Why should abortion remain legal? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate News And Just About Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Why should abortion remain legal?
in United States

By LukePhillipsLukePhillips 17 Pts
I am a firm Pro-Life person, but I am also very open minded. I want to see if you guys can convince me it should remain legal and why it shouldn't be illegal.

Here are some points you guys have to refute and rebut:
1. The pro-choice argument is the same as Pro-Slavery, You are on my plantation/are in my body, so therefore I have the right to decide whether to give you "personhood" or not and therefore I have the right whether to kill you or not. Its all about convenience. Your useful to me so your not a person. Your not wanted right now so your not a person. I can be very annoying sometimes making unwanted, does that make me "Not a person"
2. What determines personhood? Does size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency determine if your a person or not? Your a person for moment of conception
3. I hear a lot of "It costs sooo much money". Say we have a pregnant mother and toddler would it be right to kill the toddler because most certainly the toddler costs more money to maintain so when she kills it she would actually be saving money when she has the baby.
4.How is something a "Potential life"? YOUR EITHER ALIVE OR YOUR NOT. YOU CAN'T BE "POTENTIALLY DEAD" IF THAT IS THE CASE THEN WE ALL, FROM MOMENT OF BIRTH, ARE "POTENTIALLY DEAD". (Yes, I know its caps. Its intentionally to highlight the stupidity of "Potentially alive")
5. I hear alot about harmful homes, diseases,etc "Don't make them suffer" My question: Should we kill a child with down to prevent suffering later in life or kill a 5 yr old with abusive parents because he grows up in a harmful household?

Don't bring up any organizations like the UN because I know their stance and I don't agree with it.
Also don't try with rape/incest stuff because, 1, they are not the same. Tncest can be consensual. And 2, rape abortion cases make up less than 1% of total abortions, don't try to take a very small marginal number and blow it up to the atmosphere.
If you are going to try with the "Health of the mother" stuff define it. I totally agree if the mother's life is in HIGH risk of jeopardy but you got to name and explain.

Have fun trying to persuade me, I am open minded but I am very well informed and if I can counter your argument not only factually but morally and ethically as well then... You guys need work.

  1. Should abortion remain legal?

    8 votes
    1. It shouldn't be legal
      50.00%
    2. It should be legal.
      50.00%



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • AmpersandAmpersand 433 Pts
    1. You assume the conclusion as your premise. If fetus shouldn't be treated as people then your comparison is invalid. You never explain why it should be treated as a person, which seems to me to be the entire point of the debate. This is known as begging the question and is a logical fallacy.

    2. Again you don't give a reason you just assume your belief is correct.

    3. No, because toddlers are not fetuses. The twin core assumptions which apply to abortions of fetuses are a desire/rationale to want to abort the pregnancy and the ability to do so because of the acceptance that the fetus is not a person with the rights of normal human being. Although toddler's rights and protections are different from adults, they protection does include a right to life.

    4. I'm not sure what argument you're referring to. Googling it. it appears that potentiality generally refers to the the potential for the fetus to mature into something that we recognise as a sentient person - not whether it is alive in the first place. That's different from the argument you seem to think it makes.

    5. Same as number 3

    Here's the thing you seem to miss: us giving different levels of rights to humans in different circumstances is fairly standard. Children have different rights applied to them than adults - both greater protections and a suspension of certain rights (e.g. a child can't decide to have sex). The same might apply to someone with severe learning disabilities. This usually includes a right to life as part of our understanding of our shared humanity and wish not to hurt one another.

    A fetus at, say, a day or so old when the morning after pill kicks in (which is probably the most common form of "abortion" if we're counting from the moment of conception) is a minuscule conglomerate of cells that literally doesn't exist for me or any other normal human in a measurable way - you can't even see it let alone share basic human characteristics with it like sentience, emotion, memory or even a central nervous system. It causes no harm as the fetus is incapable of feeling pain and has no mental development to register any form of dismay. There seems to be no downside to it and no reason to extend the rights belonging to people to something so unlike a person.
  • averyaproaveryapro 131 Pts
    I think it should remain legal. Kids and teenagers are so irresponsible nowadays. I recently watched a show called Glee. They show real-world problems in today's society. One of the characters gets pregnant when she's a sophomore in high school. Abortion can sometimes be a good idea because if someone gets pregnant as a teen or in middle school they might not want the child which means that abortion should be legal. Also, people in college are obviously relationships but sometimes the women are in AP classes so that they can't have to deal with a kid too. 
  • 1. First of all there is a complete difference between someone being on your plantation and something being inside your body that will invade your life in every aspect. A person is still not a person, you might want to classify it as a person, but it isn't yet.

    Here are a couple of definitions that are important:
    As you can see by these definitions, a fetus is not a person because it is not an individual yet, it is not separate from the woman, it has no quality or condition of being an individual human being, a separate human being. 

    2. You are not a person from conception, you are a bundle of cells that are multiplying in order to try and create life. Conception means that there is potential life in the process of creation, it does not mean that a tiny bundle of cells is person. 

    3. Infanticide is a completely different issue, so let's not compare. I imagine that a lot of children die because of economic reasons. For example starving, not being able to pay for medication or health care for that child, etc. I mean that is totally acceptable, but having an abortion because of not being able to provide for its basic needs when it is born is totally unacceptable. 

    4. You are actually correct, we are all potentially dead people, why? Because we all have the potential to die at any moment. This means we are not dead yet, but we can be at any moment. It is the same with the fetus, it is not alive yet, but it definitely could be if there is no abortion, no still-birth, no miscarriage, etc, etc. That bundle of cells that is rapidly multiplying is not yet a life, but it will be if it reaches the stage of birth.

    5. I would justify abortions for a fetus with the down syndrome gene just as much as for any other abortion. But I would not justify infanticide, which yet again is a different matter. 

    You may also take into account that there is a law that permits a person to kill another one if it is invading your property and poses a real threat to your life. A pregnancy can be compared to an invasion on the property (body) of the woman posing a real threat to her life. It is a threat in every single aspect, a threat to her education, to her economical stability, to her mental stability, to her emotional stability, etc. It is also a threat to her life, since approximately 800 women die every day worldwide because of pregnancy and child birth, while approximately 16,000 suffer injuries, infections or disabilities.(https://data.unicef.org/topic/maternal-health/maternal-mortality/#) Deaths associated to childbirth are 14 times higher that those associated with safe, legal abortions. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271) So why allow one law but not the other? 
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 423 Pts
    I think the point has already been made, but I'm going to emphasize it anyway. The underlying assumption behind a lot of your arguments is that the pro-choice side of the debate has something to prove, while the pro-life side should be a sort of default. I'm sure you have your reasons for that assumption, but I think it's problematic. It essentially assumes that pro-choice advocates like myself have a greater burden of proof inherent to their argument, despite the fact that the pro-life side makes some important assumptions that require significant support. For example, you assert that personhood begins at conception, yet you don't explain why a zygote should be treated as a person. You're applying personhood to something as simple as a single cell containing a human genome, essentially equating it in a number of extremely important ways to an infant born into the world alive with all of the requisite organs and consciousness that comes with that status. It's up to you to explain why you feel the two are inherently equal.

    However, while this does address the underlying assumption that pervades your argument, it doesn't address the specifics of your argument, so I'll get to those.

    1. Equating pro-choice with pro-slavery requires an awful lot of obfuscation. While there were many reasons why people (usually white or Arabic, depending on the part of the world you're looking at) supported enslavement of given populations, they all functioned based on the same basic assumption, which is that people of the subjugated population were not fundamentally persons. You're correct in that. The difficulty with that argument is that the bases they used for establishing what is and is not a person were largely based on ideological bias. Establishing that a given population is subhuman based on characteristics such as skin color or religion is an inherently flawed argument because it treats the diversity inherent to humanity as essentially separate species. Despite having all of the traits that could be defined as affording an individual personhood, these people were not granted that status. There is a more than reasonable argument to be made that certain stages of development do not reach an objectively established threshold of personhood. I'm sure we would all agree, for example, that a sperm cell and an ovum, no matter how close together they are, do not meet the threshold of personhood. However, these are clearly important parts of the development of a human being, so if we can't afford them humanity, why should we afford humanity to a single cell into which they fuse? You might view the difference as staggering, but there's a reasonable argument to be had there.

    You don't do a particularly good job of building out this argument, either. You say that living on one's land is inherently the same as living in one's body, yet the two are clearly distinct. The former is personal property, but certainly not so personal as one's own body. I'll come back to this later, but there is no clear risk to one's health that results from a person residing and working on one's property, but there is such a risk (it's practically inherent) to having a developing human growing inside of you. This isn't solely about convenience or desire (though I'll admit that is sometimes the reason that women choose to get abortions), yet you're trivializing the argument to make it sound like it is. 

    2. I'd say determining personhood is always going to be a difficult task, particularly when you're talking about development. We can and must draw the line somewhere, but you're the one with the clear view that that line exists in one and only one place. It's up to you to prove it. In my opinion, anywhere we draw that line is arbitrary.

    3. We're back to convenience. I've already addressed this above, but what you're doing is tackling a personal justification for getting an abortion, not the legality of abortion as a whole. I don't think there's any need for me to justify this argument because it's not relevant to the topic at hand. 

    4. Others have stated this already, but the discrepancy is not between life and potential life, but between humanity and potential humanity. This goes back to personhood, an argument I've already detailed above.

    5. You're quick to dismiss this one, yet you're leaving out a lot of the details of this argument. What separates a 5 year old from a zygote is quite a bit, but that's neither here nor there. Your argument is that life should always be preferred to non-life, regardless of the suffering that life brings with it. Again, I'd say that's a rather large assertion that you haven't supported. 

    For that matter, you're quick to dismiss a lot of issues simply because you perceive them to be insignificant.

    Even if rape makes up such a small proportion of total abortions, why shouldn't those women who had absolutely no choice involved in their impregnation be resigned to carrying that potential human to term? Is their plight somehow unimportant simply because they represent a minority?

    As for health issues, I'm honestly a little lost on this one. Who gets to decide when the risk to a mother's life meets a threshold of "HIGH risk"? For that matter, what is a "HIGH risk"? What percentage chance of death? You clearly don't want the threshold to be set at all possible health risks, but if you are setting this as, say, a 50% chance of death, why do all other health issues simply not suffice? What if a woman would be crippled the rest of her life, incapable of ever having a child again in the future? For that matter, doesn't any chance of death incur the possibility that a woman will never be able to produce a child again, meaning that all of their future potential children are now off the table? Do the weight of those potential lives matter less because they're further in the future? Even assuming we care not at all about those potential future children, why should legislators be allowed to decide how and when doctors are allowed to treat their patients? That's a big step to take, one that effectively forces doctors to favor the developing child in every medical decision, regardless of the cost to the patient that is seeking them out. Sure, in cases where there is a clear and extremely severe cost, they are allowed to administer the necessary treatment, but in all other cases they are required by law to effectively handicap themselves at their patient's expense. That seems like a troubling step to me, but I'd like to see your justification for it.
    MajoMILSdlGMGV
  • You keep going back to the zygote stage. You are therefore determining whether a person is a person from level of development. You and I are both at different stages of development right now. Would it be right if I killed you because you are older/younger than me.

    Rape is important but it is marginalized to make it seem like that is the only reason for abortions or one of the main reasons, for which it is not. And just because a person was impregnated because of that does not mean they get to abort the child. Should we kill someone because they have been victimized? Should we kill someone because they remind someone else of a bad experience?

    You say "There is no clear health risk to working on someone's property", well that depends on the circumstances around the work. Slaves did have a very clear health risk, inhumane treatment, whippings, etc.

     You also say that since sperm and egg alone do not equate to humanity so why should that equate when they fuze? They equate to humanity when they fuze because before they fuzed they were sex cells, or haploids. This means that they have half the number of chromosomes of normal cells, sex cells under go a process called meiosis to get to this haploid cell. When they combine they become a diploid cell thereby becoming one full cell, its own separate entity from which it starts undergoing the process of mitosis to grow (Also is is impossible to any animal to reproduce without 46 chromosomes. Hence why mules can't have children) The point from the point of conception, the zygote has all the DNA and genetic material needed to develop into later stages. Once again, will it be alright to kill a toddler because it isn't as developed. There is no point in development where a zygote turns into human somehow. He or she is a unique human from point of conception. 

    Now you keep using the term "potentially alive" or "Potentially human"? What is the definition of alive? What is the definition of a human? Well there are a lot of definitions of the word alive but the most common criteria scientists use to determine life are if something has the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond to stimuli, adapt, and reproduce. Thus, from the time of fertilization, the zygote is alive because he or she possesses all of these qualities. "The baby’s sex can be derived as early as five to nine days after conception. His or her heart beats around day 24, and brain waves can be detected as early as day 43.There is no point during development when he or she is an inanimate blob of cells" (Brian Fisher) Now for "potentially human", what determines "Humanhood"? If the mother was human and the father was human then the child is most definitely, 100% human. How can something be "Human or potentially human"? That is similar to saying that a it is not a cat it is "potential cat". If all humans are people and all people are humans then how can something be given personhood if they are not human and vise versa. How can someone be a human if they are not a person.  If we apply that logic to slavery, then slaves were not human. No, they must have been animals. They were not recognized as people. They were recognized as property. And if personhood is directly related to whether you are a human or not, and they were not considered to have personhood then that means they are a species other than human. @whiteflame
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 423 Pts
    edited May 16
    I keep going back to the zygote stage because you are stating that that is when a human life begins, full stop. There's no doubt in your mind that the zygote is as much a human being as any other stage of human development. I think that's something you have to justify. The reason why you and I can be at different stages of development and still respect each other's right to life is that we are functionally indistinct. We have similar cognitive capacities and physical capacities, we share a basic form, and we are autonomous creatures capable of independent living. If I killed you, it would call into question my basic right to life because you and I are not so different that I could feasibly do so without challenging that basic right. A zygote is about as dissimilar from me as a creature could possibly get, despite my having been one at one point. The only things a zygote and myself share is how our cells are built and our genetic material. 

    If you acknowledge that rape is important, then why are you arguing that abortion should be illegal? You seem amenable to allowing abortion in some cases (health reasons, at least), so it sounds like your argument is that abortion should be restricted. However, it sounds as though you view rape as a life sentence, i.e. that the individual who was raped is now duty-bound to bring that child to term at great physical and emotional cost and raise that child. Actually, "duty-bound" undersells it. They are now legally required to do all that. That sounds like more victimization to me, since you'd have to regard any abortions that take place post-ban as murder so long as you consider them to be functionally equivalent to an infant. Taking it a step further, if the law regarded a zygote and all other developmental steps as human, every miscarriage should trigger an investigation leading to, at bare minimum, manslaughter charges. If we care about the active act of killing and removing a potential child from her womb, then we need to care about instances where a mother may have contributed to the death of said potential child still inside her womb.

    You're twisting the issue of slavery to suit your purposes. There's no clear health risk to the owner of the property. There is a clear health risk to a mother bringing a child to term.

    Your developmental biology is good, but you're dancing around the question. You're essentially stating that "DNA and genetic material" are essentially the traits that separate a zygote from the gametes that comprise it, yet you acknowledge that literally all of the genetic material for that zygote comes from those two gametes, meaning that the genetic material has a clear origin in those gametes. That means that the DNA itself is not a defining characteristic of a zygote. The numbers of chromosomes do separate the zygote from its component gametes, I'll give you that, but are you really basing humanity on the number of chromosomes within a cell? Basically, that's just saying that having two copies of every chromosome is what makes a human being. Not the genetic elements themselves, but the existence of duplicates. That's not a clear differentiating factor from any other human cell, but it's also sounds extremely arbitrary. Sure, it's relevant to how DNA subdivides into cells, but that's essentially defining humanity based on the capacity of cells to commit to certain actions.

    And I suppose that's the crux of your argument: that the capacity to develop into a full-fledged human being is sufficient to call something human. Assuming that that's true, I guess we can write a zygote off as well. If I take a zygote out of the womb, it will not have the capacity to develop further. It requires an input of nutrients, cytokines, hormones and a litany of other materials to separate into multiple cells and form the various tissues that make up an embryo, then a fetus, and finally an infant. It's not independently capable of doing all of these things, and in a tremendous number of cases, even with these various inputs in sufficient amounts, it won't. Most zygotes never become infants, regardless of interventions or lack thereof. By that same token, merely putting a set of sperm cells next to a set of ova provides almost exactly the same potential since they also house the necessary genetic material. Yet you argue that they are distinct from humanity, despite using virtually the same logic to justify a zygote's being human.

    I actually never used the term "potentially alive" (at least outside of references to your own argument) or "Potentially human", though I did use similar terminology to he latter. The definition of alive is somewhat controversial (I'm a virologist, and I would argue that viruses are alive despite definitions to the contrary), though I'll fully admit that all phases of human development are alive. As for personhood, your argument ignores the basic concept that personhood has more to do with parentage. Biological humanity is different from actual personhood (in the biological, the psychological, and the philosophical realm), so I would disagree that humanity and personhood are one in the same. Regardless of the realm, personhood denotes a degree of individuality, one where there is clearly a separate consciousness that can be perceived. Unless you're going to argue that a zygote has any capacity for consciousness (and your own source appears to argue that this begins as early as day 43, well after the embryo has formed, though I'd disagree with that assessment as well), establishing personhood is going to require a whole lot more of you than simply equating humanity (i.e. having traits that are used to distinguish a Homo sapien from other species) and personhood. This is really important because slaves are conscious human beings, and therefore retain their personhood despite how they are treated. You can argue that personhood should not be essential to establish the right to life, but you can't feasibly argue that all stages of human development have personhood.
  • LukePhillipsLukePhillips 17 Pts
    edited May 17
    Ok.The source shows that maternal deaths are going down since around 1990. You state that maternal deaths are roughly 14 times higher than abortion deaths. This is, however, incorrect (The 14x higher part). "Between 1990 and 2015, the annual number of maternal deaths fell from about 532,000 to 303,000, according to the latest figures released by UNFPA" In case you are having a hard time understanding, this means that roughly half a million mothers died while having childbirth in 1990 and roughly a quarter of a million died during childbirth in 2015. Most these deaths occurred in less developed countries. The amount of abortions happening in the US ALONE, (these are abortions reported to the CDC) in total exceed 45 million. In 1990 we had almost 1.5 million REPORTED abortions. In 2015 we had a little over 600,000. All this is happening in the US alone. ALONE. We have the rough number of how many mothers died WORLDWIDE. This means your so called "Facts" are incorrect and rather there are more abortions than maternal deaths. (It must be noted that 3 states did not provide the information to the CDC as this was voluntary. The 3 states are: California, Louisiana, and New Hampshire. The most populated state did not reveal its information. This means that the numbers are actually much much higher than they show.) Oh my. You pulled out the bundle of cells argument. Welp. I am stuck. OHHH WAIT. "Though there are numerous definitions of what it means to be “alive,” the most common criteria scientists use to determine life are if something has the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond to stimuli, adapt, and reproduce. Thus, from the time of fertilization, the zygote is alive because he or she possesses all of these qualities. The baby’s sex can be derived as early as five to nine days after conception. His or her heart beats around day 24, and brain waves can be detected as early as day 43. There is no point during development when he or she is an inanimate blob of cells" (Brian Fisher). Sigh.... I am pretty such I covered the personhood argument in my main statement. Ok. You say that because of "
    "
    A fetus isn't a person. Ok. Here is my response. Slaves were not considered people. They have all these qualities but they were not considered people. If you use the "Times have changed" argument against this fact, may I remind you that definitions of words also change over time due to our perception of the word. Next, you are really focused on how it isn't an individual. I do believe you must be separate to be an individual because that's the definition. Is an old person in a coma an individual? They are not able to take care of themselves and therefore is not single or separate because they can't make their own choices. Should we kill them? I think not. Also, the definition of individual in biology is "A single organism capable of individual existence" I am quite sure that humans are capable of individual existence. There is a key word there. Capable. It does not mean now. It means future. It means that that organism has the ability to exercise individual existence. That means every and I mean EVERY creature on this earth born or not. Fit this definition because they have the long term ability to exist. You say infanticide is a completely different issue. It really isn't. Your still killing a living being. Your still killing something unable to defend itself, unable to speak for itself, unable to do anything because it does not have the reasoning and logical skills to do so.
     
     
     @MajoMILSdlGMGV
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 423 Pts
    @LukePhillips

    For just a moment, I'd like to take a step back from the arguments you're using to "counter" the pro-choice points. I've got two major disagreements I'd like to cover, and I think they're getting obfuscated in the process of responding to your points.

    First, we disagree on when humanity begins. It's been your argument that humanity starts the moment a zygote forms, and you've established a few key features that feed into that view (e.g. genetic material, the capacity to develop, parentage). Assuming that a zygote is the first form of a developing human that has these characteristics, what you haven't explained, and what I think you need to explain, is why those traits are both necessary and sufficient to establish humanity. Necessary I can grant you, but sufficient is more problematic because it essentially requires you to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and state that certain traits are needed to cross said line. Anyone can do that. Pro-choice individuals like myself can do that. If I set the line at "brain activity" or "viability outside the womb," the line would change position and you would probably disagree with its placement. And this is the crux of the problem: if you don't believe that the line should be drawn at these other positions, why should we believe that it should be drawn where you want it? What reasoning can you provide that supports drawing the line in that particular place? Why are these traits key, while others are not? I'd really like to see you answer this with more than just "anything else is akin to accepting slavery." Rather than analogizing, it would be great to see you address the issue directly, and engage with the question of "why these traits over all others?"

    Second, we disagree on when personhood begins and the importance of having (not potentially obtaining) it. I've already explained how I perceive personhood, and it's clear that we have some disagreements on this front, because you've argued that humanity and personhood are one in the same. I'm sure you'll address that issue, and I suspect you'll use one of the responses you've applied to several other points: that a zygote has the capacity to achieve those traits of personhood. My main problem with this point is that it's infinitely regressive. That same potentiality exists for every cell that is a precursor to that zygote. The probability of achieving those traits decreases, but the potential remains the same. In fact, those cells also have the potential achieving the traits to which you ascribe inherent humanity. If potentiality becomes a basis for awarding the status of humanity, why doesn't it apply to every cell that precedes a zygote? Again, I'd rather have a direct answer to this.
    MajoMILSdlGMGV
  • Ok.The source shows that maternal deaths are going down since around 1990. You state that maternal deaths are roughly 14 times higher than abortion deaths. This is, however, incorrect (The 14x higher part). "Between 1990 and 2015, the annual number of maternal deaths fell from about 532,000 to 303,000, according to the latest figures released by UNFPA" In case you are having a hard time understanding, this means that roughly half a million mothers died while having childbirth in 1990 and roughly a quarter of a million died during childbirth in 2015. Most these deaths occurred in less developed countries. The amount of abortions happening in the US ALONE, (these are abortions reported to the CDC) in total exceed 45 million. In 1990 we had almost 1.5 million REPORTED abortions. In 2015 we had a little over 600,000. All this is happening in the US alone. ALONE. We have the rough number of how many mothers died WORLDWIDE. This means your so called "Facts" are incorrect and rather there are more abortions than maternal deaths. (It must be noted that 3 states did not provide the information to the CDC as this was voluntary. The 3 states are: California, Louisiana, and New Hampshire. The most populated state did not reveal its information. This means that the numbers are actually much much higher than they show.) Oh my. You pulled out the bundle of cells argument. Welp. I am stuck. OHHH WAIT. "Though there are numerous definitions of what it means to be “alive,” the most common criteria scientists use to determine life are if something has the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond to stimuli, adapt, and reproduce. Thus, from the time of fertilization, the zygote is alive because he or she possesses all of these qualities. The baby’s sex can be derived as early as five to nine days after conception. His or her heart beats around day 24, and brain waves can be detected as early as day 43. There is no point during development when he or she is an inanimate blob of cells" (Brian Fisher). Sigh.... I am pretty such I covered the personhood argument in my main statement. Ok. You say that because of "
    "
    A fetus isn't a person. Ok. Here is my response. Slaves were not considered people. They have all these qualities but they were not considered people. If you use the "Times have changed" argument against this fact, may I remind you that definitions of words also change over time due to our perception of the word. Next, you are really focused on how it isn't an individual. I do believe you must be separate to be an individual because that's the definition. Is an old person in a coma an individual? They are not able to take care of themselves and therefore is not single or separate because they can't make their own choices. Should we kill them? I think not. Also, the definition of individual in biology is "A single organism capable of individual existence" I am quite sure that humans are capable of individual existence. There is a key word there. Capable. It does not mean now. It means future. It means that that organism has the ability to exercise individual existence. That means every and I mean EVERY creature on this earth born or not. Fit this definition because they have the long term ability to exist. You say infanticide is a completely different issue. It really isn't. Your still killing a living being. Your still killing something unable to defend itself, unable to speak for itself, unable to do anything because it does not have the reasoning and logical skills to do so.


    First of all I was talking about safe and legal abortions. There is obviously a very high rate of deaths because of back alley unsafe abortions, but that is just another reason for it to remain legal. Whether abortion is legal or not, women will seek abortions, this is a fact, whether we like it or not, it's going to happen. The goal here would be to provide safe and legal abortions to all.  

    Now let's talk statistics of maternal mortality in the United States which appears to have increased a 27% since 1990. America's maternal mortality rate is three and half times higher than in Canada. It's more than six and half times higher than in some Western European Countries. 
    (http://www.populationconnectionaction.org/2018/01/12/maternal-mortality/)

    I don't have much time to address the other issues I have with your argument, but I will later when I have more time. 
  • SonofasonSonofason 96 Pts
    edited May 18
    First of all there is a complete difference between someone being on your plantation and something being inside your body that will invade your life in every aspect. A person is still not a person, you might want to classify it as a person, but it isn't yet.

    Here are a couple of definitions that are important:
    As you can see by these definitions, a fetus is not a person because it is not an individual yet, it is not separate from the woman, it has no quality or condition of being an individual human being, a separate human being. 

    2. You are not a person from conception, you are a bundle of cells that are multiplying in order to try and create life. Conception means that there is potential life in the process of creation, it does not mean that a tiny bundle of cells is person. 

    3. Infanticide is a completely different issue, so let's not compare. I imagine that a lot of children die because of economic reasons. For example starving, not being able to pay for medication or health care for that child, etc. I mean that is totally acceptable, but having an abortion because of not being able to provide for its basic needs when it is born is totally unacceptable. 

    4. You are actually correct, we are all potentially dead people, why? Because we all have the potential to die at any moment. This means we are not dead yet, but we can be at any moment. It is the same with the fetus, it is not alive yet, but it definitely could be if there is no abortion, no still-birth, no miscarriage, etc, etc. That bundle of cells that is rapidly multiplying is not yet a life, but it will be if it reaches the stage of birth.

    5. I would justify abortions for a fetus with the down syndrome gene just as much as for any other abortion. But I would not justify infanticide, which yet again is a different matter. 

    You may also take into account that there is a law that permits a person to kill another one if it is invading your property and poses a real threat to your life. A pregnancy can be compared to an invasion on the property (body) of the woman posing a real threat to her life. It is a threat in every single aspect, a threat to her education, to her economical stability, to her mental stability, to her emotional stability, etc. It is also a threat to her life, since approximately 800 women die every day worldwide because of pregnancy and child birth, while approximately 16,000 suffer injuries, infections or disabilities.(https://data.unicef.org/topic/maternal-health/maternal-mortality/#) Deaths associated to childbirth are 14 times higher that those associated with safe, legal abortions. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271) So why allow one law but not the other? 
    1.  Lets continue looking at definitions okay?  Clearly a fetus is a human being...right?
    fetus -  An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fetus

    embryo - An unborn or unhatched offspring in the process of development, in particular a human offspring during the period from approximately the second to the eighth week after fertilization.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/embryo

    Clearly with regard to human reproduction, a fetus and an embryo is a human being.  They have human DNA making them human, and they are living beings making them living human beings.  Thus a human fetus and a human embryo are both living human beings.  That alone should be sufficient.  From the moment the human female ovum is fertilized we have before us a developing human being.  According to the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology "A human embryo is a discrete entity"

    In this short little sentence we see that the embryo is human, and we see that the embryo is a discrete entity.  So what does it mean to be discrete?
    discrete - individually separate and distinct. 
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/discrete
    I recommend reviewing this link, as it will shed greater light on the subject.

    An embryo is individually separate and distinct from all other living beings.  It is not it's mother because we know it has completely different DNA.  It is a living thing, a living individual human being, an individual that is helpless without the nutrients and care its mother can provide.  

    Now, you had said, "a fetus is not a person because it is not an individual yet".
    Clearly you are wrong.  As I have shown the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology identifies and defines a human embryo as a discrete (individual) entity.

    If it is an entity...If it is human, and if it is individual, then it is an individual human entity...and my dear friend...that is the definition of a person.  


    person - "A human being regarded as an individual." (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/person)
    I personally regard a human fetus as not only a human being, but also individuals that happen to be unborn.  They are indeed dependent on others for their survival, but so is a todler.  It's very likely that without other human beings, you'd have a very difficult time surviving as well.  

    Now please tell me why you approve of killing innocent and helpless unborn human beings.  Or in other words, why do you think it's okay to kill helpless innocent people?
  • SonofasonSonofason 96 Pts
    edited May 18
    I am a firm Pro-Life person, but I am also very open minded. I want to see if you guys can convince me it should remain legal and why it shouldn't be illegal.

    Here are some points you guys have to refute and rebut:
    1. The pro-choice argument is the same as Pro-Slavery, You are on my plantation/are in my body, so therefore I have the right to decide whether to give you "personhood" or not and therefore I have the right whether to kill you or not. Its all about convenience. Your useful to me so your not a person. Your not wanted right now so your not a person. I can be very annoying sometimes making unwanted, does that make me "Not a person"
    2. What determines personhood? Does size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency determine if your a person or not? Your a person for moment of conception
    3. I hear a lot of "It costs sooo much money". Say we have a pregnant mother and toddler would it be right to kill the toddler because most certainly the toddler costs more money to maintain so when she kills it she would actually be saving money when she has the baby.
    4.How is something a "Potential life"? YOUR EITHER ALIVE OR YOUR NOT. YOU CAN'T BE "POTENTIALLY DEAD" IF THAT IS THE CASE THEN WE ALL, FROM MOMENT OF BIRTH, ARE "POTENTIALLY DEAD". (Yes, I know its caps. Its intentionally to highlight the stupidity of "Potentially alive")
    5. I hear alot about harmful homes, diseases,etc "Don't make them suffer" My question: Should we kill a child with down to prevent suffering later in life or kill a 5 yr old with abusive parents because he grows up in a harmful household?

    Don't bring up any organizations like the UN because I know their stance and I don't agree with it.
    Also don't try with rape/incest stuff because, 1, they are not the same. Tncest can be consensual. And 2, rape abortion cases make up less than 1% of total abortions, don't try to take a very small marginal number and blow it up to the atmosphere.
    If you are going to try with the "Health of the mother" stuff define it. I totally agree if the mother's life is in HIGH risk of jeopardy but you got to name and explain.

    Have fun trying to persuade me, I am open minded but I am very well informed and if I can counter your argument not only factually but morally and ethically as well then... You guys need work.
     It shouldn't be okay.  My post above should make it apparent why.
  • SonofasonSonofason 96 Pts
    edited May 18
    Abortion is legal right now.  It may not be legal in the future. You may think that your particular motives are justifiable for promoting or engaging in the killing of helpless innocent unborn children, but I assure you they are human beings, they are individuals and they are people.  It is therefore wrong for anyone to try to justify killing them on the grounds that they are not yet people.  They most certainly are.  
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 541 Pts
    Here are some points you guys have to refute and rebut:
    1. The pro-choice argument is the same as Pro-Slavery, You are on my plantation/are in my body, so therefore I have the right to decide whether to give you "personhood" or not and therefore I have the right whether to kill you or not. Its all about convenience. Your useful to me so your not a person. Your not wanted right now so your not a person. I can be very annoying sometimes making unwanted, does that make me "Not a person"
    2. What determines personhood? Does size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency determine if your a person or not? Your a person for moment of conception
    3. I hear a lot of "It costs sooo much money". Say we have a pregnant mother and toddler would it be right to kill the toddler because most certainly the toddler costs more money to maintain so when she kills it she would actually be saving money when she has the baby.
    4.How is something a "Potential life"? YOUR EITHER ALIVE OR YOUR NOT. YOU CAN'T BE "POTENTIALLY DEAD" IF THAT IS THE CASE THEN WE ALL, FROM MOMENT OF BIRTH, ARE "POTENTIALLY DEAD". (Yes, I know its caps. Its intentionally to highlight the stupidity of "Potentially alive")
    5. I hear alot about harmful homes, diseases,etc "Don't make them suffer" My question: Should we kill a child with down to prevent suffering later in life or kill a 5 yr old with abusive parents because he grows up in a harmful household?
    1. The comparison does not seem to be very reasonable, because your body is a part of you, while your land is merely your property. You are not allowed to enslave people just because they entered your territory; but in many legal systems you are allowed to shoot them when they are trespassing on your territory without your permission. The child in your body is much closer to a trespasser (or, as it is called in the animal world, a parasite), than to an enslaved human.

    2. At the moment of conception you are merely anything more than a bunch of cells put together. "Personality" in the meaning pro-choice advocates use it does not exist not only at the moment of conception, but even for a short time after the childbirth. You are definitely not a person when you are a zygote; an ant is more of a person than you are at that stage.

    3. This is hardly an argument against giving people a choice. Their finances is their private business and not the business of the state, of churches or of anything/anyone else.

    4. What a "life" is is somewhat undefined - however, in biology the general interpretation of the term is an entity that evolves and grows through consuming and processing the surrounding resources. Mushrooms are alive, for example. I am not sure how it relates to your general argument; could you elaborate on this?

    5. This is in the realm of morals and moral systems. I do not have an answer to this question - but on a related note, I do support euthanasia, and not necessarily only for adults. If someone wants to die in a painless way, let them. If someone has a disease that cannot be cured and causes an immense amount of suffering, let them die if they ask for it, but do not subject them to death without their permission.
    Since in case of abortion we are talking about a creature that lacks self-awareness and, hence, cannot really suffer - this point doesn't seem relevant.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 423 Pts
    @Sonofason

    That’s a nice assertion. I’d love if you could address the points I made earlier that speak to the faults in such an argument, or at the very least justify why you think a human life starts where you think it starts (presumably at conception).
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 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
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch