Instigator / Pro
4
1777
rating
79
debates
76.58%
won
Topic
#3059

A human fetus ought to be treated as a human

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
4
0

After 4 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Benjamin
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1490
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description

Human: a member of the species Homo Sapiens

BoP is shared.

this would have been an interesting debate

-->
@owowhatsthis

Please don't forfeit again. Especially not with a 1 week window to post an argument, or even a concession.

-->
@Undefeatable

"It is not about change of species, it is about change of personhood. "

If you choose to use this "personhood" argument you are then faced with the uncertainty principle.

" If pro choice is correct, then no fetus should be treated as a proper human."

At what stage do you consider it immoral to abort a fetus. What is your criteria.

-->
@Undefeatable

Aha, you are bringing out the woman. Of course, that is a whole other issue that isn't as clear cut, and also is not my position to deny women the right to abortion.

I merely claim that a human fetus, and a baby, are not valuable in themselves, only because of their future. Do you deny this?

-->
@Benjamin

You presumed that the baby was already born! Yes, even a time difference of one day can make a big difference! If I forced you to bring birth to a fetus by using your life and blood, you would be pain and discomfort, trying any and which way to refuse this imposed problem on you. But if it was an actual comatose person, things get a bit more blurry about whether you can disconnect the life support or not.

-->
@whiteflame
@Undefeatable

Yes. Thank you whiteflame for the wording.

Undefeatable, you have accused the pro-life position, which I have not pledged allegiance to, of having a warped logic. I challenge you to substantiate that claim of yours. Do you claim that a born baby is more valuable than a non-born baby even when the time difference can be less than a day (or do you allow the killing of just-born babies). Alternatively, do you simply mean that the traits of a late-stage fetus or early baby make it deserve to be treated as a human. If so, why? You do know that we accept the killing of dogs, whose traits of consciousness and personality far supersede that of babies. Yet babies are still treated better than dogs, not because of their innate traits, but because of their future as humans. It is this universally accepted logic, that the future lives of babies mean more than their time-specific traits, that explains why dogs aren't worthy of human rights while babies are. Your claims imply otherwise, and I ask you to clarify.

Until then, stop calling the pro-life logic warped.

-->
@Undefeatable
@Benjamin

Not that I'm on his side with this particular topic, Undefeatable, but I think Benjamin's argument is that the pro-choice position involves selecting a point at which the unborn should be treated as a human and that, therefore, every stage before that point should not be treated as human. He's arguing that there's a dividing line that is being placed arbitrarily. You can argue that that point does not take place at any stage that can be defined as a fetus, but presumably, you set that line somewhere. Not going to take this opportunity to make an argument of my own about how this argument affects the pro-life position (largely because I don't want to interfere with the debate), but I felt it should be clarified.

-->
@Benjamin

nothing makes them more valuable other than warped Pro-life logic (your logic). If pro choice is correct, then no fetus should be treated as a proper human. There is no manslaughter charge to "killing" it

-->
@Undefeatable

Just tell me, what makes a 13-week old clump of human cells more valuable than a 12-week old clump of human cells? Why should one of them be treated differently than the other -- surely, neither have inherent value. The only reason we think of babies as valuable is their future lives as sentient and intelligent beings.

-->
@Undefeatable

Ah, I see --- you deny that personhood and "humanhood" are the same. But still, a human ought to be treated as a human, but maybe not as a person.

-->
@Benjamin

It is not about change of species, it is about change of personhood. The fetus growing into the human only happens after 13 weeks (all body organs form), with brain function/identity created far after 20 weeks, while most abortions are before 13 weeks. So you still can't treat all human fetus as humans.

-->
@Undefeatable

Can you tell me, what part of my logic do you deny:
-That a human ought to be treated as a human
-That a fetus grows into an entity clearly recognisable as a human
-That one does not change species merely through growing

Or do you just dislike my argument by virtue of disagreeing with its conclusion?

-->
@Benjamin

I feel you on that. Some stuff is clear as day, even if the implications of it are debatable.

Regarding your revised resolution, if doing this again I would toss a general statement into the description regarding how a human being (especially a sentient one) ought to be treated. ... Granted, given the common mistreatment of humans, how we ought to be treated is highly debatable.

-->
@Benjamin

"easy"? Hell no! Your fertilization and DNA logic is completely warped, especially since the Brain hasn't even fully formed! Not to mention miscarriage rates

-->
@Barney

I would prefer a definition of human that was correct. That is, a definition under which only humans are categorized as humans. LOL.

-->
@Undefeatable

You made me change this topic to avoid it being an easy win. But even your version of the resolution was easy to prove. What do you think now?

-->
@Theweakeredge
@Undefeatable

Fixed.

i disagree with leaving definitions to the argument phase. Initiator-limitation of waiting for definitions until argument phase leaves an impression that the initiator is holding cards too close to the vest. No. Either definitions are revealed in the Description, or don't bother with them. We have opportunity to contest given definitions in Comments before accepting debates. I learned in my very first debate that even with definitions offered in Description, an opponent may still challenge them, using the challenge as a debate tactic to overwhelm the other side. Better to put definitions out there and obtain agreement prior to argument phase.
That said, I, too, am troubled by the Topic/resolution. I'm left thinking, of course a human fetus is human; it smacks of a truism, and I don't think that's what you mean. As Ragnar said, the distinction between human and person [even though we can equate the two, but not cleanly] muddles the topic. Worse that I think that is exactly your resolution, that a fetus is a person. If that is what is meant, say it. Or, stick with what is said, and be prepared for a barage of argument from Con, who ever it is. Not going to be me.

When I argue the greater topic, one of my key points is that human doesn't equal person. Granted, it does depend on definitions. Under some definitions cancer is human.

-->
@Benjamin

I would agree with Undefeatable

-->
@Benjamin

this is the worst possible premise. A better premise would be "a human fetus ought to be treated as a human"

-->
@RationalMadman

I found a better way to phrase the debate's topic.

-->
@Benjamin

Definitions, time-limits-for-abortion-from-conception and the specific, detailed definition of 'valuable' are necessary.