"You open up with the classic argument that killing the human life is equivalent to killing the human being, which is immensely flawed because it assumes that the measurement of beginning of life can be weighed the same as their right to life. "
As I stated in my argument, the term "right to life" isn't a very good one. Why should life be a "right"? Shouldn't this right start as soon as you have a life? Are you asserting that it is possible to be alive but not deserving of that life?
"Tell us *why* the fetus is a human life, but not dead skin cells, or sperm, or any of the other stuff."
I hope you're not comparing a fetus with dead skin cells.
Scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization, the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e. a sperm cell) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte ), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.
To understand this, it should be remembered that each kind of living organism has a specific number and quality of chromosomes that are characteristic for each member of a species. For example, the characteristic number of chromosomes for a member of the human species is 46. Every somatic cell in a human being has this characteristic number of chromosomes. Even the early germ cells contain 46 chromosomes; it is only their mature forms - the sex gametes, or sperms and oocytes - which will later contain only 23 chromosomes each. Sperms and oocytes are derived from primitive germ cells in the developing fetus by means of the process known as "gametogenesis." Because each germ cell normally has 46 chromosomes, the process of "fertilization" can not take place until the total number of chromosomes in each germ cell are cut in half. This is necessary so that after their fusion at fertilization the characteristic number of chromosomes in a single individual member of the human species (46) can be maintained otherwise we would end up with a monster of some sort.
To accurately see why a sperm or an oocyte are considered as only possessing human life, and not as living human beings themselves, one needs to look at the basic scientific facts involved in the processes of gametogenesis and of fertilization. It may help to keep in mind that the products of gametogenesis and fertilization are very different. The products of gametogenesis are mature sex gametes with only 23 instead of 46 chromosomes. The product of fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Gametogenesis refers to the maturation of germ cells, resulting in gametes. Fertilization refers to the initiation of a new human being. These a very different process which are not to be conflated.
You'll have to evaluate on your critique on the FLO as either you have not fully grasped it, or I have not fully grasped the point you are making. What is this 50 percent miscarriage statistic and how does it change the fact that a fetus has future value?
So aliens could quickly and easily invade Earth so long as they are more technologically advanced and we make the assumption that they exist? How advanced, this is terribly slanted towards you.
YOU STATED: I imagine a lot of women who get abortions know a fetus is a human being and they don't really care; similar to how a starving 3rd worlder is a human being and most people don't really care that they die; otherwise they would give money to such causes that save their lives.
I still disagree that a person would willingly kill what they know is a human being. However, your comparison to the 3rd world country child is not equivalent. People do care, but they are should not be held accountable for not donating money to someone who they have in now way disadvantaged. Consider this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMp0WLLrFng . It highlights that donating is a good thing, but you should still be able to live an enjoyable life without feeling guilt. After all, I have not done anything to the children.
"if all the funds that pro lifers are willing to dedicate to saving unborn babies got instead dedicated to saving 3rd worlders from starvation, you'd have some babies dying from abortion, but you would have even more 3rd worlders saved from starvation, so the pro life charity could be way more efficient with its fund"
This is not a battle of which issue needs addressing. We are discussing abortion not starvation, and these two issues are not to be conflated. This is a common fallacy that you have fallen into. It would be like if I went to a anti-gun rights protest and started yelling "how dare you protest against gun rights when there are children dying from malaria. You should dedicate your resources to the children instead of stomping around". You are conflating two equally issues and silencing one with the importance of another. Sure, starving children are important just like how the discussion on guns is, but they should not get into the way of other equally important issues.
I STATED: "But of course if I killed my child because I was in emotional pain, I would be shipped off to prison."
YOU REPLIED: You sure about that? In many countries where abortion is heavily restricted, parents who don't want their kids due to the emotional stress of raising an unwanted kid abandon the kids, therefore subjecting them to a death of starvation. They don't face prison since they do it under the radar.
First off, people who do this should be locked away forever, except in unusual circumstances. Why shouldn't they? Killing children under the radar is definitely wrong.
Secondly, if abortion were to be legalised, the net number of abortion would statistically be dropped, which would be a win. Consider this from a logical point of view. If something get's illegalised, the average law abiding citizen would refrain from committing that act. Of course, there will be outliers who still opt for the illegal option, however the net number of abortions will be lowered.
Third, you are conflating abortion and the secondary effects of abortion. This would be like saying "we should make rape legal because otherwise, rapists will feel sad". You cannot use the fact that mothers in countries which restrict abortion kill babies as an argument against abortion, because this is not a desired effect of abortion, it is the result of irresponsible people. To make another comparison, it would be like saying "we should make the act of stealing pencils legal, because if we don't, those people will become pen stealers". Though pen stealing is an issue, just like killing your child is, it is not an issue of the fundamental law of no stealing pencils, and should not be made an argument against pencil stealing.
YOU STATED: Would you believe that some women who get abortions should be locked up in jail for life, if they knew they were killing a human being and they didn't feel like birthing the kid out of a combination of economic reasons and the unwanted physical and emotional pain with raising a kid?
I believe that in all ordinary cases (which are the majority), IF a women knows that a fetus is a human being AND they choose go forward with the procedure, the should chucked in prison. Again, you cannot use the pain of the mother as an argument for abortion. This would be me saying "my teen son is a headache, guess I'll go and kill him now". Moreover if you are ecmonomiclly unable to have a child, this is not a reason for you kill the fetus. Carrying a baby involves little cost, and if you are really unable to have a child, then put it up for adoption. Again, if we use this economic argument and apply it to a teenager, you will see that you being broke doesn't allow you kill your child. In fact, if you saw on the news a physically able mother sitting at home, exercising their right as a free being who doesn't need to work while letting their child starve and depriving them of an education, you would likely express anger towards them. I know if I saw them, I would be yelling at them to get their ass off the couch and work. What is the difference? Both are economically stressed.2 I would argue that the latter is better than abortion, as someone can actually come to the aid of the child, while fetus' must be killed.
YOU STATED: The reason for getting an abortions are listed here
The website you provided states the following. "Three-quarters said that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities, about two-thirds said they could not afford to have a child and half said they did not want to be a single parent or had relationship problems." If I used these reasoning to justify the killing of a child at court, how far do you think I would get. "But your honour, I have other responsibilities you can't possible charge me for strangling my son".
YOU STATED: Given that most pro lifers expect a pregnant female to sacrifice whatever is necessary to save her unborn child but they are unwilling to sacrifice a comparable amount of resources and labor to save even more 3rd world children(since $50/day can sponsor 50 3rd world children, yet most pro lifers are unwilling to pay that)
A pregnant woman has a responsibility to the baby that they created. The mother owes a duty of care to the baby that she creates. I owe no duty of care to starving children. I should be not asked to donate $50 a day for asking a women to take ownership of their child. I did not put the starving child into the position that they are in, that is on whoever isn't feeding them.
YOU STATED: I'd say it is better for an unborn baby to die a painless death than it is for a female to undergo unwanted pain and costs to bring an unwanted kid into the world.
Surely unwanted pain and finances are not good reasons to allow murder. A teenage son can give these two things yet surely you do not support murder?
"I don't think they care since they are in a lot of pain that they would be willing to sacrifice a fetal life to end their unwanted pregnency pain."
But of course if I killed my child because I was in emotional pain, I would be shipped off to prison.
"If abortion was legally classified as murder, that would make abortion a class A felony, and anyone who either performs an abortion or hires someone to perform one for them (so an abortion doctor or a woman who hires an abortion doctor to perform an abortion) would get tried as someone who committed murder and would get life imprisonment for the procedure in the United States for an abortion. At least many pro lifers I met have advocated for life imprisonment for women who get abortions, so at least they are being consistent"
I don't believe that all women should get chucked into prison for life, though the abortionist should definitely get locked up. Again, I still believe that decent human beings have the empathy too, when seeing footage of abortion, withdraw from the procedure, especially when the top reason for having an abortion is because "it will dramatically change my lifestyle". Undoubtedly, a portion of women who are getting abortions do not know what they are participating in because they are being misled by abortion institutes fluffy lies about "discarding a clump of cells". All in all, if you participate in the abortion, fully knowing what you are doing, then you should face some penalty, unless in circumstantial situations.
"Women who get abortions do their research on if a fetus is a human being, so I believe that they think a fetus is a human being"
You'll be surprised. Planned parenthood regularly misleads their clients into believing the wrong facts. Do you think that the abortion rates would be so high if they saw footage of dismembered fetus's rolling around in puddles of guts?
"If you think abortion is unjustified, you should refer to abortion as an unjustified killing."
Fair enough, though I will say, this is an issue of wordplay. I would argue, however, that I am arguing that it should be murder. If my case is successful, ten it would be reasonable to label abortion as murder so I, as the advocate of this, can reasonably refer to abortion as murder.
If you establish the BoP as the following in the description.
PRO: Mein Kampf is the most evil and incoherent book to have ever been written
CON: Mein Kampf is not the most evil and incoherent book to have ever been written
It is (in most cases) no the women to blame for the abortion. Organisations such as Planned-parenthood usually mislead their patients into thinking that they are simply removing a "clump of cells". In most cases, the women is oblivious to what is occurring. The abortionist, however, I believe should face punishment.
Also, using the "abortion is not murder because it is legal" argument is a poor, as the whole point of the debate is to discuss the ethics of abortion and perhaps come to the conclusion that the law is incorrect. The law is a product of human reasoning and discussion, and my stance is that the conclusion they came to is incorrect.
Also by saying "allowed to compete in sports" allows for you to kritik the topic by saying " we should create their own division to compete in, thus allowing them to compete in sports", which no sane person disagrees with.
Compete in sports? The usual republican view isn't that they should be prohibited from sports, but that a biological man should not be able to compete in women's wrestling after some hormone therapy.
no problem, i'm down to have a debate with him though
on what topic
sorry what are you down for?
No problem, I’m up to debate anything.
Fair enough, fair enough, we can always have a rematch. I'm open to a one week debate.
I thought. you were to busy to debate...
"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.
"You open up with the classic argument that killing the human life is equivalent to killing the human being, which is immensely flawed because it assumes that the measurement of beginning of life can be weighed the same as their right to life. "
As I stated in my argument, the term "right to life" isn't a very good one. Why should life be a "right"? Shouldn't this right start as soon as you have a life? Are you asserting that it is possible to be alive but not deserving of that life?
"Tell us *why* the fetus is a human life, but not dead skin cells, or sperm, or any of the other stuff."
I hope you're not comparing a fetus with dead skin cells.
Scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization, the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e. a sperm cell) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte ), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.
To understand this, it should be remembered that each kind of living organism has a specific number and quality of chromosomes that are characteristic for each member of a species. For example, the characteristic number of chromosomes for a member of the human species is 46. Every somatic cell in a human being has this characteristic number of chromosomes. Even the early germ cells contain 46 chromosomes; it is only their mature forms - the sex gametes, or sperms and oocytes - which will later contain only 23 chromosomes each. Sperms and oocytes are derived from primitive germ cells in the developing fetus by means of the process known as "gametogenesis." Because each germ cell normally has 46 chromosomes, the process of "fertilization" can not take place until the total number of chromosomes in each germ cell are cut in half. This is necessary so that after their fusion at fertilization the characteristic number of chromosomes in a single individual member of the human species (46) can be maintained otherwise we would end up with a monster of some sort.
To accurately see why a sperm or an oocyte are considered as only possessing human life, and not as living human beings themselves, one needs to look at the basic scientific facts involved in the processes of gametogenesis and of fertilization. It may help to keep in mind that the products of gametogenesis and fertilization are very different. The products of gametogenesis are mature sex gametes with only 23 instead of 46 chromosomes. The product of fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Gametogenesis refers to the maturation of germ cells, resulting in gametes. Fertilization refers to the initiation of a new human being. These a very different process which are not to be conflated.
You'll have to evaluate on your critique on the FLO as either you have not fully grasped it, or I have not fully grasped the point you are making. What is this 50 percent miscarriage statistic and how does it change the fact that a fetus has future value?
Evaluate
Also change the word limit to 20000
Establish the BoP as
PRO: The United States would benefit from a universal healthcare system
CON: The United States would not benefit from a universal healthcare system
And change the argument time to two weeks and you’ve got an opponent.
A think that a better resolution for the debate would have been "Mein Kampf has had the most negative impact on society in history".
So aliens could quickly and easily invade Earth so long as they are more technologically advanced and we make the assumption that they exist? How advanced, this is terribly slanted towards you.
Could you actually rebut everything I argue? I feel like this is getting repetitive
that's a lotta bold
No problemo, you have two weeks.
YOU STATED: I imagine a lot of women who get abortions know a fetus is a human being and they don't really care; similar to how a starving 3rd worlder is a human being and most people don't really care that they die; otherwise they would give money to such causes that save their lives.
I still disagree that a person would willingly kill what they know is a human being. However, your comparison to the 3rd world country child is not equivalent. People do care, but they are should not be held accountable for not donating money to someone who they have in now way disadvantaged. Consider this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMp0WLLrFng . It highlights that donating is a good thing, but you should still be able to live an enjoyable life without feeling guilt. After all, I have not done anything to the children.
"if all the funds that pro lifers are willing to dedicate to saving unborn babies got instead dedicated to saving 3rd worlders from starvation, you'd have some babies dying from abortion, but you would have even more 3rd worlders saved from starvation, so the pro life charity could be way more efficient with its fund"
This is not a battle of which issue needs addressing. We are discussing abortion not starvation, and these two issues are not to be conflated. This is a common fallacy that you have fallen into. It would be like if I went to a anti-gun rights protest and started yelling "how dare you protest against gun rights when there are children dying from malaria. You should dedicate your resources to the children instead of stomping around". You are conflating two equally issues and silencing one with the importance of another. Sure, starving children are important just like how the discussion on guns is, but they should not get into the way of other equally important issues.
I STATED: "But of course if I killed my child because I was in emotional pain, I would be shipped off to prison."
YOU REPLIED: You sure about that? In many countries where abortion is heavily restricted, parents who don't want their kids due to the emotional stress of raising an unwanted kid abandon the kids, therefore subjecting them to a death of starvation. They don't face prison since they do it under the radar.
First off, people who do this should be locked away forever, except in unusual circumstances. Why shouldn't they? Killing children under the radar is definitely wrong.
Secondly, if abortion were to be legalised, the net number of abortion would statistically be dropped, which would be a win. Consider this from a logical point of view. If something get's illegalised, the average law abiding citizen would refrain from committing that act. Of course, there will be outliers who still opt for the illegal option, however the net number of abortions will be lowered.
Third, you are conflating abortion and the secondary effects of abortion. This would be like saying "we should make rape legal because otherwise, rapists will feel sad". You cannot use the fact that mothers in countries which restrict abortion kill babies as an argument against abortion, because this is not a desired effect of abortion, it is the result of irresponsible people. To make another comparison, it would be like saying "we should make the act of stealing pencils legal, because if we don't, those people will become pen stealers". Though pen stealing is an issue, just like killing your child is, it is not an issue of the fundamental law of no stealing pencils, and should not be made an argument against pencil stealing.
YOU STATED: Would you believe that some women who get abortions should be locked up in jail for life, if they knew they were killing a human being and they didn't feel like birthing the kid out of a combination of economic reasons and the unwanted physical and emotional pain with raising a kid?
I believe that in all ordinary cases (which are the majority), IF a women knows that a fetus is a human being AND they choose go forward with the procedure, the should chucked in prison. Again, you cannot use the pain of the mother as an argument for abortion. This would be me saying "my teen son is a headache, guess I'll go and kill him now". Moreover if you are ecmonomiclly unable to have a child, this is not a reason for you kill the fetus. Carrying a baby involves little cost, and if you are really unable to have a child, then put it up for adoption. Again, if we use this economic argument and apply it to a teenager, you will see that you being broke doesn't allow you kill your child. In fact, if you saw on the news a physically able mother sitting at home, exercising their right as a free being who doesn't need to work while letting their child starve and depriving them of an education, you would likely express anger towards them. I know if I saw them, I would be yelling at them to get their ass off the couch and work. What is the difference? Both are economically stressed.2 I would argue that the latter is better than abortion, as someone can actually come to the aid of the child, while fetus' must be killed.
YOU STATED: The reason for getting an abortions are listed here
The website you provided states the following. "Three-quarters said that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities, about two-thirds said they could not afford to have a child and half said they did not want to be a single parent or had relationship problems." If I used these reasoning to justify the killing of a child at court, how far do you think I would get. "But your honour, I have other responsibilities you can't possible charge me for strangling my son".
YOU STATED: Given that most pro lifers expect a pregnant female to sacrifice whatever is necessary to save her unborn child but they are unwilling to sacrifice a comparable amount of resources and labor to save even more 3rd world children(since $50/day can sponsor 50 3rd world children, yet most pro lifers are unwilling to pay that)
A pregnant woman has a responsibility to the baby that they created. The mother owes a duty of care to the baby that she creates. I owe no duty of care to starving children. I should be not asked to donate $50 a day for asking a women to take ownership of their child. I did not put the starving child into the position that they are in, that is on whoever isn't feeding them.
YOU STATED: I'd say it is better for an unborn baby to die a painless death than it is for a female to undergo unwanted pain and costs to bring an unwanted kid into the world.
Surely unwanted pain and finances are not good reasons to allow murder. A teenage son can give these two things yet surely you do not support murder?
"I don't think they care since they are in a lot of pain that they would be willing to sacrifice a fetal life to end their unwanted pregnency pain."
But of course if I killed my child because I was in emotional pain, I would be shipped off to prison.
"If abortion was legally classified as murder, that would make abortion a class A felony, and anyone who either performs an abortion or hires someone to perform one for them (so an abortion doctor or a woman who hires an abortion doctor to perform an abortion) would get tried as someone who committed murder and would get life imprisonment for the procedure in the United States for an abortion. At least many pro lifers I met have advocated for life imprisonment for women who get abortions, so at least they are being consistent"
I don't believe that all women should get chucked into prison for life, though the abortionist should definitely get locked up. Again, I still believe that decent human beings have the empathy too, when seeing footage of abortion, withdraw from the procedure, especially when the top reason for having an abortion is because "it will dramatically change my lifestyle". Undoubtedly, a portion of women who are getting abortions do not know what they are participating in because they are being misled by abortion institutes fluffy lies about "discarding a clump of cells". All in all, if you participate in the abortion, fully knowing what you are doing, then you should face some penalty, unless in circumstantial situations.
"Women who get abortions do their research on if a fetus is a human being, so I believe that they think a fetus is a human being"
You'll be surprised. Planned parenthood regularly misleads their clients into believing the wrong facts. Do you think that the abortion rates would be so high if they saw footage of dismembered fetus's rolling around in puddles of guts?
"If you think abortion is unjustified, you should refer to abortion as an unjustified killing."
Fair enough, though I will say, this is an issue of wordplay. I would argue, however, that I am arguing that it should be murder. If my case is successful, ten it would be reasonable to label abortion as murder so I, as the advocate of this, can reasonably refer to abortion as murder.
You will find that I have a very usual tactic up my sleeves.
Actually, don't worry about it. Forget I said anything. This is not an issue to me. Keep the debate as it is.
If you establish the BoP as the following in the description.
PRO: Mein Kampf is the most evil and incoherent book to have ever been written
CON: Mein Kampf is not the most evil and incoherent book to have ever been written
I will consider.
It is (in most cases) no the women to blame for the abortion. Organisations such as Planned-parenthood usually mislead their patients into thinking that they are simply removing a "clump of cells". In most cases, the women is oblivious to what is occurring. The abortionist, however, I believe should face punishment.
Also, using the "abortion is not murder because it is legal" argument is a poor, as the whole point of the debate is to discuss the ethics of abortion and perhaps come to the conclusion that the law is incorrect. The law is a product of human reasoning and discussion, and my stance is that the conclusion they came to is incorrect.
Are we reading the same argument.
Undefeatable because of your amazing debating skills or undefeatable or undefeatable because of your ability to kritik?
Also by saying "allowed to compete in sports" allows for you to kritik the topic by saying " we should create their own division to compete in, thus allowing them to compete in sports", which no sane person disagrees with.
Compete in sports? The usual republican view isn't that they should be prohibited from sports, but that a biological man should not be able to compete in women's wrestling after some hormone therapy.
This would be a juicy match up of the if you two brawled it out.
I could give delete the other debate as we are now having this discussion. I'm not prepared to construct two arguments on one topic.