David Nichols (PRO)Abortion destroys a developing person. Other than a few months of time, there is no difference between a developing and developed person. Therefore, abortion is murder.
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-12-20 12:24:30
| Speak RoundRishiD123 (CON)A fetus is not a person. They cannot live unsupported. They cannot feel pain. And they have not set foot on this planet. Thus aborting a fetus is not murder as it is not a person that has come into existence. Also the entire argument against abortion hinges on the assumption that all life is sacred. However this assumption cannot be made as life itself doesn't have meaning it is what someone does with their life that gives it meaning. Thus since a fetus has not made any decisions in the real world there is in fact no meaningful "life" within it.
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-12-21 03:15:36
| Speak RoundDavid Nichols (PRO)1.There are people, such as the paralyzed, who cannot live unsupported or feel pain. 2.Again, there is no substantive difference between coming into existence and being in existence---at the moment of conception, an embryo is a genetically complete human. Destroying a genetically complete, developing human is destroying a human...the only difference between a developing human and a developed human is a little time, and time is irrelevant to human nature. 3.Whether or not life is sacred is irrelevant. Every person has a right to his life.
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-12-21 05:17:46
| Speak RoundRishiD123 (CON)Pro has confused the word human with person. A human is the scientific name for our species whereas person is the name that is given to humans with moral principle. All humans are not persons. It is murder to kill a person but not a human.
Pro has also said that whether or not life is sacred is irrelevant which is incorrect because if life wasn't deemed sacred there would be no argument against abortion. So, if one assumes that life is sacred, then one cannot also assume that a fetus is non-threatening because in the US there is a high rate of maternal deaths. Furthermore the birth of a fetus financially affects women. "Seventy-three percent of women seeking abortions do so because they’re financially unready to have a child" Thus since bearing a child poses a significant risk to the health of many women they should not feel obligated to bear that burden especially if they have not consented to conceive in the first place ie. rape or sexual assault.
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-12-22 03:06:02
| Speak RoundDavid Nichols (PRO)1.Con is making up definitions. He says that "human" and "person" are not the same thing. Even if he were correct, both humans ("inexperienced persons") and persons have a right to live.
2.Con is making up morality. He states that all humans are not persons and that it is murder to kill a person but not a human.
2.Life's being "sacred" is irrelevant.
3.Maternal deaths are irrelevant---death is the natural risk of being pregnant. A pregnant woman must assume that risk or commit murder.
4.Con states that abortion prevents a woman from being financially inconvenienced. I agree, abortion is murder for convenience.
5.Rape is irrelevant to the fact that abortion is murder.
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-12-22 03:48:23
| Speak RoundRishiD123 (CON)Pro has assumed that I have "made up definitions". This is false and I will present my argument using facts and logic.
1. The definition of human is, by Merriam Webster, "a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens)". The definition of person is "one that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties".
A human refers to our species. A person is one who has been recognized as a law abiding citizen. Therefore a fetus is a human but not a person due to its lack of moral conscience.
It is not murder to kill it because there are humans like Hitler, who are not persons, that should be killed.
2. Pro has incorrectly stated that maternal deaths are irrelevant to abortion. For example, if a fetus poses a significant risk to the health of a woman then killing it would be self defense and not murder. Murder is strictly defined by Merriam Webster as "the crime of unlawfully killing a person with malice".
Abortion is not murder because there is no malice and the fetus is not a person.
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-12-24 08:36:57
| Speak Round
Let's get some other people other than deng and rishi voting. I'm not interested in their votes...they have no credibility to me. Actually, I don't care how anyone votes because I know I'm right; but it would still be nice to not hear from them.Posted 2020-12-24 17:09:55
Rishi--The definition you gave "a person is a human with moral principle" is NOT in any dictionary. The definition you gave "a person is someone subject to rights and duties" is only ONE definition of a person. There are others, genius, that apply to children.Posted 2020-12-24 16:14:59
Rishi--Set up the debate wherever you want! I'm waiting. And you're a liar, those definitions are NOT in any dictionary.Posted 2020-12-24 15:58:55
David, there is no point in continuing this debate in the comments section here. We've both made our respective points and now is the time to let the case rest. However, I would like to do another debate on this topic soon but not in this comments section. Finally I'd like to say that all the definitions that I mentioned came from the merriam webster dictionary. There is no point in assuming that I have lied just because my evidence doesn't support your opinionated argument.Posted 2020-12-24 15:15:12
Before you run away, just tell me where you got the definition that "a person is a human with moral principle". You can't because you lied.Posted 2020-12-24 14:28:10
Rishi--You're contradicting yourself, genius. Your last comment said, "I'd love to do another debate on this topic or another". So now you're backing down? Posted 2020-12-24 14:08:49
David, I'd like to remind you one again that the debate is over and we'll leave it to the judges to decide who won. Also, yes I do stand by my definitions of human and person.Posted 2020-12-24 13:56:19
Rishi--Are you just going to run and hide now?Posted 2020-12-24 11:25:48
Rishi--First, we are going to agree on definitions, then I am going to destroy you and make it hurt. Do you stand by your definitions of "human" and "person"?Posted 2020-12-24 10:44:46
Rishi--There is much B.S. you stated in the debate. So let's break it down and debate each of your fallacies. Are you up for it?Posted 2020-12-24 10:36:00
Rishi--Let's do it NOW.Posted 2020-12-24 10:18:12
David I'd love to do another debate with you soon whether it be on this topic or another one.Posted 2020-12-24 10:12:32
David I'd love to do another debate with you soon whether it be on this topic or another one.Posted 2020-12-24 10:12:18
Rishi--Why do you only use PARTS of definitions to define terms such as "human"? You are a liar.Posted 2020-12-24 09:50:45
Rishi--I do not except your congratulatory "Good debate!" because you are a liar.Posted 2020-12-24 09:44:14
Rishi--I understood you perfectly and could continue destroying you ad infinitum. Do you want to start a new abortion debate? Let's do it.Posted 2020-12-24 09:37:06
Rishi doesn't understand that a fetus is NEVER a direct threat to a woman's health. Thus, abortion cannot be exercised as "self-defense".Posted 2020-12-24 09:32:46
David, first of all you are misinterpreting my argument. But anyways the debate is over so there is no need for you to explain your points further here. Good debate!Posted 2020-12-24 09:15:24
Rishi doesn't understand that raped women have abortions because they don't want to give birth, not for self defense.Posted 2020-12-24 09:12:24
1.Rishi lies about definitions and says killing babies is the same as killing Hitler. 2.Again, choosing sex means accepting the risk of death from pregnancy. Therefore, abortion as self-defense cannot be exercised. 3.The legal definition of "malice" is "to injure". Obviously, abortion injures. 4.Again, a fetus is a developing person. Thus, killing it is murder.Posted 2020-12-24 09:09:06
Other than I'm trying to do this distracted.Posted 2020-12-21 05:33:30
Why would there be?Posted 2020-12-21 05:32:05
No worries!Posted 2020-12-21 05:22:33
I knew to this website...trying to figure it out.Posted 2020-12-21 05:20:16
Pro could you post this argument in the debate section so that I can continue the debate. Thanks!Posted 2020-12-21 05:04:53
1.There are many people, such as the paralyzed, who can't live unsupported or feel pain. 2.Again, there is no substantive difference between coming into existence and being in existence--at the moment of conception, an embryo is a genetically complete human. Destroying a genetically-complete, developing human is destroying a human...the only difference between them is a little time, and time is irrelevant to human nature. 3.Whether or not life is sacred is irrelevant. Every person has a right to his life.Posted 2020-12-21 04:21:47