Ragnar once again uses his slavery argument, but this is illogical. He has merely stated the woman loses one part of her autonomy and automatically compared it to being the property of something. How does this make any sense? If I ground my child and prevent him from going out of his room, his body from physically exiting the room, is this slavery? Of course not. He has made an absurd logical jump that makes no sense in the context of this debate.
Ragnar argues just because it's not equal means it suddenly has no rights. There are a lot of animal rights activists that even argue to protect beings much less advanced and smart than us. If you believe in the theory of evolution, a monkey or ape is merely in the process of over a million years to become a human. Surely they deserve less than humans. But yet they have their own life and they are slowly developing on their own, and clearly have conscience and intelligence. I can push forward "27 weeks" a little -- 24 weeks in already suggests some kind of conscience --"Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation." --
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/. But ah, 24 weeks may still be too long for a generalization. Fetus can still move at merely 9 weeks (
https://www.pampers.com/en-us/pregnancy/pregnancy-calendar/9-weeks-pregnant), as responding to outside stimuli.
Let me ask again: Why should a woman be able to kill her developing baby? Her body itself is supporting this life, however questionable the first handful of weeks are. There are already methods of contraception to prevent ever starting having one in the first place. If you ignored all those methods, then are you not at blame for having your child? Do you not hold responsibility, if you know you can be able to not have a baby, and still choose to have a baby, then change your mind and use abortion? Ahhh, then pro-choice's ideas fall apart, don't they. It doesn't matter if they can't feel pain, ONCE AGAIN, I retrieve the idea of euthanizing the baby, which would most likely still cause no pain, but is extremely controversial and I believe far, far harder for my opponent to try proving.
The UN may have noted this correlation, but this is not causation. If you look carefully at the map the vast majority of the countries that prevent this are developing countries in Africa, which lacks safe practices --
as well as South America-- " The disparity between wealthy and poor areas likely exists due to the differences in access to services and skilled professionals. Women in the highest income quintile have far easier access to such health services than women in the lowest income quintile. The same class-based disparity exists when analyzing the use of contraceptive methods." (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights_in_Latin_America)
This only means that mostly developing nations happen to disallow abortion, and combined with their poor practices, lead to the illusion that disallowing abortion leads to more abortion-related deaths. But consider America. The doctors are excellent and medical practices are top-notch. Regardless of our abortion policy, we would perform very well. Unless my opponent shows a source that shows even first world countries could not handle anti-abortion policies, (or that third world countries would ironically better off allowing abortions in all cases??) then his idea falls apart.
Double thanks for the feedback.
I think I have before, but next time I'll be sure to expand and source how the mind uniquely defines people.
Thank you both for voting!
Probably a misclick.
No clue
People misclick all the time. That is why we need the mods. If there is none people will just report votes against them no matter how good or bad they are.
wait why was my vote reported
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TNBinc // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3; 3 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is deemed unmoderated.
Wow, very strong argument!
It's not moderated, so people are free to use what they like.
Idk, but it is better to just use English
just used google translate lol. What would be the correct symbols for "concession"/"surrender"?
It means compromise.
I don't think that is what you mean.
Thank you for the votes!
That was one of my best troll debates.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/866/fetuses-as-a-replacement-for-the-usd
> "by the way this debate is going I fear Ragnar supporting euthanizing babies lol"
I'm writing my rebuttals. If you would like I can include a side note of that (probably something something, Spartans are awesomeness, something something).
Way back on DDO I once started prepping a troll debate on fourth trimester abortions, with supporting evidence for the need to eliminate overgrown human cell clusters many years after they technically exited the womb but had since failed to intellectually develop into human beings (when doing a poll, I literally cited my two ex-brothers). ... Ok, I had to look it up, and I forgot how gloriously stupid the comments got!
https://www.debate.org/opinions/should-fourth-trimester-abortion-be-legal
Like the kind where one guy proposed to use fetuses as money?
...though I am beginning to regret challenging one of the strongest debaters on the site while playing devil's advocate (I think it should just be legalized generally lol)
by the way this debate is going I fear Ragnar supporting euthanizing babies lol
Very solid argument!
> "as raising the born baby costs far, far more than just giving birth, and you could use this idea to euthanize the baby"
I may have to use that in a troll debate sometime.
I'm going to have more time for the next few days, and in dire need of a distraction, so happy to accept this direct challenge.
If you would like anything plugged into the full description, please let me know. A good example of this would be any important definitions (I'll probably agree to anything that isn't an extreme case of cherry-picking).
To avoid any confusion as you draft your R1: I presume your side of this debate is that abortion should be generally banned, with an exception for things that are very likely to kill the mother in the short-term (like ectopic pregnancy).