CreateDebate


Debate Info

57
32
Yes. No.
Debate Score:89
Arguments:88
Total Votes:126
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes. (44)
 
 No. (27)

Debate Creator

KJVPrewrath(955) pic



Do unborn people have the right to live?

Yes.

Side Score: 57
VS.

No.

Side Score: 32
2 points

Yes a United State can be set showing a right for the unborn to live.

First is Genetic human cloning, then artificial womb children, test tube babies, advanced A.I robots, finally children who are conceived by parents.

Understand something clearly abortion by its admission of guilt in a crime set a poor practice loose in a United State of Constitution. It is hard to make any arguments here without setting a proper use of the word abortion in the context to what it describes.

What we do know as fact it is not the intention of humanity to place a limit on birth by use of womb for all people as a single right, as medical and scientific precedent has already been made to make that impossible while the argument struggles with issues of independence. There is more than one group of people who are united as a single group by this question in Constitutional principle.

I am not prepared to make arguments on this level of principle in a basic fashion and from the looks of the comments so far there is a great deal of representation missing.

Side: Yes.
John_C_1812(276) Clarified
1 point

Keep in mind posterity is placed in writing within Preamble of the United States Constitution. This means the first order of a United State of woman should be, must be, removed themselves from any Admission of guilt of crime, or accusation of crime before representation before the United States Constitution, so she too can obtain constitutional right as creator, then partner in creation of this described posterity.

This process of description sets a legal fact all woman are created equal according to the law in this way so it might be witness to young and old alike.

Side: Yes.
1 point

Well, you called them people, so yeah. They have that right. Why wouldn't they?

Side: Yes.
John_C_1812(276) Clarified
1 point

they can be trick or willingly admit guilt to a felony crime and loose rights. Since you asked.

Side: Yes.

I say we should favor laws that make it easier to choose life, starting with adoption reform, healthcare, education, women being allowed to have their tubes removed or use birth control, adoption rights for rape and domestic violence victims. Forcing rape and dv survivors to "choose" abortion or coparenting is choice my lilly white ass. JMO.

Side: Yes.
1 point

Water can be in the form of three states: Liquid, Gas and Solid. Regardless of what state it’s in, it’s always water.

A human being also has states, although it states are developmental: Conception, Embryo or Fetus, Developing Fetus, then finally a baby human being. In all states of development, the living being is human. Just because a human’s state of development is a fetus and dependent upon its mother, doesn’t cheapen a human being’s value and right to exist.

Both man and woman are responsible for their actions coming together intimately and propagating a new human being.

Side: Yes.

The unborn are not yet people. When they are capable of living outside the womb then yes they are, however until then they are actually parasites.

Side: No.
KJVPrewrath(955) Disputed
2 points

Yes they are. You are genetically the same now as you were as a zygote. Did your mother have the right to abort you? Grow some balls and say not to murder.

Side: Yes.
brokenspear9(28) Disputed
2 points

You can sugar coat it however you want. The ONLY case in which I could even possibly agree with abortion is for a rape victim. It is the womans and her partners responsibility to make sure some form of contraceptive is used to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Denying the fact that what grows in a woman is a living being deserving of life simply because its convenient and removes responsibility is complete bull. The arrogance one must have to decide when a life is a life and when a life matters, when it has value and when it does not is incredible. The problem with people who don't believe in God or don't at least agree with the values of the bible is they will make any excuse to make any act acceptable. So sleep soundly knowing that planned parenthood is removing all those life sucking deadly "parasites" from all those women and thank your mother for not having you removed because you were inconvenient.

Side: Yes.
KJVPrewrath(955) Clarified
2 points

I only support abortion if the mother has severe medical problems or the mother is like ten yesars old. I am the product of an abusive marriage and I have the right to live.

Side: Yes.
1 point

There is no such thing as an unborn person. Self concept is requisite to personhood.

Side: No.
Amarel(4066) Clarified
2 points

Self concept is requisite to personhood.

Since when? I loose self concept every time I go to sleep.

Side: Yes.
Jace(4696) Clarified
1 point

The difference between an unborn non-person and the sleeping non-person, is that our self-concept cannot find a self-motivated stake in protecting the unborn. None of us is ever going to become unborn again, but we generally do wake up. This creates a self-motivated impetus to disfavor permissivism towards harming/killing the sleeping non-person as the self desires security to be reconstituted when the body awakens. The practice of protecting a sleeping non-person is still very much contingent upon self concept and its connection to personhood in this case, but in a way that cannot apply to the unborn.

Side: Yes.
1 point

Does that mean we can take your grandmother, who is in a coma, off of life support?

Side: No.
Jace(4696) Disputed
1 point

Just as the decision to abort is left to the proximate parties, so too would the decision to kill the comatose reside with the proximate parties. This is because the selves most closely associated to those parties are the most invested to and affected by the decision.

Side: Yes.
outlaw60(13157) Disputed
1 point

Jace did your Mommy and Daddy have your view - There is no such thing as an unborn person. Self concept is requisite to personhood.

Side: Yes.
KJVPrewrath(955) Disputed
1 point

Genetically, the organism is a person. You are genetically the same now as you were at conception. If a woman does not want a baby ever, she can have her tubes removed. Otherwise, use birth control or don't have sex.

Side: Yes.
Jace(4696) Disputed
1 point

Genetically the organism is a homo sapien. Genetics is not intrinsic to personhood.

Not that it's relevant, then, but I am not genetically the same now as I was at conception (and neither are you). For your consideration: epigenetics and mutation.

Personhood doesn't automatically grant a right to life anyways (there are numerous account of justified killing of persons where their personhood isn't even under dispute).

Why should someone else inconvenience themselves for your preferences?

Side: No.
1 point

If they are going to be a lazy ass motherfucker to not crawl out of the womb without causing pain to their loyal mother then no they deserve to die ;)

Side: No.
1 point

Not inherently. If it is afforded to the unborn then it is because those capable of self-concept have decided to confer it. No less and no more.

Side: No.
1 point

In terms of legality? No. In terms of practicality? It is a balance between the right of the unborn child to live and the right of the mother to not have her life derailed because of either a stupid mistake or a result of rape.

First, legality: If you are pro life, you need to stop trying to ban abortions. You're not helping your cause. Abortion is a service that is subject to the laws of supply and demand just like any other service, that's just capitalism. One has to consider the consequences of pushing that service entirely into the illegal -and unregulated- spectrum. Think wire coat hangers. Think getting drunk and throwing yourself down the stairs. Think high school girls bleeding to death, infections, back-alley "doctors", and you pretty much have a clear picture of the pre Roe V. Wade days. For as much as abortion sucks, it's at least safe to the mother in the present day.

What you need to be doing instead is to get on ground level and talk to women who have had and are considering abortions, if you want to actually help your cause (it also doesn't help to wave signs and tell them that they're going to hell). You won't win every case, but it's better than having them find shady alternatives.

Side: No.
-1 points

They do not. Rights are suggested by, reasoned about and concluded by grown living beings capable of voting.

Side: No.
FromWithin(6664) Disputed
2 points

You are one sad human being to be so callous about an innocent viable human life. The Democrat Party and people like you support No Restriction abortions.

I have absolutely zero respect for selfish inhuman people who are so ambivalent to an innocent human life.

Side: Yes.
Mingiwuwu(1235) Clarified
1 point

It doesn't matter how much respect you have, what I said is true regardless.

Side: Yes.
0 points

I have absolutely zero respect for selfish inhuman people who are so ambivalent to an innocent human life.

Oh shut up you unbalanced, hypocritical little prick. Tell us all how you feel about giving social security to the poor and malnourished, you silly cunt.

Side: No.
sodik2643(1) Disputed
1 point

If rights are something to be given to people being able to vote then the question arises if the children should have the right to live or not. Because a child or an infant also can not vote and cannot complete duties. But if their right to live is injustified then child murder will not be a crime. An infants capability to vote is not be any different than an unborn's.

Side: Yes.
Mingiwuwu(1235) Disputed
1 point

They are only permitted to live because the adults who are not convicts in the society say they should.

Side: No.
FromWithin(6664) Disputed
1 point

Hypocrites like you parade Special Need's children around track fields during Special Olympics, and support testing for these viable Special Need's babies and killing them.

SICK!

Side: Yes.
Mingiwuwu(1235) Disputed
1 point

I have no idea what you're referring to here. Would you be happy to have a society of majority down's syndrome kids? We do need to think of well-being of most of the future generation when permitting one to live.

Side: No.
outlaw60(13157) Disputed
1 point

But wait did MOMMY not give birth to you ??? So what we have here is your MOMMY reasoned and concluded about giving birth to a Leftist ??????

Side: Yes.
KJVPrewrath(955) Disputed
1 point

Yes they do, hun. All people have the right to live. Birth control or sterilization can be used if one so desires.

Side: Yes.