Fetuses as a replacement for the USD
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
- Required rating
Specifically, fetuses aborted prior to 5 months. These fetuses currently have no value, as evidenced by the debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/654
I propose we change that.
Being able to get food at all for a USF, assumes a best-case scenario. However, for the USF what happens when we want a soda from a vending machine? How many weeks do we have to wait for the genetic testing to confirm genuine USF? By the time you get your fractional USF back, is it still viable?
“The Fetus Fanny“The Baby Bag“The Not-Yet-Human-Holder”
“Have you thought about selling in bulk?”
“Such schemes have tried and failed in places like Zimbabwe and Venezuela. It led to increased institutional corruption”
“While the less wealthy would be the only ones making USF, their inability to store them so as to retain any value, would make the proposed system increase the wealth disparity it is supposed to solve.”
“Assuming women would go through so many months effort for so little payout, leads to the problem of some starting but not going through with the harvest.”
“Things without value going to waste is not wasted value. Plus right now the stem-cells have some small value, …”
“The ultra-rich would retain their position even more easily under this system, as they could afford the expensive storage means”
“An additional point is to combat counterfeit USF smuggling, our ports of entry would have to abort and discard any fetuses from pregnant women (at least under five months) entering this country.”
“The USD does not result in the targeted murder of pregnant women.”
“This is about the matter of being able to secure food at convenience the way the USD allows. Selling a whole fetus to a vending machine for its value in soda, implies we would then barter the extra soda for other things we want (as it takes months to produce each USF).”
Pro has insisted he has not advocated for genocide, but solely eugenics. For anyone functionally illiterate, genocide is defined as: “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.” Thus, systematically preventing births of “Mexicans and blacks” whom he views as “inferior,” to make them “produce less vandals,” and backed by a bounty on pregnant women (see R1: “Crime”), is unquestionably an attempt at genocide. Denying this, would be like saying Japan loves dolphins.
“He must address why massacring inferior babies would not result in the eventual reduction of crime.”
Second, his request is a lazy attempt at moving the goalpost, as no evidence suggests it would reduce crime. The burden of proof to show benefit remains with pro.
Third, even were he to do so, I have already logically shown why his initiatives would actually raise the birth rate (see R2: “Feasibility”).