Abortion should, in most cases, be illegal.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 18 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
I will have my opponent make the first arguments in their first post.
My argument will be that in all cases except for when the life of the mother is put in unusual risk by a pregnancy, abortion should be illegal.
Waived, per my description.
All right, I guess I'll post first.
My case will be made up of a two-pronged argument. One scientific and one philosophical.
First is the scientific prong.
the eight characteristics of life
It is a scientific fact that life begins at conception. Life is defined in biology as anything that fulfills eight requirements. These requirements are as follows
1. displays cellular organization. From the moment of conception, a human child is made of at least one cell. This requirement is fulfilled.
2. Maintains Homeostasis. Homeostasis means that a living thing maintains a constant internal environment that keeps it alive. a human embryo performs operations such as waste removal, transforming energy, and taking in nutrients from outside of the cell through constructs such as the sodium-potassium pump. This requirement is fulfilled.
3. grows and develops. It is an obvious truism that a human embryo grows and develops and begins to do so from the moment of conception. This requirement is fulfilled.
4. Displays metabolism. Metabolism is converting fuel (like food) into energy. From the moment of conception, a human child displays metabolism. This requirement is fulfilled.
5. Displays heredity. From the moment of conception, the first cell (the zygote) has the capacity to divide into more cells and pass a copy of its DNA onto those other cells. This condition is fulfilled.
6. Responds to the environment. The zygote will perform tasks such as pulling nutrients into itself through active transport and maintaining an internal environment responding to any change therein. This condition is fulfilled.
7. Adaptation through evolution. As a member of the human species, the zygote is subject to prior evolution. And, if not killed, will contribute to evolution through reproduction. this requirement is fulfilled.
8. Can reproduce. It is an obvious truism that the zygote can reproduce. dividing into more cells in order to develop into a fully formed baby.
as we can see, from the moment of conception a zygote fulfills every single one of the characteristics of life and is therefore alive.
the humanity of the zygote
The next question that needs to be answered is whether or not the zygote is indeed human. When the two haploid (containing 23 chromosomes) cells (sperm and egg cells) come together during fertilization the diploid (containing 46 chromosomes) is formed. This diploid zygote contains a complete copy of the human genome. Thus making the zygote human. Note that the zygote's copy of the human genome is genetically distinct from both the mother and the father and is the same set of DNA that they will carry for their entire lives.
I have therefore proven that a human child, from the moment of conception, is a living human being.
My body my choice
One of the more infamous arguments from the pro-choice crowd is that a fetus is a part of a woman's body and can, therefore, be killed at will. This argument displays basic scientific illiteracy. Nothing can be a biological part of your body that does not carry your DNA. From the moment of conception, as I've already proven, is genetically distinct from both the mother and the father this argument can be shown to be scientifically invalid.
the philosophical prong
the personhood of the child
After being forced to retreat on the scientific front, many pro-choicers will attempt to hide behind the following statement: "Well, the fetus may be a human being, but they're not a human person."
This is a purely philosophical contention that needs to be defined further. This statement raises the question: When is personhood conferred? Birth? Is personhood then based on geographical location? Nothing changed between those few inches of movement through the birth canal. Why then has personhood been conferred? Since most people find it unpalatable to argue in favor of abortion up to point of birth, a more common line is drawn at a heartbeat. The problem with this is that this trait can be removed. Not every adult has a heartbeat of their own. Can I stab Granny because she has a pacemaker? I sure hope not. Is the line drawn at sapience? What does that say about those born with cognitive defects and no sapience to speak of? can I stab them? I sure hope not. Or what about people who fall into a coma and have their sapience removed. We aren't allowed to kill them. Why is a fetus different? I could go on and on. The point is that wherever you draw the line (except for at conception or birth) you create an inconsistency wherein we should be able to kill adults who don't meet this criterion for personhood. If you tie moral value to a heartbeat then I should be able to stab pacemaker granny because she has no intrinsic value.
the rights of man
As Thomas Jefferson famously and eloquently put it "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." The Enlightenment gave us the idea that each individual has inherent worth and is therefore entitled to certain rights. The most critical and primal right that all humans are entitled to is that of life. To strip away the right of the human being who is growing in their mother's womb, to violently dismember them and snuff out their life constitutes a gross violation of these intrinsic, inalienable rights. These rights exist only if they are inviolable. If they don't exist for a fetus, then they don't exist. Period.
To wrap up this first argument I would like to say that the question of whether or not abortion should be legal is a very simple one that all too often becomes overcomplicated in political discourse. The dichotomy is self-evident, inherent in the philosophy of our society, and overwhelmingly simple. Either the fetus is human. Or, it isn't. If it's not, then removing it up to the point of birth should be no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth or a tumor. But if it is, then killing that child constitutes a heinous act of evil that infringes upon the most fundamental of the rights of man.
Please vote pro.
Campbell Biology: 11th edition.
https://scielo.conicyt.cl/scielo.php?pid=S0716-97602011000200013&script=sci_arttext (The beginning of life of a new human being from the scientific biological perspective and its bioethical implications Patricio Ventura-Juncá and Manuel J. Santos)
extend my arguments.
I am not exactly sorry for my absence, I had emotional and real-life reasons to quit the site for some days and all. I also think it's kind of whatever at this point. I could put in full effort and then be accused of playing dirty since he asked the opponent to post first.
So I am going to make this easy for us both and live up to some predictions in the comments and concede this. I actually have to do quite a bit of philosophical research into 'where rights originate from' as it's always been something that confused me and why I never truly understood either wing since they irrationally portray some things as inalienable rights.
Anyway, I concede and my opponent wanted me to go first which I can't go back in time and do. I am pro-choice but the entirety of pro-choice vs pro-life is about appreciating net-benefits and necessary evils. You cannot win on either side by thinking you're a hero, it's just that I am not interested in this for now but I will definitely look more into this later before accepting a debate like this that revolves around 'this is my right and the fetus must live or you want to murder everyone' kind of logic. I also wonder why pro-lifers are never (and I seriously mean never apart from in India) vegetarians or vegans. It's like humans matter just because they're human, and that applies to a lot of religions such as Islam, Judaism and Christianity. Only Indian religions tend to be both pro-life and vegetarian whereas other eastern and pagan outlook tend to be more open to being pro-choice but see it as a necessary evil.
I accept my opponent's concession.
I don't think you are left wing enough. Given that I think the best side is the left that comes with what I personally believe.
Try to actually or do a more effective job at creating a foundation. Have it then make other things confirms the foundation. If you can't make it confirm the foundation your foundation is flawed. I haven't personally done this because I am lazy but I am sure it would work for people who wanted to truly know if there foundation is good. This is under the assumption foundations are good which I think they are.
What I try to do when arguing is with every single claim I made is support it with evidence an explanation. I can't believe English was helpful but it was. Without it my formulation would be awful.
Chrome is better than Opera.
The measurement I am using is booting times.
X videos states upon multiple different states that Chrome shows to be the most consistent with, without plugins and when trying to open previously close windows.
With this information I can conclude that Chrome's boot times are better. This is helpful because it reduces the time taken to get on the platform which means I am quicker to access websites.
Something like that should be fine. If you even attempt what I said here I am sure you would be okay. If you need clarification just ask or tell me how I am wrong or something.
I used to be more right wing then I am now. I don't think the problem is my positions.
I would say the problem is more with the positions you hold while also how you got there used in a debate. Those arguments you used against me in the death penalty were really bad. I think you should either decide to change your positions or improve your arguments for your existing positions. What I would say pick better positions then improve your arguments but I ain't you.
Don't be so down, what a losing streak tells to me is that you aren't just noob sniping.
You're branching out, trying new topics, and taking on more challenging and capable opponents.
If you're losing it's no big deal, I recently just really lost my first debate ever between DDO and DART that wasn't a concession.
Screw-ups happen, what matters is you examine the previous mistakes you made and learn from them.
In my case, I was a bit too cocky and I didn't take my time with my arguments and rushed.
I need a break from debates for a while. I'm on a losing streak.
It might be interesting to have a debate between two pro-life people on the definition of human life. Hit me up if you're interested.
Yeah, I like to have the maximum character limit. It means that although I'll never use that many characters, I'll never have to consolidate what I want to say in order to stay within the limit or even cut points out entirely. I can unpack anything as much as I think it needs to be. Of course, I still need to be cautious about rambling.
I knew it was easy win
Yeah especially for an abortion debate.
I'm rooting for Patmos.
I don't think the victory, if it exists, would be easy.
Patmos is like Luke Skywalker, after Con's argument Pro just rubs it off his shoulder
easy win to Pro as always
What's the matter? Done masturbating over the songs I post?
what a trash song
Definitely. RM accepting your debate is a victory times two because he thinks he's good.
Easy win, easy life.
Until today, that is. ;)
easy win to Pro
That is a very high character limit...
I'm pro life beyond 6 weeks. A fertilized egg isn't human, but a fetus with a brain and a heartbeat (which happen at 6 weeks) is a human.