[Archived: Special Debates] Ethical: Morality of Abortion - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Assorted documents and images.
#394896
Formal Debate Format and Rules

* 1.) Both teams are to post their opening essays - the contents of which are agreed upon by all team members.


* 2.) Just as soon as both opening essays have been posted, debate begins. The members of each team can now freely - and individually - post against the opposing views that have been presented by asking questions, raising issues, illustrating fallacies, and everything else that one might do during a formal debate. Whilst there is no specific turn-by-turn order to this portion of the debate, it is formal and therefore carries some stipulations:

* 2a.) Debate must be completely mature in nature. No flames, inflammatory innuendo, personal attacks, or other such tatics will be tolerated. Since this is a formal discourse, participants should present each of their posts as if they were presenting a serious paper (although posts need not be a specific length, or carry a specific format).

* 2b.) Do not make one or two lined posts if it can be at all avoided (although I conceed that every once in awhile, it cannot).

* 2c.) You may not use emoticons during formal debate.

* 2d.) Members of the same team need not absolutely agree with one another on every point and may even volunteer divergant points over the course of the discussion, so long as those points remain aligned with the general concept that the team is forwarding. It should go without saying that members of the same team shouldn't argue with each other in the debate. Save argument for your opponents.


* 3.) Debates will continue for their preordained duration, at which point discussion will be stopped by the locking of the thread. Judges will then make their final reviews of each argument and PM their decisions to me - along with a short explanation of why they voted as they did - and I will tabulate the votes and declare the winner of the debate. These explanations will then be added to the end of each completed thread along with a breakdown of the judges' votes so that participants and viewers alike can read the outcome.




Each team - collaborate to create a single Opening Essay that outlines your position on the subject. Once both teams have posted their opening essay, debate then begins.

I will be moderating the discourse. Be sure to adhere to the formal debate rules, as outlined above. This debate will run for [seven days] after the posting of both Opening Essays.
User avatar
By Noumenon
#397539
Our team contends that abortion is wrong because a fetus is an individual human being, and as such it has the right to life. In addition, it is especially wrong because it robs a human being of all future experiences.

A fetus is a living, human being. How could it be otherwise? It starts to grow immediately after conception. Eighteen days after, the fetus’s heartbeat can be heard. Six weeks after, its brain starts to emit waves and it moves spontaneously. It can respond to touch and sound eight to ten weeks after. By the thirteenth week, its vocal cords are formed and if it weren’t for the lack of air, it could cry. To call this being part of the mother’s body is absurd. All of the cells in our body have the same DNA, yet the fetus has different DNA from the mother. Also, our separate minds are what make us unique individuals. The mother and the fetus each have their own minds, thus they are separate individuals.

Of course, definitions of what constitutes a human being will differ. We believe that something is human if it is an organic object with human DNA. It is a being if it is an entity which lives and exists in the current moment. Since the fetus fits both descriptions, it is a human being. We challenge the pro-choice team to come up with a definition of human being which does not include fetuses, and does not introduce the concept of personhood (which is an entirely separate issue).

A common argument that pro-choicers use is that a fetus is not a person, therefore it doesn’t have rights. Personhood is a philosophical concept rather than scientific, so it is not possible to prove that position wrong. However, we believe that a fetus does have some degree of personhood. All human beings have at the very least the right to life. Infants, who are nowhere near being independent, rational persons, at least have this right. We see no good reason to deny this right to fetuses, who are human beings too. Personhood and the right to life cannot be denied to fetuses just because the mother may find them inconvenient.

Pro-choicers often cite the hardship of mothers and children who are not allowed to abort as a justification for their position. But this exposes their opposition to personal responsibility. When you make a choice, you must accept the natural risks that go along with that choice. If you take a walk in the forest, there is a chance you may slip and twist your ankle. No one is responsible for that but you; you accepted the natural risk by setting foot in the forest. Note that this doesn’t apply to someone pushing you and making you twist your ankle, which would be a crime. It only applies to the natural risks we are exposed to in our everyday lives. When a woman chooses to have sex, she accepts the natural risk of conceiving a child. Conception brings into the world a new human being with the right to life. She cannot violate the fetus’s rights just because she doesn’t want to accept responsibility for her decision, and might have to face hardships down the road because of it. Also note that there is such a thing as giving up your child for adoption, which is an easy way to avoid such hardships without violating anyone’s rights.

The view that abortion is justified because the child might endure hardships is preposterous and prejudiced against the poor. Who are pro-choicers to decide that a life is not worth living because it would be impoverished? Sure, a rich life is preferable, but I think even poor people value their lives and don’t wish they had never been born. Besides, this presupposes that poor people will never rise above poverty, which is statistically untrue in the United States at least.

Another common argument is that the fetus is a parasite, and thus it is okay to kill it. However, the fetus did not choose to be a parasite. It did not commit any aggression against the mother, so it is an innocent. Killing it is an act of aggression that is uncalled for and a violation of its rights. One could also make the argument that a newborn is a parasite, since it is totally helpless and dependent on others for survival. Do pro-choicers think it is okay to kill newborns?

Abortion isn’t just wrong because it violates the rights of the fetus. It is also wrong because it robs the fetus of its future life. The killing of innocents is especially wrong for that exact reason. Killing innocents is a violation of their rights, but there is something about it that makes it much worse than other violations. Whether or not people realize it, the thing that sets it apart is that it is destruction of the thing we value most: our future experiences. We may value our earthly possessions, and regardless of your views on private property, you probably don’t want them stolen or destroyed. Yet nearly all of us highly value our future experiences and the future experiences of others. Without our future experiences, everything else is worthless to us. When an innocent is killed, everything that could have been for him on earth is gone forever. All of his future experiences are extinguished, just like that. We should do our best to preserve this extremely valuable thing for every human being in existence. Since fetuses are human beings, they should be included as well.

Some may think that this argument leads to the conclusion that contraception is wrong, since without it a human being with future experiences would be created. However, our team is not claiming that future experiences should be maximized. If that were the case, we would be morally obligated to procreate every second of our lives. We are only claiming that the act of depriving an already existing human being of his future experiences is a wrong act. A sperm cell by itself is not a human being, and killing it or preventing it from uniting with an egg is not depriving it of future experiences. A sperm cell does not have future experiences. Only human beings do. Therefore, we do not consider contraception wrong on those grounds.

Our team recognizes women’s ownership of their bodies. They have the right to do as they want with their own bodies. However, the right to choose does not include the right to violate the rights of others. If the fetus has a right to life, as we argue, then the right to choose to violate its rights is not a right at all, but rather an aggression that should be outlawed in most situations.
User avatar
By Comrade Ogilvy
#398101
Why is Abortion a divine right of the female sex and why we believe it should stay legal.

We Believe Abortion to be a right that should be left up to the mother whether or not she wishes to keep her baby. She is carrying that baby for 9 months and while in her body it is technically hers, so who is to tell her what she has to do with this baby. If she feels that she is not ready (Financially, Emotionally or if her life is in danger if she has this baby.)
to have this baby then why be forced if this baby might not live a productive nurturing life. Times are changing, and they are changing fast. History has thought us that even the most fundamental morals can be changed drastically. Today we live in a world were science is out main teacher, and science has thought us that abortion is not the least wrong.

A woman endures 9 months of hardship for her future child to be born. Sickness, absentness from normal activities, vomiting, headaches and inability to be active in sexual intercourse are all side effects of the future child that the parent would love for the rest of its life. As well, the process of birth is one of the hardest of nature events and the woman does this all just in love of her future child. But what if the future child to be born, is unwanted by the mother? What of it would be a product, of an unintentional incident like rape? Or, it would be, an outcome in a love relationship, which is unwanted and unbearable by the couple? Maybe financially the mother can’t even uphold this future child, what should have to be done? To endure all those sacrifices mentioned above and produce, a puppet that is unwanted even by its own mother is unbearable for child itself. The child would live all his life with a genetically *A foster parent?* parent instead of a loving and caring mother. Is this worth it? Not at all. That is why abortion has saved countless of relationships, countless of future children from hatred and disgust, and countless of children being from transmitted diseases by the pregnant mother. I personally would rather die, than to have the most fundamental people in my life, which are my parents to hate me, and it is obvious.

Where do women stand with this issue? When a couple haves sexual intercourse and a fusion with the sex cells is present, a zygote is produced. This zygote grows to be an embryo than a fetus, is totally dependent on the female’s resources to develop as a human organism. If this construction of developing cells which is totally dependent on something, than this something has all the right to reject it. If I have a plant, and I am using my money, water, minerals, space, and time to make it grow, and one day I would realize that I would be better off without it, I have all the right to throw it in the dustbin. The same applies with abortion. This group of cells, which is implanted in the female, is dependent on the female’s resources. If the female thinks it is not worth letting the process continue for to create a human organism, she has all the right to abort it.

But is this group of cells a living organism? Does life starts with fusion? Or after birth? What is fusion? When a sperm cell enters the ovum of course. Everybody knows this. But let us go a step further. Is a group of scattered info, into the forms of chromosomes, a life? Life is something emotional. Love and hatred is involved in it. Does this group of chromosomes have the ability to love and hate? No, but it will develop into a living organism which in the future would be able to love and hate and thus the chromosomes result in a life afterwards the process and not a life at that point. Life is not something abstract which has many forms of it. Life is something, which is defined with consciousness and emotion. A group of cells in a laboratory or in the woman’s uterus is not a life; it is a group of cells.

In Europe the only countries which legally are against abortion are Malta and the Vatican. This is due to Church dominance over the government, and the people. The Catholic Church is against anything progressive, against anything scientifically to keep its dogma at guard and alive. As abortion was a breakthrough in the science scenario, the Church lunched its cannons against it thus many followers poorly think that they will go to hell if they abort and so abortion gets a pace back in Church dominated countries like Malta. But as already said, times are changing, science is revealing more truths about life and our existence, and the Church is withering away bit by bit. In time all countries will apply a pro-abortion stance in their constitutions.
By U-235
#398198
It starts to grow immediately after conception. Eighteen days after, the fetus’s heartbeat can be heard. Six weeks after, its brain starts to emit waves and it moves spontaneously. It can respond to touch and sound eight to ten weeks after. By the thirteenth week, its vocal cords are formed and if it weren’t for the lack of air, it could cry

I must contend that these additions to the essay serve only the purpose to invoke sympathy for the fetus, as if to give it attributes of consciousness. Although these responses to various stimuli to indicate the presence of life. I do not see a presence of sentience, which is my test to validate the worth of an organism.



All of the cells in our body have the same DNA, yet the fetus has different DNA from the mother.

I do not find the individual nature of the fetus to be a good reason to value its life when faced the possible negative financial, social, and mental consequences of the birth on the mother. Distinct DNA means only that the specimen is not the mother, but an argument using this neglects the fact the non-sentient organism will greatly affect the life of the mother.

We challenge the pro-choice team to come up with a definition of human being which does not include fetuses, and does not introduce the concept of personhood (which is an entirely separate issue).

Genetically, the fetus is a human. But in terms of mental faculties, it is not. I disagree with the statement that personhood is an entirely separate issue, for it is an important aspect of a sentient human. But a fetus only has properties which ascribe to but one of these two features of a human being, therefore I must conclude it is exempt from the normal laws which apply to us.

All human beings have at the very least the right to life.

But how can you ascribe to an organism - which cannot comprehend its own self being - rights which supersede those of the mother?

Conception brings into the world a new human being with the right to life. She cannot violate the fetus’s rights just because she doesn’t want to accept responsibility for her decision

As I have outlined in my previous arguments, the fetus's rights should not supercede those of the mother for reasons of lack of a consciousness. With you reasoning, I would not be able to disinfect my wound that I acquired when I fell in the woods, and kill thousands of bacteria on my skin.

The view that abortion is justified because the child might endure hardships is preposterous and prejudiced against the poor. Who are pro-choicers to decide that a life is not worth living because it would be impoverished?

These are not my opinions. But I wish to add onto that so they do resemble my opinions. If the mother is insecure regarding the future of herself and the a child (if she were to have one), it is most likely due to financial hardship she will endure. She may also have no mate to assist her in the raising of a child. These possible conditions placed upon a child - if it is born - will contribute the likelihood the child becoming a delinquent, thus a parasite to society.

Abortion isn’t just wrong because it violates the rights of the fetus. It is also wrong because it robs the fetus of its future life. The killing of innocents is especially wrong for that exact reason. Killing innocents is a violation of their rights, but there is something about it that makes it much worse than other violations. Whether or not people realize it, the thing that sets it apart is that it is destruction of the thing we value most: our future experiences. We may value our earthly possessions, and regardless of your views on private property, you probably don’t want them stolen or destroyed. Yet nearly all of us highly value our future experiences and the future experiences of others.

Correct, I do value my future experiences. But a fetus has not the mental capacity to formulate such a desire or opinion. You are giving it abilities it does not have. You are envisioning its opinion on its own abortion if it were a fully grown human, which it never was.

We are only claiming that the act of depriving an already existing human being of his future experiences is a wrong act.

You are basing this argument on a future event, that you cannot know with any certainty will happen, therefore, the union of your sperm an a woman’s egg may occur, just as an individual longing for their future events may occur.
User avatar
By Noumenon
#399441
I must contend that these additions to the essay serve only the purpose to invoke sympathy for the fetus, as if to give it attributes of consciousness. Although these responses to various stimuli to indicate the presence of life. I do not see a presence of sentience, which is my test to validate the worth of an organism.


That part of the essay serves to show that the fetus is alive. Whether something is living or not has nothing to do with how much you value it. I do not value bacteria, yet it lives. I do not value ants, yet they live. And neither is sentient, yet they live. You may not think a fetus is a person with value, but it does live. Life is what distinguishes animate organisms from dead ones and inanimate matter. A fetus is neither an inanimate object nor a dead organism; it is a living, animate organism which grows and starts to respond to stimuli early in its development. Whether it is a human being deserving of rights is a separate issue, but there is no question that the fetus is a living organism.

You should value a fetus’ life, but even if you don’t, it still has rights. Your personal judgment that the worth of a certain human being (a fetus) is low doesn’t give you the right to kill it. Or should I be allowed to kill anyone whose life I don’t value?

Sentience is usually defined as having sense perception. Physicians disagree when exactly a fetus is able to feel pain, but they generally agree that fetus’s do develop that ability at some point. Some estimates place the time which it starts to develop at 7 weeks, others up to 26 weeks. The fetus does develop pain receptors at 7 weeks, but there is disagreement over whether that is enough for a fetus to feel pain. According to Dr. Paul Ranalli, a neurologist at the University of Toronto, a fetus can feel pain starting at 12 to 14 weeks after conception. He believes that the spino-thalamic system is fully developed at this point, and his case is supported by the fact that the fetus will withdraw from painful stimulation at this stage. Also, two types of stress hormones which are present in adults who feel pain are also present in the fetus when painful stimulation is applied. In any case, some sort of sensation is possible when the fetus’ nervous system starts to develop at 6 weeks. Thus, it has at least some sentience from that point on.

However, we should not use sentience as a basis to deny a human being its right to life. Does an adult lose his right to life if he is knocked unconscious?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pain.htm

I do not find the individual nature of the fetus to be a good reason to value its life when faced the possible negative financial, social, and mental consequences of the birth on the mother. Distinct DNA means only that the specimen is not the mother, but an argument using this neglects the fact the non-sentient organism will greatly affect the life of the mother.


Would the pro-choice team endorse killing newborn babies if it would prevent negative financial, social, and mental consequences for the mother? Or will they admit that the newborn’s right to life trumps those consequences? If a fetus has the right to life, that right also trumps any inconvenience to the mother.

The right to life of human beings should not be conditional on whether their existence causes others hardship. Newborns also cause much hardship for their mothers, yet they have the right to life.
Genetically, the fetus is a human. But in terms of mental faculties, it is not. I disagree with the statement that personhood is an entirely separate issue, for it is an important aspect of a sentient human. But a fetus only has properties which ascribe to but one of these two features of a human being, therefore I must conclude it is exempt from the normal laws which apply to us.


You are confusing the issue by applying philosophy to a concept which does not need it. The concept of human is an inherently scientific one, rather than philosophical. Science defines what humans, cats, dogs, rocks, and trees are, not philosophy. If science says a fetus is a human being, it is a human being.

But how can you ascribe to an organism which cannot comprehend its own self being with rights which supersede those of the mother?


Which rights of the mother are being superceded?

As I have outlined in my previous arguments, the fetus's rights should not supercede those of the mother for reasons of lack of a consciousness. With you reasoning, I would not be able to disinfect my wound that I acquired when I fell in the woods, and kill thousands of bacteria on my skin.


I don’t mean to imply that people should not be able to try to relieve the severity of natural consequences, only that they have to accept personal responsibility for them. If you slip and injure yourself in the forest, by all means treat your wound. But acknowledge that no one is responsible for that but you, since you chose to set foot in the forest.

Sex is a very unique case. However, we do know that women who choose to engage in sex are personally responsible for the natural consequence of conceiving a human being with rights. Trying to do away with the consequences simply should not be an option for her, since she was responsible for its creation in the first place. Killing a human being not the same as killing bacteria.

These are not my opinions. But I wish to add onto that so they do resemble my opinions. If the mother is insecure regarding the future of herself and the a child (if she were to have one), it is most likely due to financial hardship she will endure. She may also have no mate to assist her in the raising of a child. These possible conditions placed upon a child - if it is born - will contribute the likelihood the child becoming a delinquent, thus a parasite to society.


So it is okay to kill a human being because it might be a parasite to society?

Correct, I do value my future experiences. But a fetus has not the mental capacity to formulate such a desire or opinion. You are giving it abilities it does not have. You are envisioning its opinion on its own abortion if it were a fully grown human, which it never was.


The fetus does not value its future life at the moment, yet its future life has value. What if the fetus grew up to be a scientist who discovered a cure for cancer? Even if the accomplishments of the fetus in his future life are not so great, surely they will at least have some value to him and others.

You are basing this argument on a future event, that you cannot know with any certainty will happen, therefore, the union of your sperm an a woman’s egg may occur, just as an individual longing for their future events may occur.


You can’t know with certainty that my computer will still function tomorrow, but the act of stealing it is still wrong. Isn’t depriving me of the future use of my computer, which is rightfully mine, still wrong even though there is a chance that it will stop functioning anyway?

We Believe Abortion to be a right that should be left up to the mother whether or not she wishes to keep her baby. She is carrying that baby for 9 months and while in her body it is technically hers, so who is to tell her what she has to do with this baby. If she feels that she is not ready (Financially, Emotionally or if her life is in danger if she has this baby.)
to have this baby then why be forced if this baby might not live a productive nurturing life. Times are changing, and they are changing fast. History has thought us that even the most fundamental morals can be changed drastically. Today we live in a world were science is out main teacher, and science has thought us that abortion is not the least wrong.


Why should the mother own her child just because it happens to be inside her? Would it be okay for her to kill her child the second before it is born, just because it is inside her?

The fact that morals are changing is irrelevant to the debate. Newer morals are not necessarily better morals.

Or, it would be, an outcome in a love relationship, which is unwanted and unbearable by the couple? Maybe financially the mother can’t even uphold this future child, what should have to be done? To endure all those sacrifices mentioned above and produce, a puppet that is unwanted even by its own mother is unbearable for child itself. The child would live all his life with a genetically *A foster parent?* parent instead of a loving and caring mother.


Isn’t it better to live and be unwanted in your childhood than not exist at all? Even the most unwanted children can still find happiness from other sources, such as friends, school, and enjoying the simple pleasures of life.

Not at all. That is why abortion has saved countless of relationships, countless of future children from hatred and disgust, and countless of children being from transmitted diseases by the pregnant mother. I personally would rather die, than to have the most fundamental people in my life, which are my parents to hate me, and it is obvious.


I am sure that you are in a very small minority of people who would rather not have ever existed than have unloving parents.

But is this group of cells a living organism? Does life starts with fusion? Or after birth? What is fusion? When a sperm cell enters the ovum of course. Everybody knows this. But let us go a step further. Is a group of scattered info, into the forms of chromosomes, a life? Life is something emotional. Love and hatred is involved in it. Does this group of chromosomes have the ability to love and hate? No, but it will develop into a living organism which in the future would be able to love and hate and thus the chromosomes result in a life afterwards the process and not a life at that point. Life is not something abstract which has many forms of it. Life is something, which is defined with consciousness and emotion. A group of cells in a laboratory or in the woman’s uterus is not a life; it is a group of cells.


I seriously doubt a newborn has the capacity to hate. Are newborns not living then? What about people in comas or the severely mentally impaired? Those humans (as well as fetuses) do live; they just don’t fit your ideal of what life should be. Life is a biological concept, not philosophical.

The life of a human being begins at conception. This is a simple concept. The zygote is human, and it is a being separate from the mother. It is alive because it is a growing organism. Thus, it is a living human being.

In Europe the only countries which legally are against abortion are Malta and the Vatican. This is due to Church dominance over the government, and the people. The Catholic Church is against anything progressive, against anything scientifically to keep its dogma at guard and alive. As abortion was a breakthrough in the science scenario, the Church lunched its cannons against it thus many followers poorly think that they will go to hell if they abort and so abortion gets a pace back in Church dominated countries like Malta. But as already said, times are changing, science is revealing more truths about life and our existence, and the Church is withering away bit by bit. In time all countries will apply a pro-abortion stance in their constitutions.


This is irrelevant. Our team is not arguing from a religious point of view. And the fact that the pro-life view happens to coincide with the views of people who are not progressive does not make the pro-life view non-progressive. It could be that years from now we view abortion with the same horror that we view the practice of abandoning newborns to die, which was common in Ancient Rome.

A few questions:

It seems to us that you are advocating the view that the more dependent a being is, the more okay it is to kill it. If this is your view, could you explain the reasoning for it? If it isn’t your view, why do you use the fetus’ dependence as a justification for abortion?

You say the mother has the right to abort because the child may not lead a “productive nurturing” life. Is production then the goal of human life? Are non-productive members of society to be disposed of?
By Napuljun
#400426
it is a living, animate organism which grows and starts to respond to stimuli early in its development


Untrue, the fetus is just a developing set if cells into a human being. It does not respond to stimuli becuase their is nothign to respond to in the mother's uterus. The fetus just takes substances from the parent to develop.

You should value a fetus’ life, but even if you don’t, it still has rights. Your personal judgment that the worth of a certain human being (a fetus) is low doesn’t give you the right to kill it


First of all we did not say in our essay that a fetus is a live .

However, we should not use sentience as a basis to deny a human being its right to life. Does an adult lose his right to life if he is knocked unconscious?


This has got nothign to do with the argument. The person who was knocked unconscious has the possibility to become conscouis again while the fetus was never conscouis.

Would the pro-choice team endorse killing newborn babies if it would prevent negative financial, social, and mental consequences for the mother? Or will they admit that the newborn’s right to life trumps those consequences? If a fetus has the right to life, that right also trumps any inconvenience to the mother.


First of all, nine months of pregnancy and 18 years of dependency are not a walk in the park. Second of all, the mother's rights overcome the fetus's rights becuase the fetus is dependent from the mother. The mother is alive while the fetus is not, so you can not deny the rights of the mother just by giving up arguments that a developing group of cells is alive etc.. even the mother is alive and would want to live more her life!

[Vivisekt Edit ::]Do not type entire phrases in caps. If you want to place emphasis on a statement, utilize the bold, italic, or underline tags. Also, do not use excessive punctuation (such as '!'). I have reformatted the sentence to 'bold', and removed the extra exclamation points.


Genetically, the fetus is a human. But in terms of mental faculties, it is not.


How can genetically a fetus be a human when it does not have the ability ti usse all the normal human senses? It is not a human.

I don’t mean to imply that people should not be able to try to relieve the severity of natural consequences, only that they have to accept personal responsibility for them


Prostitution, rape, abuse and mishandling of the concetraptive due to lack of education are all cases where the mother's responsibility was not hers of waht had heppened. Thus your argument falls immidiately when these cases arise. But if a women has sex and becomes pregnant and cases arise in her life in which she could not be able to sustain her future child in her life hapoens, and the answer is abortion. When this happenes the female would for sure be more careful the next time she has sexual intercourse. Sometimes events must happen and be experienced to know the consequences. Many females who abrot, do not abort gain in their lives.


So it is okay to kill a human being because it might be a parasite to society?


It is okay to abort a developing group of cells whihc in the future would cause the mother hardships. That is why it is called abortion and not killing, because you are not killing.
User avatar
By Noumenon
#400567
Untrue, the fetus is just a developing set if cells into a human being. It does not respond to stimuli becuase their is nothign to respond to in the mother's uterus. The fetus just takes substances from the parent to develop.


Can you explain how a fetus about to be born, a “set of cells,” magically transforms into a human being the second it leaves the womb? Or is there some other point in the development of the fetus where this transformation takes place?

You are denying reality. The fetus does respond to stimulus at an early stage. It develops reflexes and is capable of motion at six weeks, and by 8 weeks it can move voluntarily. It can interact with its environment at 6 weeks (for example, it will arch its back when its cheek is stroked). It shows evidence of being able to feel things on the palm of its hands at 9 weeks. By twelve weeks, it can taste and smell. The list goes on.

http://www.abortiontv.com/HowUnbornBabiesThink.htm

First of all we did not say in our essay that a fetus is a live .


Again, you deny reality. Biologically, it is alive. Can an organism not alive grow and respond to stimuli? I think not. Your definition of life is utterly ridiculous. If only things which love and hate are alive, that pretty much disqualifies every living organism on earth except humans above the age of about 3. Do you deny that cats, trees, fish, bacteria, insects, etc. are alive?

This has got nothign to do with the argument. The person who was knocked unconscious has the possibility to become conscouis again while the fetus was never conscouis.


Let me get this straight, it is wrong to kill an unconscious person because he will become conscious in the future, but it is okay to kill fetuses even though they will become conscious in the future?

First of all, nine months of pregnancy and 18 years of dependency are not a walk in the park. Second of all, the mother's rights overcome the fetus's rights becuase the fetus is dependent from the mother. The mother is alive while the fetus is not, so you can not deny the rights of the mother just by giving up arguments that a developing group of cells is alive etc.. even the mother is alive and would want to live more her life!


She chose the live with the hardship of 9 months of pregnancy when she had sex. No one is responsible for that but her. I understand that raising a child for 18 years is a huge burden, which is why there is such a thing as adoption. There are plenty of parents who would love to raise her unwanted child.

Prostitution, rape, abuse and mishandling of the concetraptive due to lack of education are all cases where the mother's responsibility was not hers of waht had heppened. Thus your argument falls immidiately when these cases arise. But if a women has sex and becomes pregnant and cases arise in her life in which she could not be able to sustain her future child in her life hapoens, and the answer is abortion. When this happenes the female would for sure be more careful the next time she has sexual intercourse. Sometimes events must happen and be experienced to know the consequences. Many females who abrot, do not abort gain in their lives.


In the case of rape, you are right that she is not responsible. Abortion in the case of rape may be acceptable. But are you saying a human being may be killed because the mother couldn’t handle contraceptives right or chose to be a prostitute? Bad decisions and ignorance do not allow you to evade personal responsibility.

If at some point she decides she is not able or willing to raise a child past birth, she can give it up for adoption.

It is okay to abort a developing group of cells whihc in the future would cause the mother hardships. That is why it is called abortion and not killing, because you are not killing.


Kill: To deprive of life, to put an end to. The fetus is biologically alive, whether you like that fact or not. Aborting it kills a living organism and turns it into a dead one; it couldn’t be more simple and obvious. It is called abortion rather than killing because abortion is a euphemism.
By Napuljun
#400993
Can you explain how a fetus about to be born, a “set of cells,” magically transforms into a human being the second it leaves the womb? Or is there some other point in the development of the fetus where this transformation takes place?


This makes no sense. There is no magic in it. Reasoning with the same argument I may also ask, can you tell me how magically a sperm and an ovum,which consist of scattered chromosomes, fused together are alive?



You are denying reality. The fetus does respond to stimulus at an early stage. It develops reflexes and is capable of motion at six weeks, and by 8 weeks it can move voluntarily. It can interact with its environment at 6 weeks (for example, it will arch its back when its cheek is stroked). It shows evidence of being able to feel things on the palm of its hands at 9 weeks. By twelve weeks, it can taste and smell. The list goes on.


A developing nervous system does not make it alive. It is still developing, but it is not yet fully developed thus it is not alive. You eat a pie when it is fully baked.


Again, you deny reality. Biologically, it is alive. Can an organism not alive grow and respond to stimuli? I think not. Your definition of life is utterly ridiculous. If only things which love and hate are alive, that pretty much disqualifies every living organism on earth except humans above the age of about 3. Do you deny that cats, trees, fish, bacteria, insects, etc. are alive?


Again you are basing yoru arguments on things in which we did not say. If you read waht we said carefully you will notice that we said that life is something in which includes a vast amount of effects,events,stimuli, conscouisnes and emotions. The definiton of life is centered around these, a fetus has no emotion, has no stimuli (just a developing nervous system), has no conscouisness, does not effect itself with its own actions becuase it is totally dependent on the female parent and is not able to participate in any human live events + the basic human senses. Don't brign an example with animals, we are not talking about animals here, but developing future humans.


Let me get this straight, it is wrong to kill an unconscious person because he will become conscious in the future, but it is okay to kill fetuses even though they will become conscious in the future?


Totally wrong. Again read the list of things in which life is neccessary to exist.



She chose the live with the hardship of 9 months of pregnancy when she had sex. No one is responsible for that but her. I understand that raising a child for 18 years is a huge burden, which is why there is such a thing as adoption. There are plenty of parents who would love to raise her unwanted child.


First of all a fetus is not alive. And yes, if you don't want your child, just dump him in the adoption centres!

[Vivisekt Edit ::]Do not type entire phrases in caps. If you want to place emphasis on a statement, utilize the bold, italic, or underline tags. This is your last warning.


In the case of rape, you are right that she is not responsible. Abortion in the case of rape may be acceptable


I'm happy you agreed to this.

But are you saying a human being may be killed because the mother couldn’t handle contraceptives right or chose to be a prostitute?


First of all, if you think a prostitute is happy to be one, you are totally wrong and misinformed. Get out to the real life. Have you ever talked to one? A prostitute is desperate, thats why she is one.
User avatar
By Noumenon
#401208
This makes no sense. There is no magic in it. Reasoning with the same argument I may also ask, can you tell me how magically a sperm and an ovum,which consist of scattered chromosomes, fused together are alive?


It seems to me that you are contending that a fetus is non-human, and a newborn baby is. Since there is virtually no difference between a 9 month fetus and a newborn, how can you say one is human and the other isn't? Simply by traveling down the birth canal, a fetus does not transform into a human. That is a ridiculous idea, and thats why I derided it by terming it "magical."

A fused together sperm and ovum are alive, but no "magical" transformation took place. That is because the sperm and ovum were alive even before fusion. They were just alive in the same way bacteria are alive. Their life continues when they are fused together, but the new being created by conception has human life, so it should be preserved.

A developing nervous system does not make it alive. It is still developing, but it is not yet fully developed thus it is not alive. You eat a pie when it is fully baked.


A developed nervous system is not necessary for life. What about lower forms of life (such as plants, bacteria, and jellyfish) which have no nervous systems at all?

And if only full developed things can be alive, does that disqualify human children? Is it okay to kill children because they are not fully developed?

Again you are basing yoru arguments on things in which we did not say. If you read waht we said carefully you will notice that we said that life is something in which includes a vast amount of effects,events,stimuli, conscouisnes and emotions.


This is a false definition of life. It is true that things like emotions and consciousness are very important traits of developed human life, but they do not define life, or even human life. Life is that property which distinguishes a living organism from a dead one or inanimate matter. Trees, bacteria, fungus, and insects are all living organisms, and this is well established by biology. They are included in the Linnaean classification system (or Five Kingdoms of Life) which biologists use.

If we were to use your definition of life, it would lead to absurd conclusions. If I had an operation on my brain which left me unable to feel emotion, by your definition I would not be alive. If I were paralyzed and went blind and deaf, by your definition I would not be alive. That is obviously false, since I could still be killed after either of those things happened. Consciousness and feeling are simply properties of a living being, not life itself.

The definiton of life is centered around these, a fetus has no emotion, has no stimuli (just a developing nervous system), has no conscouisness, does not effect itself with its own actions becuase it is totally dependent on the female parent and is not able to participate in any human live events + the basic human senses. Don't brign an example with animals, we are not talking about animals here, but developing future humans.


We are talking about life, and that includes animals. You are trying to limit the definition of life to only fit developed humans, which is ridiculous. Life exists in multitudes of other forms besides develped humans. These forms of life don't participate in actions which a human might, and may not have all the senses we have. They may be totally dependent parasites, or totally independent. They may or may not have a nervous system.

First of all a fetus is not alive. And yes, if you don't want your child, just dump him in the adoption centres!


Are you saying its not possible for an adopted child to ever be happy? That is [...] nonsensical [...]. Even if they were unhappy, it is better to live an unhappy life than not live at all. Or should we just kill all unhappy people?

[Vivisekt Edit ::]Inflammatory melodrama removed.


First of all, if you think a prostitute is happy to be one, you are totally wrong and misinformed. Get out to the real life. Have you ever talked to one? A prostitute is desperate, thats why she is one.


Prostitution is still a choice, even if it is a desperate one. No one is holding a gun to the prostitute's head (at least in most cases).
By U-235
#401251
is no question that the fetus is a living organism.

I agree.

Sentience is usually defined as having sense perception. Physicians disagree when exactly a fetus is able to feel pain, but they generally agree that fetus’s do develop that ability at some point.

There have been studies done which indicate fish feel pain, yet you would have no trouble slaughtering and breading one. Besides, the ability to perceive physical pain is not an indicator of sentience.

Sentience is defined as: The quality or state of being sentient; consciousness.
Consciousness is defined as: A sense of one's personal or collective identity, including the attitudes, beliefs, and sensitivities held by or considered characteristic of an individual or group

However, we should not use sentience as a basis to deny a human being its right to life. Does an adult lose his right to life if he is knocked unconscious?

I must agree with what Napuljin said to this comment. An adult was conscious and one point or another, a fetus was not.

Would the pro-choice team endorse killing newborn babies if it would prevent negative financial, social, and mental consequences for the mother? Or will they admit that the newborn’s right to life trumps those consequences? If a fetus has the right to life, that right also trumps any inconvenience to the mother.

The right to life of human beings should not be conditional on whether their existence causes others hardship. Newborns also cause much hardship for their mothers, yet they have the right to life.

Now the right to life of a newborn human is a different issue entirely.
First of all, it is no longer the lump of cells it once was, but rather a somewhat conscious human being. The legality of killing such an organism, we are not brining into question.

You are confusing the issue by applying philosophy to a concept which does not need it. The concept of human is an inherently scientific one, rather than philosophical. Science defines what humans, cats, dogs, rocks, and trees are, not philosophy. If science says a fetus is a human being, it is a human being.

I believe the addition of philosophical reasoning is required in this such debate. The arguments of the pro-life team are riddled with philosophical implications. Such an example is the pro-lifers belief that a genetic human is endowed with some rights. This such debate cannot be purely scientific.

Which rights of the mother are being superceded?

The right of the mother to choose what she wants and does not want leeching of her nutrients. The fetus is the property of the mother, and should not be treated in any other manner.

So it is okay to kill a human being because it might be a parasite to society?

Not at all what I was saying. Given the conditions under which a mother must be placed in order to consider aborting the fetus, it is most likely it will be brought up in unfavorable conditions. Therefore it is best eliminate the burden on the future child and the burden to society while the fetus still has not the capacity to refuse, or comprehend its own existence.

The fetus does not value its future life at the moment, yet its future life has value. What if the fetus grew up to be a scientist who discovered a cure for cancer? Even if the accomplishments of the fetus in his future life are not so great, surely they will at least have some value to him and others.

What if the evolutionary process of the bacteria you killed whilst disinfecting a wound would take them to be supreme beings which cared for our every need and want? This as well as your example, are pure speculation. The reason you do not think of such possibilities when disinfecting you wound is that the bacteria, now, are a burden to you, and the other scenario is overwhelmingly improbable. Just like your example with the fetus.

You can’t know with certainty that my computer will still function tomorrow, but the act of stealing it is still wrong. Isn’t depriving me of the future use of my computer, which is rightfully mine, still wrong even though there is a chance that it will stop functioning anyway?

You possess ownership of the computer. It is your decision if I should take it or not, just as it is illegal for a man without the consent of the mother to forcefully abort the fetus.
User avatar
By Comrade Ogilvy
#401286
Quote:
First of all, if you think a prostitute is happy to be one, you are totally wrong and misinformed. Get out to the real life. Have you ever talked to one? A prostitute is desperate, thats why she is one.


Prostitution is still a choice, even if it is a desperate one. No one is holding a gun to the prostitute's head (at least in most cases).


Actually many women are actually physically forced into prostitution and have no other choice then selling her body.

Quote:
First of all a fetus is not alive. And yes, if you don't want your child, just dump him in the adoption centres!


Are you saying its not possible for an adopted child to ever be happy? That is [...] nonsensical [...]. Even if they were unhappy, it is better to live an unhappy life than not live at all. Or should we just kill all unhappy people?


Actually you should then look at the adoption rate in the USA. It is at a very low rate and many kids never get adopted and grow up without any love. So they deserve to be put into a position where they have no care and love because you feel its not right for the mother to abort the fetus if she knows it won't have a good life?

We are talking about life, and that includes animals. You are trying to limit the definition of life to only fit developed humans, which is ridiculous. Life exists in multitudes of other forms besides develped humans. These forms of life don't participate in actions which a human might, and may not have all the senses we have. They may be totally dependent parasites, or totally independent. They may or may not have a nervous system.


So what do you see life as? Do you see life as a brain dead person with no ability to do anything voluntary as life then? Do you see an amoeba as life even though it doesn't have a thinking process and has no idea what is going on? Life is precious even when a person can't respond because they are brain dead??

It seems to me that you are contending that a fetus is non-human, and a newborn baby is. Since there is virtually no difference between a 9 month fetus and a newborn, how can you say one is human and the other isn't? Simply by traveling down the birth canal, a fetus does not transform into a human. That is a ridiculous idea, and thats why I derided it by terming it "magical."


There is actually quite a difference between a fetus and a baby to say the least. (5 weeks - Embryo is the size of a raisin. By day twenty-one, the embryo's tiny heart has begun beating. The neural tube enlarges into three parts, soon to become a very complex brain. The placenta begins functioning. The spine and spinal cord grows faster than the rest of the body at this stage and give the appearance of a tail. This disappears as the child continues to grow. ) A baby actually has a nervous system and is self aware while a fetus is not.
User avatar
By Noumenon
#402113
There have been studies done which indicate fish feel pain, yet you would have no trouble slaughtering and breading one. Besides, the ability to perceive physical pain is not an indicator of sentience.


That depends on which definition of sentience you use. Many definitions include feeling and senses as well as consciousness. Several definitions here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=10&q=sentient

What is your reason for believing sentience/consciousness confers the right to life? Do conscious animals have the right to life?

I must agree with what Napuljin said to this comment. An adult was conscious and one point or another, a fetus was not.


Why should being conscious at some point give you the right to life when you are unconscious?

Now the right to life of a newborn human is a different issue entirely.
First of all, it is no longer the lump of cells it once was, but rather a somewhat conscious human being. The legality of killing such an organism, we are not brining into question.


Are you saying that a fetus is a lump of cells until it travels through the birth canal, which somehow transforms it into a human? Or is there some other point where the fetus becomes human?

I believe the addition of philosophical reasoning is required in this such debate. The arguments of the pro-life team are riddled with philosophical implications. Such an example is the pro-lifers belief that a genetic human is endowed with some rights. This such debate cannot be purely scientific.


What is genetically human is philosophically human as well. Something is philosophically human if it has the “essence” of being human. If an adult human being is in a severe accident and is paralyzed, he is still human in essence. If he goes blind and deaf, he is still human. If he goes into a coma he is still human. If he becomes mentally retarded he is still human. Thus, sense perception, consciousness, and rational thought do not define what is philosophically human. So what does that leave? Appearance and genetics. Appearance does play a significant role in determining what is philosophically human. Something cannot be a human and look like a dog. However, human DNA determines what will appear to be human. Human DNA cannot make a being look like a dog, it can only make something look like a human. Thus, it is genetics which are important when considering what is human. Even an embryo, which bears little resemblance to a developed, adult human, is philosophically human. It has human DNA, which determines its appearance. Since whatever appearance results from human DNA is a human appearance, the appearance of an embryo is human. Thus, it is genetically and philosophically human at the same time.

Why do we have rights at all? I believe we have them to try to ensure peace, freedom, and prosperity for all human beings. The fetus, being a human being, also needs the protection of rights to ensure those things for his future life.

The right of the mother to choose what she wants and does not want leeching of her nutrients. The fetus is the property of the mother, and should not be treated in any other manner.


I agree with the first sentence. I support that right, but in the case of abortion, the right to life of the fetus should override it. The life of a human being should have first priority when that human is totally helpless. If the human being was capable of supporting himself, self-ownership would take priority. No adult human has the right to leech off of others when he could be supporting himself. However, children are helpless. The good of humanity requires that they have a right to life which sometimes overrides the freedom of adults. Fetuses are helpless developing human beings too, and their right to life overrides the mother’s right to decide what she wants leeching off of her.

No one has the right to own another human being. The fetus is a human being in its own right, and it cannot justly be owned by anyone else. And why should the fact that it is inside the mother make it her property? Is anything I put inside of my body automatically mine?

Not at all what I was saying. Given the conditions under which a mother must be placed in order to consider aborting the fetus, it is most likely it will be brought up in unfavorable conditions. Therefore it is best eliminate the burden on the future child and the burden to society while the fetus still has not the capacity to refuse, or comprehend its own existence.


All children are burdens on their parents (or other adults, if they choose to give them up for adoption). Whether they are wanted or unwanted burdens, their lives have value. Even a child unwanted by its parents will have friends and people who care about him. It is better for a child to live and be unwanted or a burden to other people, than to not exist at all.

What if the evolutionary process of the bacteria you killed whilst disinfecting a wound would take them to be supreme beings which cared for our every need and want? This as well as your example, are pure speculation. The reason you do not think of such possibilities when disinfecting you wound is that the bacteria, now, are a burden to you, and the other scenario is overwhelmingly improbable. Just like your example with the fetus.


Probability does have influence on whether a thing will be valuable for its future. We value a good car because there is an extremely high chance it will be useful to us tomorrow. If there was a very low probablity (the car is a piece of junk and breaks down often), it wouldn’t be as valuable. There is an infinitesimally low possibility that some bacteria will become supreme beings or have a future of any great value. However, there is a very good chance a fetus will become a developed human being who’s life is extremely valuable to himself and others (even if he’s an ordinary person, and not a scientist who discovers the cure for cancer) if it is not aborted. Thus, his future life is extremely valuable.

You possess ownership of the computer. It is your decision if I should take it or not, just as it is illegal for a man without the consent of the mother to forcefully abort the fetus.


I can legitimately own things like computers, but not other human beings. Abortion is wrong whether the mother consents to it or not.

Actually many women are actually physically forced into prostitution and have no other choice then selling her body.


If that is the case, then abortion may be within the mother’s rights. A woman forced to be pregnant did not consent to have a human being created in her, whether that was done through rape or forced prostitution. However, the exercise of that right is still morally wrong, since it kills a human being with a valuable future.

Actually you should then look at the adoption rate in the USA. It is at a very low rate and many kids never get adopted and grow up without any love. So they deserve to be put into a position where they have no care and love because you feel its not right for the mother to abort the fetus if she knows it won't have a good life?


Do they deserve to not exist because you judge that their life will not be good enough to justify protecting it? Even a life with unloving parents is still worth living. The bottom line is that if a mother feels that the burden of raising a child is too great, she has the option of giving it up for adoption if she chooses to take it. I’m not going to feel sorry for her if she chooses to raise the child instead.

So what do you see life as? Do you see life as a brain dead person with no ability to do anything voluntary as life then? Do you see an amoeba as life even though it doesn't have a thinking process and has no idea what is going on? Life is precious even when a person can't respond because they are brain dead??


A brain dead person is biologically alive, but there is no obligation to support their life. Unlike a fetus, their future life has no value. Amoebas are generally considered living organisms by science. Life in itself isn’t precious, but human life is. With the exception of brain dead people, people will have futures which have great value. That is a major reason why killing them is wrong.

There is actually quite a difference between a fetus and a baby to say the least. (5 weeks - Embryo is the size of a raisin. By day twenty-one, the embryo's tiny heart has begun beating. The neural tube enlarges into three parts, soon to become a very complex brain. The placenta begins functioning. The spine and spinal cord grows faster than the rest of the body at this stage and give the appearance of a tail. This disappears as the child continues to grow. ) A baby actually has a nervous system and is self aware while a fetus is not.


I said 9 month fetus. What significant biological difference is there between a fetus that is 9 months in development and about to be born, and a newborn? It does not suddenly become self aware the second it leaves the womb. When do you think the fetus becomes self-aware, if ever?
User avatar
By Vivisekt
#403274
Okay, this debate is officially concluded.

The judges will now be reviewing the argument in this thread and composing their decision statements. When they have finished, I will attach that information to this post and declare the winning team.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0pAf3aBt18 How […]

He is still under checks and balances while other[…]

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainly[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

The claim is a conditional statement. This is one[…]