Instigator
Points: 4

Fetuses as a replacement for the USD

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
Ragnar
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Art
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
12,000
Required rating
1501
Contender
Points: 7
Description
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.
Round 1
Published:
Introduction

Before we start this debate we should get this out of the way: I am now a socialist abortion activist. I believe this proposal is the best way to eliminate income inequality while keeping the capitalist scum temporarily inundated.

Justification

1.       Economy

As we all know there is currently a large disparity in wealth, babies can be reproduced infinitely with the less wealthy creating more on average. This is especially true of the black community, no proposal would help them climb out of poverty faster than this one!

2.        Eugenics/Dysgenics

Margaret Sanger, a woman I greatly admire, once said: “Birth control must lead ultimately to a much cleaner race.” In order to create the idealist utopia I’ve always dreamed of we must purge society of ethnic and cultural differences. People of differing races would be incentivized (i.e., their babies would fetch more hefty a sum). This would eventually result in a glorious socialist ethnostate.  

3.       Lowered Crime Rate

It’s a well-known fact that Mexicans and blacks have a much higher crime-rate in general than the white population. Instead of providing blacks welfare and incentivizing divorce, we could instead make their fetuses worth more than the white babies. They would then be happier and produce less vandals.

4.       Reduced levels of institutional corruption

By the public truly owning their means of reproduction the power would be taken away from overbearing nepotist governments.

Practicality

5.       Feasibility

All around the world many women do not think twice about kill children – depending upon their race and political affiliation, of course. I imagine it would be easy to convince them of this as an economic solution, after all, why be wasteful?

6.       Morality

Babies do not have sentience nor intelligence prior to 5 months, and thus no moral value as shown by my debate in the description. It would be much more moral to trade the arms and legs then let them go to waste.

Conclusion

This is both a practical and moral method of obtaining superiority over our neighboring nations who have not thought to implement such an economic scheme.


Published:
Introduction:
This is a weird one. My opponent has used the comment section to cast doubt that this debate is intended to be a joke, so I can’t argue this using troll debate logic. That said, at least to anyone educated and possessing a dark sense of humor, I will still try to be entertaining.


Stability:
The current USD has a good lifespan, ranging from the $10 at 4.5 years to the $100 at 15.0 years for bills. Further it is easy to transport and store.
 
US Fetuses (henceforth USF) outside a couple very controlled (not to mention cost prohibitive) environments, have a lifespan of hours at best, smell bad, and cannot be transported with any degree of ease.
 
Additionally, the USD is arguably the world’s most stable currency. It is used internationally as a standard for trade, even being called the Global Currency by many. In contrast, the USF has hyperinflation (poor people printing their own money at home) listed as a boon, meaning it would lead to economic collapse in short order.


Counterfeits:
The USD is hard to counterfeit, often massively expensive to do so, and typically easy to identify.
 
Bolstering the stability issue, USF are surprisingly easy to counterfeit. The equipment and expertise required to spot a counterfeit are outside the means of nearly everyone, thus people from other countries would try to bring in any random fetus as if it is a genuine USF. Smuggling operations would create an awful mess in our airports, particularly if any of the counterfeits get dropped/spilled.


Crime:
In addition to the counterfeit problem, there is the likelihood of theft from fetuses that were intended to become children. Right now, muggings are generally non-fatal; this would change when pregnant women are targeted for what is inside their person.
 
Further criminals are stupid, so they would probably be attacking women who have been pregnant five months or longer thinking they hit the mother lode (pun intended) and thus get a lot of USF, when in fact they just have normal worthless dead babies (this also counters the race idea proposed by pro, as minority women would be targeted more for a higher payout). This feeds back into the counterfeiting problem, as five-month old fetus tissue is not obviously distinct from earlier ones (admittedly less of a problem at nine-months).


Usefulness:
The USD is easily used. Anyone reading this has either used it, or a like-currency. If you feel like a soda, you slide coins or bills into a vending machine, and it at once dispenses your drink. Total time between craving to sated thirst is under a minute.
 
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?

Round 2
Published:
In my short 30 seconds of analyzing your primary objections, I have realized one of the more important ones is: How will we store them? They decay faster than money, what is your solution?

Well truthfully, I don’t have one. The fast decay of the babies’ corpses is actually beneficial given my position.

As a simple example - people will ultimately innovate and find some ways to carry and preserve these babies. I have thought up 3 cool names for these carriers/bags. Below are some options.

The Fetus Fanny
The Baby Bag
The Not-Yet-Human-Holder

I respect you, and I respect your opinion. So please tell me which of these is your absolute favorite.

Counter-Argument

Funnily enough, I never mentioned the fetuses being made exclusively in the United States.

My opponent mentions the convenience of the USD, and I partially agree. I believe my option is better in overall usefulness, there is nothing more personal than handing someone your babies’ corpse. This will increase the overall value of the new currency while maintaining it’s supply. This will also improve exclusivity and commitment to our country and their leap into a brave new world.

Due to the nature, monetary fetus reproduction in other countries would be disallowed due to international law. Some people regard this as an “immoral” economic solution, so it isn’t likely this will be banned in any other modern society. Leaving us in a similar spot to the current USD system, produced in the US with limited counterfeiters and a stable standard.

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?
Have you thought about selling in bulk? 

Crime

My opponent thinks that my point about crime was meant to stand on its own, when in-fact it ties directly into the Eugenics point. This is a long term solution, and in order to dispute my point of reduction in crime, you must also directly address Eugenics.

Published:
First, I shall defend my opening points. Then as requested, directly address pro’s case.
 
Stability (continued):
Pro concedes a lack of any solution for the fast decay problem. That storing them longer than mere hours is cost prohibitive, denies his end goal of everyone being poor (AKA a “glorious socialist ethnostate”).  The ultra-rich would retain their position even more easily under this system, as they could afford the expensive storage means, so the end result you’d have private banks for them looking like something out of Daybreakers.
 
Note: This debate is about replacing the USD, not instituting a new type of gold standard. Thus, we really cannot discuss bills and coins tied to frozen fetuses in the bank.
 
 
“The Fetus Fanny
“The Baby Bag
“The Not-Yet-Human-Holder”
To answer pro’s name question: “The Baby Bag” confuses an aborted fetus with a human baby. “The Not Yet Human Holder” confuses an aborted fetus with a human baby to be born in the future. So “The Fetus Fanny” is the least horrible choice. Call it what you will, but fanny packs of any kind returning would be a depraved outcome.
 
 
Counterfeits (continued):
My opponent has clarified a typo in his argument, “so it isn’t likely this will be banned in any other modern society” was meant to be: “it's likely this will be banned in any other modern society.”
 
Other countries not switching to the USF I have already taken to be a given, otherwise no one would have reason to smuggle fetuses into the US.
 
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. This would make the lines through customs far worse, thus harming anyone who travels.
 
 
Crime (continued):
The USD does not result in the targeted murder of pregnant women. Pro cites those murders as a boon for the USF. Different outcomes, which are not compatible. Extend point.
 
 
Usefulness (continued):
Extend.
 
“Have you thought about selling in bulk?”
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). People being forced to barter goods for other goods, just brings us back to the trade system which gave rise to the dollar.
 
I confirmed with entrepreneur Eric Cartman, whom after much ball breaking revealed the peak price of fetuses range between $80 to $110 per pound. Given that the average fetus (assuming optimal harvest time) is only 4oz, this gives us an exchange rate (before hyperinflation hits) of a mere $20 to $27.50 per USF.

---

Direct Rebuttals:
1.       Economy
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.
 
2.       Eugenics/Dysgenics       and 3.      Lowered Crime Rate
I do not see the positive value in racism, but will happily challenge any real evidence pro may offer in support of genocide.
 
4.       Reduced levels of institutional corruption
Such schemes have tried and failed in places like Zimbabwe and Venezuela. It led to increased institutional corruption (such as taking away farms from farmers, the literal means of feeding the people away from the people), and outright war.
 
5.       Feasibility
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. An increased birth rate goes contrary to pro’s genocide points (I do not need to endorse said points to catch contradictions). ... It’s about like certain pro-life politicians who use policies to actively try to get more underage girls pregnant (they consider the increased abortions to be a worthwhile trade-off toward their real goals... it’s weird and scary).
 
6.       Morality
Things without value going to waste is not wasted value. Plus right now the stem-cells have some small value, a value which goes away once they rot inside peoples Fetus Fanny’s.
Round 3
Published:
NOTICE – My opponent has confused eugenics with genocide. This is obviously untrue as I don’t wish to kill people, I only wish to kill their babies. He must address why massacring inferior babies would not result in the eventual reduction of crime.

Defense

“Such schemes have tried and failed in places like Zimbabwe and Venezuela. It led to increased institutional corruption”
I believe what they tried in Zimbabwe and Venezuala was a different, less sophisticated, form of socialism. Not this form of Socialism I am advocating for (fetuses as a state-valued currency).

“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.”
I imagine the less privileged among us could rent storage tanks or some form of nitrogen cooling with the newfound currency being much more valuable than the USD. 

“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.”
This is allegoric to our current system, some people (the homeless, and disenfranchised) are alienated from the economy. Under my proposal, every woman and every family would have a chance to play the game.

“Things without value going to waste is not wasted value. Plus right now the stem-cells have some small value, …”
We are in a debate about using fetuses as a currency, so in this context it is wasted value.

Rebuttal

“The ultra-rich would retain their position even more easily under this system, as they could afford the expensive storage means”
I believe the public sector would provide public storage. This would result in a consolidation of power, and yes, socialism.

“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.”
As I stated in the first round, I am advocating for an ETHNOSTATE. This means immigration would be a non-issue as strict enforcements would be in place against any such thing.

“The USD does not result in the targeted murder of pregnant women.”
That’s a blatant lie, a simple Google search of ‘pregnant woman robbed’ disproves this.

“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).”
Buying in bulk solves this issue, perhaps we could redesign vending machines to sell in large packages. The technicalities will be refined over time.

Conclusion

My opponent has not provided sufficient counter-evidence to my fetus as a replacement for the USD plan. He has avoided the question about eugenics deliberately implying he wishes everyone viewing's family tree to end in retardation.


Published:
As should be clear by now, my opponent has only base assertions, without evidence, or even consistent logic. When directly asked for evidence to support his claims, he refused to provide any. He has even asked the audience to Google part of his case for him.


Genocide:
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.”
First, pro has switched his case to the death of babies, instead of ceased development of fetuses.
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”).


Round 4
Published:
Response to Fallacious Misallegations
I do not mean to offend you, but Merriam Webster is not a reputable source. According to the UN general assembly, the legal definition of genocide under international law is:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. 

This would be a proper source to debunk my claims of eugenics not being equivocable to genocide. I really wish you would put more effort into debunking my claims on such an incredibly serious topic.

So, under the UN definition my claim would constitute genocide but under yours it does not. As I am not advocating for their destruction, only their forceful assimilation. I am also quite hurt that you would make the accusation I am putting a "bounty" on the babies heads, I am no monster. These increased valuements only serve to assist the black and Mexican population in their bid to climb out of poverty, as in an socialist state police force is incredibly strict and would deter crime.

The Google claim was not intended as a source (ovbiously), it was merely intended to show how blatantly untrue his claim about the USD not resulting in the targeted murder of pregnant women

Moving the Goalpost
I have done no such thing, one of my opening premises was that this would reduce overall crime rate. My position has been consistent in this regard. I use baby and fetus interchangeably, perhaps this is a mistake in vernacular but it hardly matters.

Conclusion
My opponent has refused to acknowledge the simple facts I have presented. He confuses eugenics with genocide, confuses my position on eugenics with genocide, and cites an non-reputable source to back up his unfortunate claim.

P.S., Kindly ignore my refutation of my own argument and conclusion. I just felt like his was insufficient enough to be dribbled out of the mouth of a mutated Potatohead doll.
Published:
Genocide (continued):
My opponent officially has one single piece of evidence, but it directly supports my claims while refuting his own (see pro’s R4: parts C and D). Focusing on part D in particular, that “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group,” precisely matches my interpretation of his argument (that I predict it would backfire, does not change the intent with which it is done). Whereas part C is basically my definition slightly elongated.

Were I incorrect, the issue I repeatedly raised of him having not offered any evidence of benefit stands uncontested. In essence, he has not even tried to meet his Burden of Proof.


USD vs. USF
To review key argument points...
 
The USD has stability, resistance to counterfeiting, and the ability to buy food on demand.
 
The USF has the return of fanny packs, rapid economic collapse due to hyperinflation, the targeted murder of pregnant women (pro’s counter to this was pleading for people to Google and interpret a defense), and even longer lines through airport security!
 
Additionally (as my subtle K was unaddressed), I have proven fetuses have value under the USD (disproving the assumption stated in the description). It is a low value of $110.00 per pound at peak peak demand, but under the USF non-peak demand is assured, resulting in a maximum value of $10.25 per pound if selling it to cannibals. (Repeated sources from earlier)


Closing Remarks (skippable):
I have debated this using logic, evidence, and comedy. I have further refused to use any pro-life arguments due to the nature of this debate, and the nature of the debate which preceded it.
 
I am a firm believer in debating from political viewpoints to which you are opposed. It is a terrific way to better our own arguments, while simultaneously building bridges of understanding (as opposed to viewing our neighbors as varelse). However, this type of straw-person mockery just makes your own side look bad.
Added:
--> @Tiwaz
Alright cool I was just making sure
#40
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
Yes, and that was the moral framing I used to organize this debate.
Instigator
#39
Added:
--> @Tiwaz
yes, and it'd ultimately be up to the owner or parent of the fetus to decide.
This is why random people shouldn't be able to decide the fate of random undeveloped fetus's
#38
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
So what you're saying is that inanimate or lifeless objects can carry implicit moral value regardless of sentience.
Not that it matters, considering this debate was isolated to the practicality of the proposal and not the moral one intentionally for this reason.
Instigator
#37
Added:
Just because undeveloped fetus's don't have moral consideration doesn't mean they should be used as USD due to practical reasons.
For example, rocks aren't sentient so a rock doesn't deserve moral consideration. However, rocks would be very heavy and inconvenient to lug around especially compared to paper bills.
Another example would be a house. A house isn't sentient so a house doesn't deserve moral consideration. However, if you destroy someone's house then their well being is affected.
#36
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Thanks for re-voting!
Contender
#35
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Sure if I have time. Let me finish up some dinner and I'll hopefully cast a vote.
#34
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
It sounds like you've already ended up having to give the arguments at least a good skimming. If you're not too busy, would you mind casting a vote?
Contender
#33
Added:
Tiwaz is a really good debater
#32
Added:
--> @Ragnar
I never said I was pro-life. I'm quite pro abortion for anyone who isn't white.
Instigator
#31
Added:
--> @Ragnar, @Ramshutu
This was borderline-ish as to whether or not this was a troll debate. I asked bsh his opinion and he ruled that it was not a troll debate due to the serious nature of the arguments.
#30
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
I made the same bet when I accepted this debate.
Oh well, at least it taught me something about the mental state of certain (not all) pro-lifers.
Contender
#29
Added:
--> @Ragnar
I intend to. Strangely, I had strongly suspected a debate upon whether to use actual aborted human fetuses as a mechanism of currency was a troll debate.
#28
Added:
--> @Ramshutu, @Wrick-It-Ralph, @Pinkfreud08, @K_Michael
Re-voting (following the COC guidelines of course) would be appreciated.
Contender
#27
Added:
--> @Ramshutu, @Pinkfreud08
*******************************************************************
IMPORTANT MOD NOTE: The counter bombs will NOT count against you. In the future, please use the report button.
*******************************************************************
#26
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.