Ketuvim (OG)Firstly, I want to make myself clear, though I do not agree with abortion, there are certain circumstances where it is acceptable. That being rape, incest, and medical issues. However, having an abortion "just because", or "I don't want to have to take care of my kid", then it is no different than murder. This type of thinking, is the same type of thinking that the feminists are using to justify abortion, they are not justifying it in rape, incest, or medical issues only, they are trying to say that it is OK in any circumstance.
Back during the bronze age of around 3,000-1,000 B.C.E., there was a popular Sumerian religion that worshiped Baal. People would sacrifice their babies to Baal via cooking them alive (getting cooked alive, sounds familiar doesn't it).
Archaeologists wondered how mothers could have their children be cooked alive, and they came to the conclusion, that they were able to have this detestable act done, because they did not consider their babies to be a living human, now this should sound very familiar.
So, no one is arguing that women shouldn't have control of their bodies, they are entitled to complete control over their bodies, however, I am arguing that a fetus is a living human also, and hence is ALSO entitled to complete control over their body, which includes the right not to be cooked alive.
So if you want to argue that women should have control over their bodies, you must argue that babies must have control over their bodies. It is two separate bodies, and hence the baby has rights too, separate from the mother.
Point 1: a fetus is alive:
Now, I will be arguing that a fetus is a living human, and by definition, it is, let's look at the definition of life according to Websters dictionary:
"the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."
Please note, nowhere in this definition will you see "took a first breath", and all of these definitions, a fetus fits, it can grow, it will be able to reproduce eventually, it will be able to preform functional activity, and it will continue to change until death.
According to biology, life has these characteristics:
1. Grows and develops (check)
2. Capable of reproduction (check)
3. Consumes and uses energy (check)
4. Responds to stimuli (check)
Point 2: a fetus is NOT a clump of cells:
So, I have established that a fetus is alive, now I will establish that it is not a clump of cells, calling a fetus a "clump of cells" is mind boggling, no scientific mind would look at a fetus, and say "meh- it's a bag of cells", calling it a clump of cells is inherently wrong, a fetus is not a clump of cells any more than you or I are clumps of cells.
Because a "clump" suggests that it has no form or organization, a fetus cannot be considered a "clump of cells", because a fetus's cells has organization, and all those cells are working for the survival of the rest of the "clump", hence, the correct term would be a "system of cells", just like you or me.
Point 3: A fetus is a human:
This is very easy to prove, if you sample a fetus's DNA, and test it, what will you find? The genetic material comes from a human, not a baboon, or a buffalo, or a "clump of cells", a HUMAN.
Problem solved, it's genetics are human genetics, it's a human, what else?
It's dad is a human, it's mom is a human, they aren't ducks are they? So, it would logically follow, that their child will be---- A HUMAN! It cannot be a clump of cells, the dad isn't a clump of cells, the mom isn't a clump of cells, so, logically their offspring will be a human, not a clump of cells.
If I get a duck, and another duck, and I breed them, they will give birth to a duck, same with gorillas, eagles, snakes, lions, bears, whales, dolphins, etc, they will give birth to gorillas, eagles, snakes, lions, bears, whales, dolphins, etc.
So, if two humans get together, the only logical outcome, is that their offspring will be a human, NOT a clump of cells.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-02-02 08:06:34
| Speak Round
Lord Farny (OO)Since Ketuvim has already established that fetuses are indeed human, I ask you to consider this: would you ever take an innocent human being's life? This poses an interesting concept that has been much discussed. I believe that abortion should be a moral choice made by the parent, and it is not the government's job to stop them. However, it is an act that would be morally frowned upon. If there was one important person's life in danger, and the only way you could stop their death was by sacrificing someone else and having them take the bullet, would you do it? Do you have the right to play God, and take away someone's life in exchange for a benefit that you think is more important than that person's life? What if the important man was a national hero, and the person sacrificed has to be your mother? Would that change your views? When you have an abortion, you are sacrificing your child for your own happiness. If you are perfectly content with this, please proceed to have your abortion.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-02-02 11:24:34
| Speak RoundKetuvim (OG)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-02-07 14:04:01
| Speak RoundLord Farny (OO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-02-10 14:04:02
| Speak RoundKetuvim (OG)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-02-13 14:04:02
| Speak RoundKetuvim (OO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-02-13 14:04:02
| Speak RoundKetuvim (CG)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-02-13 14:04:02
| Speak RoundKetuvim (CO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-02-13 14:04:02
| Speak Rounddani.blueberry (CG)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-02-16 14:04:02
| Speak Round
condeelmaster (CO)The problem here is determining if a fetus is a human or not. If a fetus is a human, then obviously abortion is wrong, abortion would be murder. But, as a matter of fact, a fetus is not a human.
Let's observe what differences humans. Humans have consciousnes, that's the human essence. Humans are aware, they can reason and philosophize. That's the human definition: reasoning animals. Look at the definitions of human by Plato, or Aristotle, or Freud, or Darwin, or Erickson, the y all agree with this. But what enables us to be that? What enables us to reason? The brain.
Our brain is what makes us capable of reasoning, is what makes us humans in the first place. Then to know if something is human you have to see if it has a brain and if it has brain activity (because having a non functioning brain is like not having a brain).
"The thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. " (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/)
Then, we can say that a non born baby becomes a human by the third trimester.
Therefore, a abortion is wrong when it happens after this. So, before this moment, abortion is not wrong.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-02-18 04:21:31
| Speak Round (CG)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-02-18 04:21:31
| Speak Roundcondeelmaster (CO)This debate was weird. Mistakes of position, forfeitures, etc. However, as I showed on my previous argument, abortion is not wrong because a fetus is not a human.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-02-18 04:23:53
| Speak Round
Judge: admin
Judge: lannan13
Judge: Bifurcations
Uh....how do I vote on this?Posted 2016-02-18 09:02:15
And fixed
No worries @Lord Farny, stuff like that happens XDPosted 2016-02-04 14:04:32
Oh whoops lmaoPosted 2016-02-04 13:55:32
Howdy. Seems to be some error with the sign-ups of this debate. Am fixing immediately.
Yes, OG and OO are opposed positions.
And that multiple-comment thing happens when somebody accidentally submits their comment several times. That's a long-term bug.Posted 2016-02-04 13:52:50
Wasn't Lord Farny supposed to debate against Ketuvim instead of in favour of him?? Aren't OG and OO opposed positions????Posted 2016-02-03 02:23:46
3 times the same coment..... illuminati?? hahahahPosted 2016-02-02 11:06:22
@Ketuvim your arguments are so badly worded it's a wonder anyone bothers to read them....
Posted 2016-02-02 10:05:33