. 
    Adults will always have a mind so there is no case where they could be alive without a mind. Even when in a coma their mind is active to an extent. 
  • shadowCorbinshadowCorbin 17 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    @someone234 First thanks for the actual argument instead of blatantly attacking me and calling me a sexist (why is anti abortion sexist?) I appreciate that.

    First I understand Pro-Choice isn't forced abortion it is simply acceptable, and I may have stated my point incorrectly, but I was really asking what the difference between Pro-Choice and Pro-Abortion is, because Pro-Choice seems more like a "softer" way of saying Pro-Abortion. Where you also said the state doesn't want to have to pay for raising the child, there is a "washing out" procedure which is almost like contraception, and very close to a rape kit. Within three days of the rape, incest, other sex act, and for whatever reason you don't want the baby, you can go and get your ovaries flushed and the sperm will be washed out. This is not abortion, while people will argue it is still wrong, at least you are not killing a baby yet. Now once the three days has passed(a baby conceives at that time) the sperm and egg have come together and a life is formed. You asked who outlaws who in your first rebuttal, and that is an interesting question. In our American democracy especially, everyone can expect a right to life, and what Pro Choice or abortion activists are doing is eliminating everyone's right to live. Where before your parents had almost no choice (at least supported) in whether you were born, now they can kill you because they feel like it, because they want to. Also yes, everyone does deserve to live, I can't kill random Joe off the street because he deserves to live. Why would anyone (save murderers) not deserve to live? 

    And no, the state may not want to have to raise the child, but then why is there welfare for people who can work, even though they just choose not to? I will almost completely ignore the baby deserves to die because of what the father did argument simply because the answer is obvious, but again, why would anyone deserve to die because of another's action? I want to quickly point out I am not asking a rhetorical question. I have just one last question, if a grown man deserves to live, why would a fetus not? Simply because someone is not born yet doesn't mean it doesn't have life.

    My argument is pretty weak, easy to beat.

  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    I have just one last question, if a grown man deserves to live, why would a fetus not? Simply because someone is not born yet doesn't mean it doesn't have life.

    My argument is pretty weak, easy to beat.
    If you know that your argument is weak and easy to beat, then you are already able to comprehend where you're going wrong in reaching the conclusion that you've reached.

    For fun I'll answer this one question.

    A grown man deserves to live because of everyone being too terrified or too incapable (or both) to kill him. Simple as that, period. 
    shadowCorbin
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    I think the fundamental problem I have with the Pro-Life movement (and with this argument) is that they are quite clearly of the opinion that they know when a human life begins: at conception. @someone234 already explained this, but allow me to expound on my view.

    It's my view that selecting any point along the life cycle of a human being as the start of said human being's life is inherently arbitrary. What you're doing is stating that a select set of characteristics effectively constructs what a human being is. In fact, this is a very common argument from Pro-Life people, but they don't seem to understand that they're damning their own point in the process of making it. Usually, it's addressed at claims like those made by @Fascism, wherein there is some characteristic (in this case, a mind) that is absolutely necessary for a human being to come into existence. I view that argument as arbitrary as well, partly because human development cycles aren't all so clear-cut, and partly because I don't feel that there's anything inherent to the creation of a "mind" that actually specifies what is human. But the argument stretches across all supposedly human characteristics.

    Assuming we could somehow strip out pieces of ourselves, at what point would we cease to be human? That's basically the question we're asking ourselves here, since the zygote formed upon conception is effectively a completely stripped down human, i.e. a single cell with "unique" "human" genetic material (note that the quotes are meant to demarcate terms that aren't altogether clear, reasons to separate a zygote from any other organism). Why is this a human? What makes it human? If it's not human, what makes a blastocyst human? If not that, what makes an embryo human? A fetus? At what point is humanity applied to this organism growing within the womb? More importantly, what separates that entity from any of the prior stages in its life cycle? The gametes (sperm and ovum) contain human DNA, and are necessary components of a zygote, as a zygote is a necessary component of a blastocyst, and so on. Why aren't these gametes humans? Why aren't the cells that were their progenitors humans? At what point do we stop, and why do we stop? The only realistic argument I've heard against all this is that uncertainty should lead us to be as careful as possible because we don't know, that we should set the bar as low as possible to prevent any humans from dying. But that runs into the same problem. If we really want to be that careful, why aren't we talking about banning masturbation? Why are contraceptives allowed in a world where every instance of intercourse is a potential child lost? Why allow rape kits at all when they actively prevent the formation of a new life?

    Now, I'm Pro-Choice. However, it's not my argument that human life begins in a specific trimester. I'm not pretending that I know when a human life starts. What I do know is that we're all setting that line arbitrarily. We define certain traits as being sufficient for defining an organism as human, and we justify those traits by various means. My perspective is that, since there is nowhere to define the beginning of a life, we have to instead define the beginning of a separate life, i.e. the point at which viability outside the womb is possible. I'm not pretending that that is the point when a human life begins, but rather the point at which a human life achieves a degree of independence, one where it is not physically attached to the mother. Maybe this is just as arbitrary as any other view, but as far as I'm concerned, there's no harm in taking it. It draws a clear line between a child born into the world and one that is not, and thereby treats the two lives very differently. By definition, it does not devalue any human life that exists outside the womb.

    More importantly, it deals with a number of nasty problems. A mother who loses her life at the end of her pregnancy is never going to have another child. The loss of that woman inherently results in the loss of any future children. Why should she be forced to sacrifice their lives for this one? Rape victims tend to be traumatized, and as a result they do not rapidly report their rapes or seek help. Blaming them for not getting a rape kit in time to stop the pregnancy is literally victim shaming, so abortion functions as a more than reasonable back up. But getting into individual cases like this misses the forest for the trees. Requiring every single woman who gets pregnant to be so strongly protective that they must carry it to term is ludicrous. Women would sabotage their own pregnancy through numerous means, harming themselves and the potential infant. In the process, they may lose their ability to have any future children when they're ready. They may give birth to a child with severe problems. You may view this as an issue where life should always be paramount, but when the harm is a tremendous loss in quality of life, that has to be considered as well. 
    FascismMajoMILSdlGMGV
  • FascismFascism 344 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame I share most of your views, especially in the last paragraph. But what gives your separation more merit than mine? 

    You state that, "as far as I'm concerned, there's no harm in taking it. It draws a clear line between a child born into the world and one that is not, and thereby treats the two lives very differently. By definition, it does not devalue an human life that exists outside the womb."

    I believe similarly of my separation. I don't think there is no harm in taking it. It draws a clear line between a fetus that matters and an organ, and thereby has different value in the society. By definition, it does not devalue a human life that exists outside the womb. 

    Of course, my definition has the same problem as yours since both of them have the same amount of merit if I don't explain myself. So I will explain why I chose the presence of a mind as the deciding feature. 

    I chose a mind because the whole concept of life is the presence of consciousness. What separates a human from a robot that acts exactly like a human? The only difference is the presence of a mind. Of course, that particular robot would have the same processing power as a human and will be programmed to act exactly the same as a human would to certain stimulus including social interaction hypothetically, but it cannot truly think and feel from its consciousness. It is just a machine. This is why I chose the presence of a mind as the deciding feature. 
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    @Fascism

    I didn’t mean to put down your view of a meaningful means of separation, nor to state that mine is more meritorious. The statement I made regarding yours is that it’s still an arbitrary basis for designating the start of a human life. It’s fine as a pragmatic basis for determining what separates an entity with rights from an entity that mostly lacks them, which is the same basis as mine, so there’s no harm in it.

    Your explanation makes sense to me. I think along similar lines about the issue, and the mind is something I’d consider to be essential.
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame If the difference between being sexy and ugly is arbitrary, does that mean it has less effect on your libido when someone is towards either extreme?

    Arbitrary this and arbitrary that,
    Arbitrary anorexic and arbitrary fat,
    Arbitrary very scary, arbitrary very chill,
    Arbitrary worthless fetus, time to eat after I kill.



    Darwin was wrong. It isn't the most adapted to the environment who make it. It's those who adapt the environment to them. You aren't born a winner, you need to pave the way for you to become one.

    Stop crying about a fetus, be thankful you were not the aborted one and get the hell on with life.
    SlanderIsNotDebate1995
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @someone234

    Not sure I see a response to my points in there. Can’t tell if you meant this to be a comedic embellishment or an actual response.
  • FascismFascism 344 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    @whiteflame ;
    Yes but we can still argue which arbitrary basis is better, can we not? 

    Many morals are arbitrary, but we can still determine certain morals which are better than others. For example, is the freedom for someone to kill more important, or is the freedom for someone to not get killed more important. Both are certain freedoms which are based on arbitrary morals, but we can still determine that the freedom to not get killed is more important based on cultural and universal values. 

    In this case, it would be the argument of whether a human being that could be valued should be defined by having a mind, or being outside the womb. 
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame Your entire p***yfooting 'both sides are wrong' stance is basically like being in world war two and acting like Switzerland mattered.

    If you want to enter a debate, pick a side and get on with the debating.

    Human life begins when human DNA has formed. Yes, that's right we're killing humans who are a parasite to a member of society who can be a lot more productive in her life if she doesn't have this child. Even if she gives it up for adoption, that really is not too helpful considering the overpopulation going on around the world.

    Don't pretend that life is supposed to be nice and do not for a second stand there and say that killing people is unfair or wrong. Are you a vegetarian? Really? Then maybe I'd respect this stance you take. I don't understand mercy, I was barely ever shown it in life and the times where I was shown it, it was rubbed completely in my face.

    Life is a competition. You may not 'win' but you can try your best to 'not lose with as many style points as we can get'. Just stop sitting there sulking about what's arbitrary, what's definite and what's good. Good people die first in any desert island scenario. Yes, you are right, the aggressive maniac killing them will be the next to die. Meanwhile the calculating norm who are neither naive nor completely unfit for society are going to gang together, grab pigs by their feet and there sure isn't time or resources to electrocute its brain to ease the pain of the neck slitting and bleeding out in the Lord of the Flies scenario.

    Good guys never ever win in life. The first to hurt them also never wins. Just because you kill a fetus doesn't mean you go around being a threat to fully formed human beings, no one wants that and they will be just as merciless to you as you were to those beings.

    It's not about justice, it's about negotiation. The fetus has nothing to negotiate with, it's not a threat and no one feels themselves to be fetus-like. That's why we eat meat so happily and even make anyone who'd dare bring up how merciless the entire thing is at Christmas dinner a nuisance. Yes, I know the type as part of my family is like this. They'd sooner kick me in the shin under the table and say ' you annoying bast**d!' than to listen and care about the suffering the turkeys and other birds go through on such occasions (duck and goose are more common Christmas meals in EU nations rather than turkey).

    Don't cry because the world is cruel, smile because you can become just as cruel.
    SlanderIsNotDebate1995
  • shadowCorbinshadowCorbin 17 Pts   -  
    @someone234 What you are saying is survival of the fittest and to an extent is good, but eventually you have to throw out all morals and ethics. That's not where I meant my argument was weak. If everyone deserved to live because people were scared of them why would we have killed Hitler or Stalin or any other powerful person. The other problem with your argument was everyone has the capability to pull a trigger and kill someone, the problem isn't incapability it is fear or morals. He is a human life and that is what separates him from all other animals, and that gives him a right to live over those animals. If a person or an animal are falling off a cliff(assuming you can save either) and assuming you don't hate that person to the point of murder (by letting them fall) you would save the person if you had any sense at all. 
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    @shadowCorbin Genius tell me, is the propaganda used by Hitler and Stalin to get their people rooting for them and to get people en masse pressuring one another to die for the country and not be a traitor any different to what Churchill and the French prime ministers (there were 3 overall) did?

    shadowCorbin
  • shadowCorbinshadowCorbin 17 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame just the victim shaming part is what I am putting this argument up for. When people say you should have got a rape kit, they aren't attacking that directly, they are saying you didn't get the rape kit and as a result you shouldn't be allowed to kill your baby. Also assuming the woman would harm herself is a fallacy and you should assume that woman has family and I am not saying they would always help her, but there should be someone to help her. If someone rape victim or not has the will to harm themselves, they should seek mental assistance, and this goes twice for pregnant women as they are also hurting their baby. If the baby has defects as a result of the mother harming herself is her fault and not on the baby, and not directly the rapist. One last thing when you are speaking about what defines a human you approach nominalism which is the doctrine that universals or general ideas are mere names without any corresponding reality, and that only particular objects exist; properties, numbers, and sets are thought of as merely features of the way of considering the things that exist. Important in medieval scholastic thought, nominalism is associated particularly with William of Occam. What it really means is I can say that is a human, but I am really just using the word human to define a living thing with a particular set of characteristics. What you are saying is universals don't exist, but then we approach one problem. What is the point of names. We have human, then we should we call things, we have people, and then men and women, and then ages, then all other characteristics, and we have to refer to everything as an individual. That would be okay if there were only two of everything, but when they are almost eight billion people we can't define every person as themselves. We have a definition for human and that to all people whether they are blond hair blue eyes or down syndrome autistic Indian. What is the issue with that, just because someone is not ideal definition or the the definition is too broad to effectively apply to all people? The problem seems to boil down to is it okay to kill someone just because they don't fit the human definition to its fullest extent. The nominalism and defining problem seem to cancel each other out. In the future I would stick to one or the other because when they are together if you don't fully explain them which would take hours, not everyone will understand.   
  • shadowCorbinshadowCorbin 17 Pts   -  
    @Fascism Yes, we need a certain code for ethics or morals, but we shouldn't have to. The problem seems to present itself when people who are should I say an off compos leading people the wrong way. When we have so many people led astray and we try to rescue them we can have some of our own flock gone. The parable of the shepherd having a sheep goes astray. If he doesn't secure the other 99 sheep before he saves the one gone some of the 99 might go astray. If we have too many go astray we end up with two warring parties like Republicans and Democrats or Liberals. 
  • shadowCorbinshadowCorbin 17 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    @whiteflame If that is not a joke it he is very messed up so assume it is comedic. He is right though raise the child and get on with life, or get a rape kit, and if you are too embarrassed to get one its your own fault. Raise it or put the kiddo up for adoption. If I am not to flush it out before conception and the sperm and egg come together to make life it is too bad the kid is now my responsibility.
  • FascismFascism 344 Pts   -  
    @shadowCorbin Yes. A moral code can help people stay on track. Of course morals could still change as long as they fit in with that code. 
    I agree with you that in an ideal society moral codes shouldn't be needed. 
  • shadowCorbinshadowCorbin 17 Pts   -  
    @someone234 overpopulation isn't the problem. Yes some places are overcrowded, but look at anywhere in the U.S. not on the coast. I live three miles from city limits and have three people other than me within a five mile radius of my house. 
  • shadowCorbinshadowCorbin 17 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    @someone234 Hitler was killing people because he thought they were less important lives. Churchill wanted to defend hearth and homeland from Hitler. Kind of hard to compare a cynical mass murderer to a man who just wanted his country to be left alone. Yes the murder itself was morally wrong, but Churchill was justified in his action, Hitler just didn't like people.
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @shadowCorbin You do know that Churchill and Chamberlain invented Saudi Arabia, sharia Law and the entire middle east. USA and UK have had a strong hand in the creation of the organisations that ended up as Al Qaeda and ISIS.

    You have a lot to learn about the world if you think Churchill just wanted Britain left alone. His predecessor wanted Britain left alone, Churchill wanted blood and blood he got.
    shadowCorbinSlanderIsNotDebate1995
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @shadowCorbin So go and make babies then. Last time I checked USA has no law against that.
    shadowCorbinSlanderIsNotDebate1995
  • shadowCorbinshadowCorbin 17 Pts   -  
    @someone234 You asked me the difference what difference Churchill and the French Prime Ministers had from Stalin and Hitler in their propaganda usage and their effects, so Sharia law (Allah's commands from the Quran) and the Middle East aren't directly relevant to the question in any way, nor is the reply about it. I never denied Churchill wanted blood from Germany, but remember Churchill wasn't overlord, dictator, whatever other name people called him, and the comparison was like asking why the sheriff called for the killing of a murderer. He had a just reason for the blood he got, very different from Hitler, and Stalin. 
  • shadowCorbinshadowCorbin 17 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    @whiteflame just the victim shaming part is what I am putting this argument up for. When people say you should have got a rape kit, they aren't attacking that directly, they are saying you didn't get the rape kit and as a result you shouldn't be allowed to kill your baby. Also assuming the woman would harm herself is a fallacy and you should assume that woman has family and I am not saying they would always help her, but there should be someone to help her. If someone rape victim or not has the will to harm themselves, they should seek mental assistance, and this goes twice for pregnant women as they are also hurting their baby. If the baby has defects as a result of the mother harming herself is her fault and not on the baby, and not directly the rapist. One last thing when you are speaking about what defines a human you approach nominalism which is the doctrine that universals or general ideas are mere names without any corresponding reality, and that only particular objects exist; properties, numbers, and sets are thought of as merely features of the way of considering the things that exist. Important in medieval scholastic thought, nominalism is associated particularly with William of Occam. What it really means is I can say that is a human, but I am really just using the word human to define a living thing with a particular set of characteristics. What you are saying is universals don't exist, but then we approach one problem. What is the point of names. We have human, then we should we call things, we have people, and then men and women, and then ages, then all other characteristics, and we have to refer to everything as an individual. That would be okay if there were only two of everything, but when they are almost eight billion people we can't define every person as themselves. We have a definition for human and that to all people whether they are blond hair blue eyes or down syndrome autistic Indian. What is the issue with that, just because someone is not ideal definition or the the definition is too broad to effectively apply to all people? The problem seems to boil down to is it okay to kill someone just because they don't fit the human definition to its fullest extent. The nominalism and defining problem seem to cancel each other out. In the future I would stick to one or the other because when they are together if you don't fully explain them which would take hours, not everyone will understand.   
    I made a mistake and meant to note nominalism makes identifying or characteristic words that apply to groups unusable, not bad in itself, but saying "they are blond" or any other identifier even would be unusable and identifying a group would be made impossible.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    Fascism said:
    @whiteflame ;
    Yes but we can still argue which arbitrary basis is better, can we not? 

    Many morals are arbitrary, but we can still determine certain morals which are better than others. For example, is the freedom for someone to kill more important, or is the freedom for someone to not get killed more important. Both are certain freedoms which are based on arbitrary morals, but we can still determine that the freedom to not get killed is more important based on cultural and universal values. 

    In this case, it would be the argument of whether a human being that could be valued should be defined by having a mind, or being outside the womb. 
    Alright, we can do this. The problem I have with your argument is that it's impossible to tell when the mind has developed to a point of being able to impart consciousness. If we set the line at viability outside the womb, then we can base the stage past which abortion should not be allowed at the earliest time when a premature infant could survive. If we set that line at when a potential child has achieved consciousness, then we have to set some arbitrary point in the process of brain development as the point that consciousness begins. In doing so, we are compounding the arbitrary nature of the selection, making it even less significant. Beyond that, there's bound to be a substantial amount of debate over when consciousness begins, so there will always be push and pull regarding when that requirement is met.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    Alright, I really have not the slightest clue where this diatribe is coming from. You're not responding to my main argument (which actually mirrors the one you posted), and instead straw-manning me pretty strongly. I never said that neither Pro-Choice nor Pro-Life had a reasonable argument. I said that both sides tend to use the argument of knowing precisely when a human life begins to dictate when that life is granted all human rights. I even stated that there is a better way to assign rights without being arbitrary, and that is to be pragmatic about the real world effects of bans on the women who have these children. I think that falls strongly into the Pro-Choice camp, and I said as much. This isn't me trying to shut down the debate, it's me refocusing it to an issue that isn't entirely arbitrary.

    But hey, if you're going to make actual responses, let's get to them.

    "Human life begins when human DNA has formed."

    Human DNA is never "formed." It replicates, it recombines with other DNA, but it does not "form." That's important because it tells you that the fundamental composition of DNA in an infant is derived directly from that child's parents. So that DNA is not unique, though it may be a unique recombination of DNA from each parent. However, if DNA is what makes us human, what part of that DNA causes our inherent humanness? We share 98.5% of our DNA with chimpanzees. Is it the 1.5% that makes us human? How much of that can we lose and still be human? And how much of us has to have that DNA in order to be human? Why isn't a pig that has grown an organ specifically for use in xenotransplantation (making the organ effectively human, since it has human DNA) also human? 

    "Don't pretend that life is supposed to be nice and do not for a second stand there and say that killing people is unfair or wrong."

    Did I take that stance? Where? I said that human beings are entitled to certain rights. They are provided those rights via a basic social contract in which their societies agree to treat them a certain way and ensure that others treat them that way as well. Killing people might be necessary in some circumstances, but we don't make a habit of condoning it in societies because it tends to make the whole social structure break down.

    "Are you a vegetarian?"

    Not sure what this has to do with anything. If you want me to justify eating meat, I'd be more than happy to provide that argument, but it's entirely besides the point. I'm not stating anything about mercy. I'm talking about how society should structure its laws in a pragmatic and meaningful way instead of relying on arbitrary distinctions.

    "Just stop sitting there sulking about what's arbitrary, what's definite and what's good. Good people die first in any desert island scenario."

    It's not sulking to engage in reasonable argumentation on an issue like this. The fact that I'm interested in discussing the issue of how we decide whether or not abortion should be legal and on what basis is not what I would call sulking. I'm establishing an inherent flaw in the logic of a commonly made argument. I'm not trying to be "good" either, whatever that means. But if your overall point is that I'll die on a desert island with some maniacs around, then you're probably right. I have no clue what that has to do with any of this discussion, and it sounds like you're going off on a tangent chiefly because you have a lot of personal issues you're working through. But whatever you're dealing with, it has no place in this debate.

    "It's not about justice, it's about negotiation. The fetus has nothing to negotiate with, it's not a threat and no one feels themselves to be fetus-like. That's why we eat meat so happily and even make anyone who'd dare bring up how merciless the entire thing is at Christmas dinner a nuisance." 

    Again, sounding like you've got a lot of personal baggage you're dragging into this. If the idea is that a fetus fundamentally has no rights because it cannot negotiate for them, then you're also treating an awful lot of human beings the same, including those in a coma and those without the ability to comprehensibly defend themselves. You might feel that these people aren't inherently human, but you're going to get a lot of push-back on that view. I'd say it functions against the basic social contract by treating the loss (temporary or permanent) of certain brain functions as effectively turning a human being into nothing more than a pile of meat.

    "Don't cry because the world is cruel, smile because you can become just as cruel."

    Gee, what a swell message. Other people are monsters? Become one. Great. Loving it.
  • shadowCorbinshadowCorbin 17 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame The one thing to avoid here when saying both sides find a point to say when abortion is wrong is not everyone has the same point. Some say as long as the fetus won't survive outside the womb, others say when the baby gets its own heartbeat, and some say not at all, and the worst, as long as the baby isn't born yet. The thing about the DNA forming is its their from the parents sperm and egg, but the DNA blends from both to form a new life. Nice argument, some people have resorted to arguing with me over if Churchill was as bad as Hitler, so thanks for sticking to the topic.
  • FredsnephewFredsnephew 361 Pts   -  
    @Fredsnephew you are advocating an individual to think their way into sheep mentality. The irony is not lost on me.


    Is this a philosophical debate or a biology lesson?

    I am merely presenting an alternative point of view.


    Abortion debate does not exclusively, have to be discussed in the socio-conceptual arena.

    Especially a debate, categorized as philosophy.

    The socio-conceptual box is quite limiting.

    You should occasionally try and think outside the box.



  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    I’m totally in favour of a woman having full autonomy over her own body regarding abortion 
  • So, abortion is to kill a fetus before it is born. While some say it's already a life with feelings and stuff and others say no, it's not and it's important to have decisions. I am going to go with pro-choice, 100% Aren't most of us here.... guys? Men? We never can get pregnant. Ever. At least not without HUGE technological advances. Pregnancy is pretty painful from what it seems. Really, this should be left up to health specialists, people familiar with laws (preferably, applicable laws), women, and men that actually have experience with seeing a pregnancy the whole way through. If somebody has never been through a time when they were around somebody having a baby, what do they know? There's that, and then there's the other points. Ultimately, when aborted, yes, the baby will feel pain. Maybe lots of it, but tell me, once it is over, isn't it over? Eventually, that same baby could scrape it's knee, get stung by a bee, get shot, get dropped, etc. Life is pain as Mr. Me-Seeks from Rick and Morty says. And it's pretty true. I agree that if two teens are and have a baby with consent, then MAYBE, it's a bit more debatable whether they should allowed an abortion. Ultimately though this isn't about punishing them for what they did with heavy responsibility though, but for the good of the baby. Would you really want to be born to two teens? I wouldn't. I could end up dying slow from hunger, stress, etc, but I'd much rather just make it quick. THEN, when those teens MATURE later on and are ready, THEN they if I am the coming baby, I'd be fine being born. I doubt anyone want to be born into hunger and poverty. Is that a worth it life? No, it's not. I am actually all against the world having more babies. I think it's in reality, just an excuse to have condom less sex with less shame and more glory, not to mention possible benefits given if you have a child. People that so desperately want babies of their own, in my opinion, have a sense of selfishness, because really, all humans are related. Simple as that. Dogs, wolves, coyotes, etc all come from the same family. Hell some dogs have literally adopted KITTENS and TURTLES! Even DUCKS dammit! So why don't we, as a species stop our sexual greed and start adopting each other???? We are a SUPER over populated world ALREADY with NOT enough resources that are SHRINKING at fast rates! It's about time sex robots and stuff come out so that way, people can experience sex  and get over it already. Wanna bet if sex didn't feel good, we'd be THIS populated???? Right. It's be like going to the bathroom. If it felt as good as sex to go pee, wouldn't bathrooms be far more packed??? Same thing. Think about this. The world is slowly losing it's resources as families are multiplying out of control. Screw the "be fruitful and multiply" mentality! That's another EXCUSE! That's all it is! ANYTHING to be able to have sex! Think, with less sex, less abortion has to happen! Wouldn't that be great?!?!
  • shadowCorbinshadowCorbin 17 Pts   -  
    @SlanderIsNotDebate1995 You need to assume the teens still live with their parents, but also, you need to assume the grandparents in this case would help take care of the baby since the parents are still in school. The bathroom argument is a problem because people can only pee so much while you can have sex whenever. The overpopulation space wise isn't the problem, and I have the proof of having four people within a five mile radius of my house, and two of them are family. If we would be saving resources instead of wasting them we wouldn't have the resource lack. With water specifically yes natural drinking water is running out, but we have ways of getting them from space. The very end of your argument ends on cynical as that was a bit like Hitler's mentality (kill disabled not as many disabled.)
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    @SlanderIsNotDebate1995
    I agree with you for the most part. 
    I would just want to touch upon this "Ultimately, when aborted, yes, the baby will feel pain. Maybe lots of it ...". This is not true for the overwhelming majority of abortions. For most pregnancies, the fetus cannot feel pain until week 30 (give or take a few weeks depending on development). Yes, the nerves that sense pain are developed before week 30. However, "the nerves' existence isn't enough to produce the experience of pain, the authors wrote in their review. Rather, "These anatomical structures must also be functional," the authors wrote. It's not until around 30 weeks that there is evidence of brain activity that suggests the fetus is "awake.""
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    So, I don't know why you're ignoring the vast majority of my argument about when a human life begins. It seems as though you're dodging past the majority of my substance and focusing on a few things I brought up at the end. That's fine, I guess, but the point I was making runs contrary to your main argument. If your point was that we have to treat all of human life the same, all through it's developmental stages, then you're fundamentally failing in that objective by cutting off all abortion. You're preventing some of the harm, but leaving the vast majority on the table in the form of prevented pregnancies.

    But let's get into what you did say.

    You seem to be misunderstanding my argument. What I said is that you're effectively victim shaming by treating the victim as a responsible for not getting a rape kit in time. You're effectively stating that they have two choices: come forward to someone who can get them a rape kit about the circumstances they faced within the first 3 days after the rape, or accept the pregnancy and all that comes with it. So, you're requiring that a heavily traumatized woman who may be extremely damaged by her experience is either required to confide in someone else about that horrific experience within 3 days. Considering these women didn't willingly accept what happened, if they were just too traumatized to seek help in those first few days, they are effectively shouldered with the burden of carrying that child to term. No recourse. In doing so, the state is actively adding to her trauma by either forcing her to come forward in her heavily traumatized state or requiring her to bear that child for 9 months. I don't see how that's not victim shaming and, what's more, victim punishing. A lot of your argument comes down to "don't punish the child for the wrongdoing of the father," but I'd view requiring a 9 month sentence with a continuous reminder of past trauma for the mother as pretty damn punishing. If your only response is that they should just seek mental assistance, then you're fundamentally limiting their options and forcing them to suffer. Mental assistance can only do so much, and pretending that it's sufficient for every woman is just plain wrong. As for the effects of harming the baby being on her, when you leave her literally no other option, a woman who has suffered great trauma is likelier to take these actions. You can blame these woman all you want (though, again, that seems to ignore the effects of their trauma), but that doesn't minimize the reality that you're increasing the propensity of those harms occurring.

    You say that it's fallacious to argue that many women might harm themselves. It's not fallacious to argue reality: women would still seek abortions regardless of legality, and the illegality of abortions would lead to them pursuing significantly more dangerous means. What part of that argument is fallacious? Even if the family of the woman can help her (and that's assuming she'd come to them with a desire to do this now illegal activity), no medical hospital would be able to perform the procedure, meaning all of the risks go up. 

    Your nominalism argument doesn't make much sense. I'm not arguing that certain traits are necessary to make a human beyond viability outside the womb, so my argument cannot be used to kill random people because they lack certain traits. I don't see what "the point of names" argument has to do with this at all because we can still arbitrarily designate people as being Marc or Andrew or Denise or Jessica without treating that characteristic as the basis for their humanity. It seems like you're trying to obfuscate my point, which actually has nothing to do with nominalism. I didn't say that universals or general ideas don't exist. I said that there is no clear start point to when an individual becomes human. To be absolutely clear: human beings do exist, but we can't know what imbues them with humanity. I would argue that, since we cannot define that starting point, that we should not base our decision regarding whether or not abortion is moral on that starting point. So you're missing my point. You do point out later that everyone has different points of establishing when a human life starts, and I agree there is broad disagreement within the Pro-Choice group (and I said as much in my initial post). I don't see how that makes it more faulty than the Pro-Life movement, nor do I see it as a reason to dismiss the Pro-Choice arguments.

    Lastly, you talk about DNA. So let's talk DNA. It seems like your argument is that the uniqueness of that DNA is what makes it life. So, tell me, is a clone life? A clone, by definition, has identical DNA to another individual. Is that not life? Is an identical twin, which carries the exact same DNA as another individual, also not life? It's new, but it's certainly not unique. So, then, maybe your basis is that it's new life - that we've generated a separate being carrying certain traits from other humans. What are those traits that make up a human? How much of those genes could I strip away and still have a human being? If it is new life, then why isn't a genetically engineered organism growing a human organ considered human? If I splice human DNA in my lab, I will have unique and new DNA. Are the contents of the tube in which I made it now human? I'd like to get your views on these questions.
    EmeryPearson
  • shadowCorbinshadowCorbin 17 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame ;

                                                                                                Just Skip to Second Paragraph


    I meant to get to the point where the mother hurting herself because no one will help her and the baby being defective because of that isn't fully the mother's fault. The other point meant to be you need to assume if the teenage girl is raped, she still probably lives with her parents and because of that, the mother won't have to raise the child alone if the father abandons her. The nominalism wasn't meaning the traits, or even your specific argument. I meant people who argue at what point is it a human life, and even then why should we call it a baby if it isn't born yet. They were arguing it isn't a living baby since it just has the makeup of a baby it could end up different (defective) and at that point is it still human. I was saying just because a baby has issues it is still a human life, and should be treated like a normal baby. I mean you shouldn't kill the baby solely because it is defective, then have another kid. The baby isn't like a prize wheel you can put another dollar in and get a better prize. Again, the nominalism was not attacking your argument, I think it was 234's.
    In your final paragraph or point you were talking about the dna splicing and I would like to point out one thing. There is a thing called Xenotransplantation and  is the transplantation of living cells, tissues or organs from one species to another. If a baby is to be born lacking an organ, you can insert the dna into the baby, and it will grow the part, (risky but possible) (look it up.)
     
    Last thing, we can obviously find a human from an animal, and a black from a white man. The cloning may not be fully ethical (I don't know why It is just on the news every time an animal is cloned about how unethical it would be to clone a human.) We can also tell a horse from a bull, you get the point? If we have human dna spliced into an animal or backwards, we need to stop and think about it. Is it still mostly a human, but say now it had a pigs stomach,it is till mostly human. Now if we have a pig with a human stomach, it is till mostly pig. I think as long as you don't take away what makes that person human, the evolved brain and ability to understand free will (major components in what makes us human.) If you are religious you will get this point (A beast (any animal) can reproduce, but cannot love, an angel can love, but not reproduce. Now a human is like both, part human and part divine, as they can both love and reproduce(key idea in Christianity.) The point is, if a human has the mind, or i don't know how to put it (thought process maybe?) however the brain is, if that part and how it works is retained, it is a person. If the person is a human mind and head on a pig body, it should still probably be called a human, because it is a human mind and the half person/animal behaves as such.   We could make our own argument about this (do you want to?) and we could waste hours on it. It seems though who or whatever controls the mind, it is that. What do you think? 
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    I am fully aware of what xenotransplantation is. That's part of my point: if your argument is that the reality of having DNA that is separate from another organism is what makes a human being human, then why isn't a pig bearing an organ containing human DNA (which is why it's possible to transplant this - they get it to grow a human organ), why isn't that pig human until the organ is removed? It sounds like your response to that is that, because most of the animal does not contain human DNA, they are not human. Alright, then why is the organ itself not a human? The organ is 100% human being. What separates it from a zygote is a potential to become a full-grown human, not the fact that it has human DNA. That's the same thing that separates a zygote from random DNA I've spliced in a tube. I have issues with that argument as well, but at least it makes more sense than a zygote's DNA making it human.

    As for the rest of your argument regarding what makes a person human, you really seem to just be moving further away from the questions I've presented. A zygote doesn't have an evolved brain, nor does a blasocyst, an embryo, or a fetus, and even an infant born into this world cannot immediately comprehend the concept of free will. I am religious-ish (I'm a reform Jew), but it seems like the ability to love and reproduce also have nothing to do with any stage in the developmental process. So, I guess all of this has to do with the questions about what you could take away from someone and still call them human, but my point really links back to this question of development. What is it about a zygote that fundamentally designates it as human? The reason I asked about the stripped down part is that, effectively, a zygote is an incredibly stripped down human - down to a single cell with its own DNA. I haven't really seen reasoning in your argument for why you'd call that human while a sperm and ovum are not, and even the argument I gave above about the potential to become human falls into the same trap. If DNA doesn't designate a zygote as a new human being, what does?
    EmeryPearson
  • shadowCorbinshadowCorbin 17 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame In the end asking at what point is whatever it is is made human is going to make us go in circles. A pig with a human brain is part pig part person (kind of like a chiweenie part chiwawa part weiner dog same species but now it is part of both breeds.) I don't fully get the zygote argument, as the human cell is just that, a human cell. It isn't a fully developed human, it is like a blueprint though.   The argument is not persuading anyone so I might quit getting on it. 
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    @whiteflame In the end asking at what point is whatever it is is made human is going to make us go in circles. A pig with a human brain is part pig part person (kind of like a chiweenie part chiwawa part weiner dog same species but now it is part of both breeds.) I don't fully get the zygote argument, as the human cell is just that, a human cell. It isn't a fully developed human, it is like a blueprint though.   The argument is not persuading anyone so I might quit getting on it. 
    I don't think this is going in circles, but I do think you're getting a bit distracted from my central point. Your argument, from your original post, was predicated on the idea that you know when a human life begins, and that's at conception. You're more than welcome to take that view, but my whole point is that setting that as the absolutely certain start of a human life is just as arbitrary as setting it anywhere else. If your major argument is just that you want to make sure that as many zygotes make the journey to becoming infants as possible, then that's fine. I can't tell you you're wrong for favoring the lives of those early developmental stages. But it is a subjective argument, one based on preferring one set of lives over the various harms that a decision to ban abortion would incur. I respect the Pro-Life argument insofar as the main goal is just to prevent the loss of life by as large a degree as is reasonably possible.
  • shadowCorbinshadowCorbin 17 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame Yea I am quitting probably after this one quick thing. I see what you're saying, assuming when you that pass onto human life is a certain point is like assuming a child won't have down syndrome. Most are normal or really close, but there are always outliers. There are those very rare cases where yes, a baby should be aborted, and that is okay. Remember, women used to die in childbirth quite often (especially compared to now) and when the women took those risks, and died for worse chances, I have a negative feel to women who kill the babies because they don't like their gender. Pretty much everyone would agree killing the baby because you don't like an attribute (like gender) is wrong. In the end I can easily disregard morals, and can "forget" if you catch my drift. As long as the country survives I can live with it. 
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame Yea I am quitting probably after this one quick thing. I see what you're saying, assuming when you that pass onto human life is a certain point is like assuming a child won't have down syndrome. Most are normal or really close, but there are always outliers. There are those very rare cases where yes, a baby should be aborted, and that is okay. Remember, women used to die in childbirth quite often (especially compared to now) and when the women took those risks, and died for worse chances, I have a negative feel to women who kill the babies because they don't like their gender. Pretty much everyone would agree killing the baby because you don't like an attribute (like gender) is wrong. In the end I can easily disregard morals, and can "forget" if you catch my drift. As long as the country survives I can live with it. 
    Alright, sounds like we've come to a good point with this. Happy debating this with you.
  • @shadowCorbin First part, I disagree. If the grandparents don't have the resources, then what? It's not 100% their fault they have grandchildren before planned, it was their children's bad choice. It's pretty unfair to them. If my children if I had any got pregnant, I'd tell them they better either get an abortion, think about adoption or get a damn well paying job. Period. If I as a parent am working hard to raise teens, why now babies too and a daughter/son in law? The pee feeling good as sex idea was hypothetical so it can be adjusted to last forever whenever and also, both sex and going pee only can last so long in a bit of time anyways. Both have to have cool down periods. And both usually don't last longer than a half hour. (this excludes any foreplay and sleeping). The next part, you argued giving an example where you live. That's great! But you don't live in China I guess. Or Thailand or India or Africa. Ya know, where people are 10x poorer and it's 100x more crowded. Don't think about just yourself or your country. I am talking WORLD WIDE. Why do you think China already has a two child policy? The WORLD is overpopulated. Your area may not be, but the WORLD is. People starve to death every day. Children die every die as well. Babies die horrible painful slow death. ORPHANS die slowly and painfully worldwide every day. But if we eliminate the possibility for MORE people and ADOPT instead of multiplying, we simply o not as many people. With wasting and saving? Of course! I don't argue that but the opposite! I encourage both that AND adoption. Last, no I am no Hitler ok. 1. He is a big part of the reason billions of people including possible family I have, are dead. Those billions of people also could have created cures for cancer, flying cars, and a bunch of great stuff we could have ALL been enjoying now, but NOPE, when somebody or more so, many are killed for no good reason, most don't truly care. 2. I am not saying kill anyone. Period. If disabled people are born already, let them be raised into a good member of society and give their worth. I am saying BEFORE they are born, PREVENT their difficult life so they CAN be productive. That means RESPONSIBLE parents, that don't do drugs, drink too much, don't have 10 children while relying on welfare or not affording to raise them, and ABORT if necessary. If one baby grows up to be burdened, believe me, that trickles onto everyone else around eventually. I specifically resort to a mix of utilitarianism, Kant's philosophies, humanism, as well as others if you want to learn more. 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch