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”).
I hope you enjoyed the rest of the debate. And of course, please vote.
I did provide the reason, directly prior to the link. "These fetuses currently have no value. ..." Admittedly, I meant moral value specifically because I didn't want to debate the morality of abortion.
Perhaps if you find it so easy to confuse his arguments with this supremacism the connection isn't entirely arbitrary. I never once mentioned it during the debate aside from using it to assist in framing, this is a conclusion you've drawn entirely on your own with no indication from myself.
If not trying to straw-person certain arguments to which you lost the previous debate, then please inform us of your real intent and opinion of said arguments?
If I was straw-manning an opposing viewpoint it may have been more logical for me to have not chosen such a title. Something innocuous, if that was my goal, would have been a better choice.
--- DO NOT TAKE THIS COMMENT INTO CONSIDERATION IN ANY VOTES ---
Obviously this was not a serious debate, my real views are directly contrary to this.
Typo in my counter-argument, I meant to say "it's likely this will be banned in any other modern society."
I made several typos, under the Feasibility section I meant to write "babies," not "children."
Pro offers a small number of actual benefits for his plan.
Specifically, the ability to create money will lift poorer organizations of poverty.
Pros argument that it will allow for eugenics by encouraging some races not to breed appears flatly absurd - and given that it doesn’t sound like a good thing at all, counts against him.
Pros argument from the grounds of crime rate are also absurd - pro doesn’t give a clear reason why this is true in his plan, so will be dismissed .
Pros arguments for practicality with morality and feasibility appear to be an argument against wastefulness, which sure, I guess could be a net positive, but isn’t.
The main argument that con presents is relating to the economics of this: basically inflation from being able to print money, and the inability to store and maintain fetuses. Worse, con introduces the possibility that it would induce theft of fetuses that were intended to be children.
These seem damning practical issues.
In terms of storage alone, pro doesn’t have an answer for the cost prohibitive nature, on this. Or how the poor people who he claims will benefit most will be able to store fetuses. Pro flits between arguing the rich will have nitrogen storage or the public sector will provide storage.
There was also no real explanation of why the stability of the USF would be sufficient in light of cons objections.
As pro offers no real objective benefit, only a nebulous appeal to waste, and the poor being able to make more money; con doesn’t do much here to overturn the benefits - as quite frankly pro argues no tangible or measurable benefit; only hypothetical assertions that it will benefit - no quantifiable description of how much.
Con overturns this in two ways: one by showing that there is no practical ability to store the currency rendering it useless - and antithetical to the idea of the poor making more money.
pros appeal to eugenics, and racial purity further undermine his own point as these are inherently undesirable by default.
As the tangible and practical issues clearly land in favour of con, and there appear to be no clear benefits of pros benefits: arguments to con.