CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Some could say that the ant is one of trillions of creatures that already practically own this planet, so to take out one of their constantly regenerating numbers is not as bad as taking out one of our, near as large, numbers that isn't as flourishing as them.
At that point in time it's not an offspring, it hasn't officially been born yet, so it's not even technically a child.
Also, for the people who truly favor the side of the ant, that is just showing that people have different opinions for what they consider to be valuable or worth less. It's human nature to covet different things, some people covet family over riches, some people prefer it vice versa.
Well how do you know that? Do you mean relatively? Does that mean killing one elephant is worse than killing one human since relatively the elephant will feel more pain?
Lets say you had a choice between killing your own fetus who can feel pain and an elephant. Which one would you kill? Would you kill your own soon to be child or would you kill the elephant?
Which is worse depends on the context of the discussion. Like someone said in some of the other debates, we already have laws in the United States that make the killing of a fetus in some circumstances a crime of murder. If we were to have laws against killing ants, I don't think they would be as severe as that. So, clearly killing a fetus is worse than killing an ant in our present legal context.
Some could say that the fetus has no brain activity and isn't ensured to do anything as of yet therefore to terminate it is not as bad as terminating a single solitary creature that if it's working in a colony adds a whole new work layer to the ecosystem.
The potential for exactly one ant does not equal the potential for a fetus if it grows up.
If the child is a deadbeat: wasted potential
If the child joins a gang: wasted potential
If the child becomes a killer: wasted potential.
The ant will, by nature, do it's duties for the colony and it will be a small part, but with the help of every small part it will make a great function that humans may not care at all for but ants depend on.
Before I say anything else I will state for the record, for this case and instance, that I am neither pro-life, nor pro-choice.
However, I will state that I am a human and an ant is not a human.
I will also state that an animal is an animal; humans are animals and ants are not.
I will further state that life is life, regardless of beliefs, correct?
And so, Quocalimer. You stand on grass almost everyday right? Unless of course you live on the beach, of desert, or X, Y, Z. Do you not encounter "life" oine way or another.
Regardless of your capacity to "respect" all life and its ways, you seem to not appreciate the human life more than the ant life.
People "kill" ants, as well as other very small insects constantly; just like some "people" kill fetuses constantly throughout the world. Correct?
Which is more important? Between the two, fucking choose.
CHOOSE.
This is not life or death. You will not be punished and you must choose.
Which do you choose?
An ant?
Or a fetus?
And you choose "subjectivity". LOL
You must be agnostic that says "Well, I'm human and humans have many choices, therefore I do not (nor cannot), truly know what is correct or not, therefore I believe that all sides at all times are correct, for ever, and ever."
As if any humans can truly step outside of being human and not judge accordingly.
Regardless of your capacity to "respect" all life and its ways, you seem to not appreciate the human life more than the ant life.
I picked both sides, didn't you see the other? I showed how objectively neither side has more of a right to life than the other, because objectively both can play a ginormous role, or in the great grand scheme of things no role at all.
People "kill" ants, as well as other very small insects constantly; just like some "people" kill fetuses constantly throughout the world. Correct?
Indeed.
Which is more important? Between the two, fucking choose.
There is no more important. Life is life. Is it not?
You must be agnostic that says "Well, I'm human and humans have many choices, therefore I do not (nor cannot), truly know what is correct or not, therefore I believe that all sides at all times are correct, for ever, and ever."
Your sarcasm is wasted on me. I have stated my religious views. Deistic agnostic atheist. Research me if you want to know why, I don't feel like explaining on this debate.
Who, and what, are you doing to prove?
This was given in in response to this statement from me.
As if any humans can truly step outside of being human and not judge accordingly.
So based off of what you put to what I put, I don't understand what you mean.
However, you've got an opinion and ants do not. That is indisputable.
Therefore, your life is more important than an ants life because there is more meaning for a humans life than an ants life.
Trust me, I understand that mother nature is alive and lives.
Reeally, this is a matter of a human understanding the importance of its own life, rather than acknowledging that insects, plants, other animals are in fact alive.
It's not to take away from the others, however, I am trying to explain how significant the significance of the human life is.
However, you've got an opinion and ants do not. That is indisputable.
How do you know that? One scientists alleged that tomatoes could feel pain. I don't know the authenticity of that study, but if a tomato can feel pain why can an ant not have an opinion.
Reeally, this is a matter of a human understanding the importance of its own life, rather than acknowledging that insects, plants, other animals are in fact alive.
So because we are sapient we're more important. What if a creature that comes to us and is millions of times more intelligent, to the point where we seem like ants to them, comes along. What then, are our lives now less important than theirs?
How do you know that? One scientists alleged that tomatoes could feel pain. I don't know the authenticity of that study, but if a tomato can feel pain why can an ant not have an opinion.
This is so laughable. Are you seriously telling me that you believe a tomato or an ant has an opinion on anything? Are you seriously pulling the "we don't know card" on this one? C'mon....C'mon....
Reeally, this is a matter of a human understanding the importance of its own life, rather than acknowledging that insects, plants, other animals are in fact alive.
The problem with that is we cannot speak to ants. I guarantee you that if a species comes around that is "millions times more intelligent" we'd still be able to interact with it, somehow. We cannot interact with ants at all. They have no clue what we are. They just react. Then I'm sure you'll say "how do you know?". Have you ever had a conversation with an ant? You might have tried to speak with it but I guarantee it never spoke back. Point being, humans are special and you choose to believe otherwise. Which is fine, there are many like you. No harm done.
This is so laughable. Are you seriously telling me that you believe a tomato or an ant has an opinion on anything? Are you seriously pulling the "we don't know card" on this one? C'mon....C'mon....
I seriously am, because as you just admitted... we...don't...know. To say anything other than that would just be a lie. I can't say God does or doesn't exist, because I don't know. And in not knowing I can't chastise a belief in him, just as you can't chastise the belief that a creature, who may or may not have thoughts and feel pain, deserves it's life.
The problem with that is we cannot speak to ants.
Oh no we can't speak to it, for heaven's sake it must die...Oh wait...we can't speak to the fetus either. Hm.
I guarantee you that if a species comes around that is "millions times more intelligent" we'd still be able to interact with it, somehow.
And how on Earth do you know that? What if they feel we are just simple ants, and before we create the technology to communicate with them, they eradicate us for being so simple?
We cannot interact with ants at all.
Have you tried? If we can interact with some millions times smarter life form, and they can interact with a millions times less intelligent one. Why can't we interact with a millions times less one?
They have no clue what we are. They just react. Then I'm sure you'll say "how do you know?".
You are absolutely right! How do you know?
Have you ever had a conversation with an ant?
Of course not, they 'speak' via pheromones and something to do with the antennae. I'm just an active human that has never taken any classes in communicating with insects.
You might have tried to speak with it but I guarantee it never spoke back.
You ever try to speak to a fetus?
Point being, humans are special and you choose to believe otherwise.
That's the one I was waiting to see. That's the most biased thing you've said. Humans are special, you've got to be kidding me. Humans are animals all the same. Humans are only different in our intelligence. If a more intelligent being comes along, we won't be 'special' we'll be ants. If that happens, will that make our lives less important than their fetuses or whatever pre-life forms they take?
Now the actual point is this. You, along with everyone posting on the opposing side only, feel that your race is the only important race. I mean human race, not ethnicity, and you feel that your race offers the most and is the most valuable. There's nothing wrong with loving your life, or having pride in your species, but I'm here objectively to show you all that you're not the center of the universe. I mean technically you are but basically you're not. You're an ant to the great grand scheme of things and to think anything more is just wishful thinking.
Non-theists? Another word for that.... can't seem to remember.. OH!! Atheist?!?!?!?
I am a theist, but I am pro-choice, so can I participate?
I think human fetus has as much value as a human nail, an ant has a life, a very short one, and we should let them live the short period of time they're given in this world :)
So does an ant. A fetus if it grow up will achieve more than an ant that lives. You cant deny that. Also the fetus will turn into a human and can achieve a lot. Much more than an ant.
A fetus if it grow up will achieve more than an ant that lives.
You can't prove that. You can't prove that the woman bearing her 5 week old fetus is guaranteed to become a human being and achieve great things.
You cant deny that.
Deny what? That fetuses can die before they ever become human beings?
Also the fetus will turn into a human and can achieve a lot.
Again, there is no guarantee for all you mothers out there pregnant with 5 week old fetuses. There is a big chance, especially in the first trimester, that the fetus will die.
If not every mother, then probably 50-70% of them have or are going to experience the horror of losing a child during pregnancy.
There has never been a guarantee for a fetus to live and become successful in life.
Much more than an ant.
As an animal rights fighter.. I find this very interesting.
You think human beings achieve more than animals?
I can assure you, if bugs and stuff like that didn't exist, we wouldn't have plants, if we wouldn't have plants, we would have a seriously small amount of oxygen and probably all living things would die.
Don't say ants achieve less than human, they keep you alive. You shouldn't kill anything, not a fetus or an ant - but in this moment the ant is probably more important to keep alive then a human being. Because the ant already is alive, whilst the fetus' life hasn't begun and there is no guarantee it will begin.
Make a choice between killing all fetuses and then killing all bugs. If you decide to kill all bugs, then everything will slowly die with them.
Kill all fetuses, then people will get over it and new fetuses will soon be conceived.
You can't prove that. You can't prove that the woman bearing her 5 week old fetus is guaranteed to become a human being and achieve great things.
You can prove that a ant does more than a possible human. Also some ants are stepped on.
Deny what? That fetuses can die before they ever become human beings?
You are chopping up my words now. You cany deny the fact that a fully grown human will achieve more than one ant. Even if you work in a job yiu are doing more than one ant.
Again, there is no guarantee for all you mothers out there pregnant with 5 week old fetuses. There is a big chance, especially in the first trimester, that the fetus will die.If not every mother, then probably 50-70% of them have or are going to experience the horror of losing a child during pregnancy.There has never been a guarantee for a fetus to live and become successful in life.
I am only talking about a fully grown human. An ant can drown in rain. A small flood can kill a colony. The same thing applies. That argument isnt strong. Especially since I am only talking a living human.
As an animal rights fighter.. I find this very interesting.You think human beings achieve more than animals?I can assure you, if bugs and stuff like that didn't exist, we wouldn't have plants, if we wouldn't have plants, we would have a seriously small amount of oxygen and probably all living things would die.Don't say ants achieve less than human, they keep you alive. You shouldn't kill anything, not a fetus or an ant - but in this moment the ant is probably more important to keep alive then a human being. Because the ant already is alive, whilst the fetus' life hasn't begun and there is no guarantee it will begin.Make a choice between killing all fetuses and then killing all bugs. If you decide to kill all bugs, then everything will slowly die with them.Kill all fetuses, then people will get over it and new fetuses will soon be conceived.
This isnt about the importance of ants. This is about what can achieve more and in history humans have achived much much more. You cannot deny that if you use any form of primative innovation.
You can prove that a ant does more than a possible human
Actually no - I consider all species equally valueable, and they all achieve some things during their lifetime. I don't know how you understand the word ''achieve''.
You cany deny the fact that a fully grown human will achieve more than one ant.
Yes, I will deny that.
Even if you work in a job yiu are doing more than one ant.
Doing more than an ant? Do you even know what ants do?
Also some ants are stepped on.
What's your point?
I am only talking about a fully grown human.
Sorry, I'm talking about fetus vs. ants. I didn't know we switched debate topic.
An ant can drown in rain.
And a human being can fall of a cliff.
A small flood can kill a colony.
So you think just because it is easier to kill ants, it is justifiable to kill them?
I'm not talking about when you accidentally step on an ant, of course that can happen to all and that will probably happen to all. But to kill an ant .. like .. on purpose, that is what I don't think is right.
Especially since I am only talking a living human.
The debate says ''fetus vs. ants'' - so I guess you are the only one talking about living human beings.
This is about what can achieve more and in history humans have achived much much more
Have you read the ant history?? No - they could probably have a history of their own. You can't make such a statement.
And I thought a lot of us religious folk where crazy -.-,while I respect your opinion of an insect having as much value as a human. If you think both are just as important then why are you choosing the ant over the fetus your own offspring, your own unborn children.
Since the debate was a for/agianst and not perspective, then you have to choose, obviously.
The ant's life has already begun, while the fetus .. is just some cells about to evolve to something else.
The fetus isn't a human being, in my opinion. Just like I don't think human hair and human blood have higher value than ants, I don't consider human fetuses having more value than ants.
I see it as choosing between eating an egg and eating the actual chicken. The chicken is alive, has a conscience and everything, while the egg is .. not an animal yet.
So your saying it has to have all the essentials of a human,blood,nails,ears,etc just for it to be human? so going by that logic if a man didn't have both his ears, does that make him not human?
So your saying it has to have all the essentials of a human,blood,nails,ears,etc just for it to be human
In the earliest stages of pregnancy, before the 5th week, the fetus hasn't developed any type of conscience, a brain or any other types of organs.
If a man loses his leg or ear or something like that, he isn't any less of a human being. But if he lost his brain or his conscience (and narcosis is not included, since it puts you out of conscience for a limited period time) then I think he has lost a very big part of his humanity.
I don't consider fetuses under 5 week old higher valued than ants.
1.In the earliest stages of pregnancy, before the 5th week, the fetus hasn't developed any type of conscience, a brain or any other types of organs
that's true yes but after that it begins to.
2.Ok but do you see how you kinda contradicted yourself you said you don't count narcosis or anything else that puts a human unconscious for a limited time. Yet a human fetus is only unconscious for a limited time as well.
Ok but do you see how you kinda contradicted yourself you said you don't count narcosis or anything else that puts a human unconscious for a limited time. Yet a human fetus is only unconscious for a limited time as well.
Yes I see that, but you can't prove that the unconscious fetus with no brain, no organs is going to become human.
A man who's put in narcosis has both a brain and other organs.
1.facepalm so your saying it does not begin to develop a brain?
2.Are you saying the women pregnant with the young fetus with no brain can have a miscarriage or abortion? Is that what you meant by " you can't prove that the unconscious fetus with no brain, no organs is going to become human."
The vast majority of miscarriages occur prior to a woman even knowing she's pregnant. 20-40% occur prior to 12 weeks.
Miscarriage is something many many mothers will experience, and many more don't even know they went through a miscarriage, because it happened so early that they didn't even get time to find out they were pregnant.
My mom has been through two miscarriages, two of my aunts have both been through a miscarriage, and three of my friends have been through a miscarriage.
The rate of miscarried fetuses before the 20th week is extremely high, so high that even doctors say that the life of that young fetuses are a POSSIBILITY.
Those fetuses are in doctors eyes seen as possible life, because the chance of miscarriage is that big. Fortunately, the chance of miscarriages are lowering slowly nowdays, people seem to think it is because women nowdays are a lot smarter on what to eat and what not to eat during pregnancy, also women are taught that stuff like alcohol and tobacco make the chances of miscarriages very very high.
A fetus in the 5th week can not be considered a human being, and you have no evidence of it ever becoming one. That is why I would rather kill a 5th week old fetus than an ant.
You can't prove that. You can't prove that the woman bearing her 5 week old fetus is guaranteed to become a human being and achieve great things.
You can prove that a ant does more than a possible human. Also some ants are stepped on.
Deny what? That fetuses can die before they ever become human beings?
You are chopping up my words now. You cany deny the fact that a fully grown human will achieve more than one ant. Even if you work in a job yiu are doing more than one ant.
Again, there is no guarantee for all you mothers out there pregnant with 5 week old fetuses. There is a big chance, especially in the first trimester, that the fetus will die.If not every mother, then probably 50-70% of them have or are going to experience the horror of losing a child during pregnancy.There has never been a guarantee for a fetus to live and become successful in life.
I am only talking about a fully grown human. An ant can drown in rain. A small flood can kill a colony. The same thing applies. That argument isnt strong. Especially since I am only talking a living human.
As an animal rights fighter.. I find this very interesting.You think human beings achieve more than animals?I can assure you, if bugs and stuff like that didn't exist, we wouldn't have plants, if we wouldn't have plants, we would have a seriously small amount of oxygen and probably all living things would die.Don't say ants achieve less than human, they keep you alive. You shouldn't kill anything, not a fetus or an ant - but in this moment the ant is probably more important to keep alive then a human being. Because the ant already is alive, whilst the fetus' life hasn't begun and there is no guarantee it will begin.Make a choice between killing all fetuses and then killing all bugs. If you decide to kill all bugs, then everything will slowly die with them.Kill all fetuses, then people will get over it and new fetuses will soon be conceived.
This isnt about the importance of ants. This is about what can achieve more and in history humans have achived much much more. You cannot deny that if you use any form of primative innovation.
a single ant and its possible achievements do not even compare to the possible achievements
Again subjective. Do you rate a person's worth on what they can do that you like? Is a mentally handicapped person better to kill than a monkey who can collect change? Or no, is it the fact that the human is well a human, and that you're showing bias to your species?
It's perfectly natural but just be honest about it.
No I am conparing their achievement out of the scale of benefit. One typical human will achieve more than an ant. We reached the moon ants go to the top of hills. Now importance of ants is different but the possible things a typical human can do outweighs a a single ant. Also we arent talking about monkeys so I dont know why that is stated. Now I am in favor for the equality of all species but we are capable of much more. I love ants and I have a tank full of them. They achieve a ton. Now lets make ants the same size as humans and give them our brains. They would probably be superior.
No I am conparing their achievement out of the scale of benefit
So am I. The ant is alive and making contributions, the fetus could be a miscarry. if that happens where's your logic on it's potential vs what the ant is already doing? We measure results not possibilities if we did we could argue Hitler was a great man because if he was reformed he could have used his great influence for good, but he didn't, what he did was 'evil' and we will forever remember what he did and not what he could have done.
One typical human will achieve more than an ant.
What is more? Lifting 3 tons into the air just to put it back down is nothing compared to lifting a single pound to allow another creature to live. What I mean is, it's not what is done it's the significance of what is done. In the ant's case, it will do a significant impact on it's species' survival, most humans actually will not.
We reached the moon ants go to the top of hills.
We reached the moon...to say we could. Ants go to the top of hills to burrow tunnels to ventilate their entire system of tunnels so that they can get fresh oxygen into the lowest parts of the tunnel. This is subjective, but I think climbing a small hill for a good reason is better that climbing a large hill for silly reasons.
I am talking about a human vs ant. I cant debate if you are taking my words out of context. Actually most ants will benefit their colony not the entire species. We have cured diseases and such for the entire human race. I cant debate with you if you keep taking my words into another context.
Species means those faction of ants. You cant say entire species when ants cannot go to other countries and help out those ants. Humans however can. Also 1 human vs 1 ant. That is my argument. Just look at your initial sentences in your argument before this. It spoke of a fetus. Not a human.
Yes, that's why I corrected it when you showed it to me. One ant will benefit it's colony. One human less likely will so much as benefit his community.
It spoke of a fetus. Not a human.
Because the debate asked about a fetus, and not a human.
One ant yes can benefit its colony. The same way a man does through taxation. Also even though the debate talked about a fetus my agree was only about a human.
An ant ill try to benefit it's colony, men usually try to defeat taxes.
Yet as you wanted to badger me about the debate topic, I'll draw you back to the original point by asking what is the fetus doing at this moment in time? Growing, lying in a protective sac, not reaching the moon or paying taxes. What is the ant doing? At the very least it's collecting food for the colony.
If the fetuscan do nothing in the womb then your whole argument is flawed.
You all claimed that a fetus being killed is worse because a human can do so much. The case is that although a human can it may not. So you changed it to humans have. Yet the fetus is not.
The simple fact is, a fetus at the time it is a fetus is less useful than an ant, and that is not opinion it's fact.
Again. Men cannot escape sales tax. Their voluntarily purchase good and thus guve to the community. The average person has a job and must pay taxes and contributes to their society. The average human must pay bills in the house. This person is promoting everybody by supplying the resources for everybodies survival. An average person may drive a car. This person must supply that car with the resources it needs to move or operate. They must purchase gasoline, electricity, or even water.
Again, men are not fetuses, yet i'll play along. An ant, is not trying to escape but a man is. Yet the man is worse to be killed? The one that's doing what's right, because they have to rather than doing what's right...because it's right?
The ant population is far too high to even consider the death significant to the human population. Since you did not counter the taxation are voluntary and inviluntary contributions a man mist give to society I believe this has already ended. The ant does not contribute as much as a man does. Also since my initial argument was about a fetus growing uo and living its life compared to an ant living its entire life my example conpletly validates my side of the argument. The man must contribute a ton and this is just the typical man. Your examples include the exceptions.
The ant population is far too high to even consider the death significant to the human population.
Now we're using that argument?
One ant dying goes unnoticed by humanity. One human dying goes unnoticed by ants. One human dying does not affect greatly the rest of the community. One ant dying does not greatly affect the ant colony.
Insignificance is a game we all can play.
Since you did not counter the taxation are voluntary and inviluntary contributions a man mist give to society I believe this has already ended.
This ended when you left the topic of a fetus vs an ant and transformed it to a human vs an ant.
The ant does not contribute as much as a man does.
To who? Humanity? Obviously not, but why should it, it's an ant. oh you mean to the world? Do you mean as much as in more, or as much as in greater affect on all life. I doubt ants have killed as many creatures as people have, I also would bet that since ants have been around for as long as humans if not longer, and outnumber us by trillions that they may have done more than us, just so much more that we can't calculate all that's been done.
. Also since my initial argument was about a fetus growing uo and living its life compared to an ant living its entire life my example conpletly validates my side of the argument.
Your argument was about what if. My counter addressed what if. What if the fetus is a stillborn, what if it's a drug dealer, another Hitler, etc. That's why what if's don't work.
The man must contribute a ton and this is just the typical man.
The typical man pays involuntary taxes, as you have pointed out, and works a regular job and pays money to the government. Now the typical ant is bringing food to it's colony. The human has saved no one today with his taxes, the ant has saved it's entire colony.
The ant saved an entire colony? The typical human is saving the entire system first world countries rely on. If one ant stops nothing major happens. If one human stops nothing great happens. For one thing ants indeed store food. Humans contribute more to their society. In fact the entire race. You are flipping my "if" around. I am taking the typical average man and an average ant. Please do not use word play. It is too easy to spot. Also you said the ant brings food to its colony. We have farmers that make food for tons of people. So what exactly does that argument imply?
I won't waste time disputing. You're speaking of a living breathing, thinking human who is actively taking part in their community on the same term as the living breathing, thinking ant, that is actively taking part in it's community.
The case as it is presented is not that, the case as it is presented is that of a fetus, that is doing nothing but growing, compared to an ant that is actively taking part in it's community.
So as your argument states, "it's worse to kill a fetus because it's effect on the world" it's in fact, not opinion, invalid, because if you are comparing an active fetus to an active ant, and their impacts on the world, the ant is doing a significant amount more than the fetus.
Now if you even care, the point I kept making, but was casualy tossed aside in your rebuttals, is that it's not just the act that is important, it's the significance of that act. With that said, the significance of an ant's acts are only significant to an ant, just as the significance of a human's acts are only significant to a human. Meaning all we do is is important to us, but to us alone, therefore this debate should not go one way, it should in fact go both ways because this is ultimately an opinion on which you value more.
Your initial response to me was that my opinion is wrong because I stated how important an ant's actions are, when in fact, an ant's actions are important, more so than anything we do, to an ant. If only to an any, they are the most important.
That is not my reason for disputing nor is it my argument. My argument is that killing a fetus is simply worse in our eyes. That was my main point. I just decided to talk about the stuff they each do in society in which humans do more.
It is "sound" a human has much more potential than an ant. A human can contribite more than an ant to their society. I dont know if they take up more biomass but we have much more potential than ants do. We seem to be the species chosen to evolve into humans, our brains are far more developed, human contribute voluntarily or involuntarily to their society, etc.
It is "sound" a human has much more potential than an ant.
Potential is limitless. You never know what any life form will accomplish. If you truly aliens created humanity, do you think they estimated what humanity would do one day?
A human can contribite more than an ant to their society.
And an ant can contribute more than a human to their society.
We seem to be the species chosen to evolve into humans
We're the only species that could evolve into humans, it's in our DNA, but we are not the only intelligent species, nor are we the only evolving species.
our brains are far more developed
It's ironic that you say that because when a fetus can be legally aborted it's brain is not.
human contribute voluntarily or involuntarily to their society, etc.
As far as I know they voluntarily contribute to their society, and need no reason to do so involuntarily. They make the choices to die for the rest of the colony, they make the choices to bring food to the colony, and in rare cases when one of them gets an illness that can kill the colony, one of them instinctively carries the infected one out to a place to not spread the illness, and subsequently dies with it.
We've not only achieved and accomplished more than any insect or animal we have helped both our race and other animals. We've made many medicines and such to help both humans and animals.
Way to list off the achievements now I'll list off the catastrophes.
Many humans believe humans are the biggest cause of global warming, that's affecting an entire planet.
Humans have made several species extinct, and the ones humans haven't are endangered.
Humans tame animals to use for entertainment or companionship, and when people are done with them, they are usually causally tossed aside evidenced by all of the strays that exist.
Humans have taken the reproductive organs of some animals to keep them in line, or to make them more hospitable to humans.
Humans have buildings dedicated to the genocide of animals, known as slaughterhouses.
Humans are the only animals I can think of to kill an animal just for the fun of it. Humans are also the only animal to kill an animal not to eat it, but to wear it.
I could continue with this list but I'm pretty sure the point is made. Humans are not that great, you can look at the positives like you did or you can look at the negatives like I did. It's your perspective versus my perspective, which is why I see disputing me as pointless. Your facts are mere opinions, and biased at that.
Yours are just as biased as mine. In any case, yes I realize the catastrophes we've done but I didn't think there was any point bringing it up because I thought everybody knew already
So your saying just because I didn't state the catastrophes that makes me biased? It does sound biased yes but if I had thought about the catastrophes I would've also listed that. I actually didn't mean to sound biased.
So your saying just because I didn't state the catastrophes that makes me biased?
Bias: Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
Yes. To favor one side (positive attributes) over another side (negative attributes) is bias. There's nothing wrong with bias, that's the whole point of an opinion, but there's no point in trying to persuade someone with your bias. I fought your bias with my bias. Your showed the ups, mine showed the downs, together we equal out for an outside observer to see objectively and to decide based on all that is presented which side they feel is better, again based off of their bias.
I sound critical, and probably condescending, but I don't mean to. my point that i'm trying to get a cross is that, the purpose ultimately depends on everyone's opinions. More people should pick the fetus, we are human after all, but I'm an objective debater, and I see that both sides objectively have a good ground to stand on.
Hmm, you make a good point there but I would've listed the catastrophes if I had thought about it believe it or not. True sometimes I can be biased but at other times I do my best to list both ups and downs on both sides while still sticking to the one side that in my opinion is correct.
it will do a significant impact on it's species' survival
Here is where I think your logic is flawed. An individual ant will not have a significant impact. There are many that can replace it. The survival of the colony depends on the collective actions of many many individuals. I think this is how the people who have been arguing with you feel, but didn't put into words.
You are right it was an error. It won't be significant but it will be something. It will bring one leaf to the colony that the colony will use to produce food (leaf cutter ants). Most humans won't do this much. They'll pay taxes of course (after becoming 18 or getting a job) but the tax money doesn't directly go into the food starving people need.
That one ant bringing the leaf will prevent another ant from starving to death.
Taxes go into food stamps, food stamps are used to stop people from starving.
Yet not every person is being fed, or everyone who needs the food stamps are getting them, or every tax dollar we have is going into food for the hungry.
Yet not every person is being fed, or everyone who needs the food stamps are getting them, or every tax dollar we have is going into food for the hungry.
That's right, that one leaf that the ant brought over feeds the entire colony for years.
I don't believe in comparing how much an individual contributes to their respective society. I think humans are more important than ants. I was just pointing out that you are overvaluing the ant.
That's right, that one leaf that the ant brought over feeds the entire colony for years.
I know it doesn't but that one leaf brought, is one that feeds one, and if every ant brings a leaf every ant eats. Like you said they all add to a collective, but each individual part is just as important.
I don't believe in comparing how much an individual contributes to their respective society.
Then there was no point in even disputing me, we have different views on this matter from the get go.
I think humans are more important than ants. I was just pointing out that you are overvaluing the ant.
I think both are equally insignificant and both deserve a fair amount of siding. The ant is over valued only compared to the human, it could worthless to us, but to them it's important.
Support! The only way that killing an ant can be seen as bad at all is from a 'human' perspective. Ants don't objectively care. They often kill and eat their own. So, it becomes a question of which has the most negative impact on humanity... the killing of an ant vs killing a human in the womb.
Obviously, killing humans has a greater / more direct impact on humanity than killing ants do.
You're biasedly defending the fetus because you are a human.
This same argument could be used to defend slaughtering animals, or using them for animal testing. The truth of the matter is, it's equally bad to kill either, because both play a role in their little niche of the world.
Humans are insignificant specks to the universe, ants are insignificant specks to humans, but we are both alive, so why is killing one more justified than killing another?
Can you objectively say why killing a fetus is worse than killing an ant?
Killing an animal for the sake of eating is called "predation". It is a normal thing. Killing a fetus however is something far different, especially if you will abort it for reasons of selfishness and inability to stand for your mistakes.
No, do not be a nihilist, we are not insignificant, we have our own ability to have a concept for morality and society. Use it well
1.That is one of the most selfish most heartless thing a woman can do. Why should the fetus have to die just because of the mothers fucking mistakes its not the fetus's fault im neither pro-life nor pro-abort but killing a fetus just because of her retarded mistakes is heartless and foolish.
2.whats more important our own offspring or an ant? You cant seriously pick ant.
1. And the woman has the right to be selfish and heartless if she wishes so. She has a right to abort because the fetus is dependent on her, it can't live outside her body and if she doesn't want it inside, she can take it out. It dies outside of her, which means that it CAN'T live on its own... Which means the mother gets to decide what to do with it.
2. I can pick ant if I want to. And so can any other woman that doesn't want offspring.
1.Your right. :) we should kill all of our unborn children for selfish and heartless reasons (sarcasm)
2.You act as if I am against rights or something? I never said a women doesnt have a right to be selfish and heartless and I never said you couldent pick ant.
We shouldn't all. Only those who want to. If you want to keep your fetus you can keep it, but if someone doesn't want to, they can abort it. It's simple. Their reasons are none of your business.
So a fetus feeds of the mother and doesn't kill her. Which you said a parasite was. Got that.
I used "parasite" as a loose term, figuratively, not literally classifying a fetus as a parasite. Simply saying that it doesn't contribute, it just feeds of the woman. The point remains.
A parasite is an animal who lives as a burden for others. A fetus is an unborn infant. Misunderstanding the two is just the same as degrading your own species
There is a difference between doesnt wanting it, and being deserving of it. The only allowable abortion are those times when she was raped and if it endangers her life.
Children brought about by reasons of carelessness are a different matter
A fetus can not live outside the woman's body, so it dies when it's taken out. If it actually was a formed human being, that can live, killing it, of course, would be murder and no one would have the right to do that. But since the fetus is dependent on the mother and can't survive any other way, she has a right to take it out because it's not a completely separate being, it's connected to her and can't live if it's not.
If all it takes to define a human is their concept of living outside the womb. Then I suppose that bed ridden people who depends on machines for survival are no longer human
The point is that, if you believe that fetus are not human simply because they cannot survive outside the womb. Then whats the difference in a person who cannot survive without machines?
I believe that abortion is not murder, it's simply taking the fetus out of the womb. It dies because it can't survive outside the womb.
A person who can't survive without machines can be taken off them. It's legal. It's not murder.
So it's not about are they human or not, it's simply that abortion isn't killing anyone.
Killing an ant, is actually killing.
The fetus didn't really LIVE, it just existed there. The ant contributes to the ant colony, it has some actual value. While the fetus, if unwanted, has no value whatsoever.
I weigh a person's VALUE based on how they are valued in the society. Not their humanity.
I determine is someone human or not by simply wondering do they fit into the definition of a human. If they do, they're human. If they don't, they're not.
However, not all humans have equal value. Nor should they recieve equal treatmant.
You said that a fetus holds no importance if it is not valued by its parents. And you said that the judgement of the society is what gives you your significance.
Which means that, your saying that a human does not deserve to live if it is unwanted by everyone.
If the fetus is unwanted by EVERYONE in its life, it absolutely holds no importance. And since the only ones who are in its life while it's a fetus are the parents, it has no value if they don't want it.
The judgement of the society gives VALUE to the society. That's what you judge someone's value on.
I'm not saying that a human does not deserve to live if its unwanted to everyone. I'm saying people have different values and they get treated according to their values to the society.
However, even if not valuable to society in general, some people are valuable to CERTAIN people.
So if a mother is choosing will she kill a fetus or an ant - she will choose fetus if she wants it, because it has significance to HER. If she doesn't want to, she will choose ant because the fetus has no value to her. However, in both cases, the fetus has no value to the society or even me as individual, so I'd choose the ant unless I choose to respect the mother's wishes.
Jesus had family/friends.
Ancient Christians did too.
Accused women did as well.
Protestants also.
Supporters of Confucios alike.
Black people the same.
They had value to someone, they were significant to someone. Their lives did mean something, the mistreatment of them did affect them AND others.
However they had no value to the society that rejected them. Still, they were HUMAN and there is no justifiable reason to kill a human unless they pose true danger to others.
But, if something is NOT human and it's completely unwanted, it's fine to eliminate it because there's no reason to keep it, and usually not a way except for affecting someone else's life, in this case the woman's.
So basically - a human has the right to live regardless of their value. However, not everyone has equal value. The treatmant of an individual depends on their value. Still, it doesn't take away their right to live.
Yet a fetus is not a human, it's not living, so it can't be killed, nor can its life be taken away, nor does it have a right to "live" because it can't actually live.
However an ant is already living, therefore killing it is taking away its right to. Plus it contributes to the colony, which gives it value,and puts it ahead of something with no value to anyone/anything.
If the fetus is unwanted by EVERYONE its related to, it absolutely holds no importance. And since the only ones who are in its life while it's a fetus are the parents, it has no value if they don't want it.
The judgement of the society gives VALUE to the society. That's what you judge someone's value on.
I'm not saying that a human does not deserve to live if its unwanted to everyone. I'm saying people have different values and they get treated according to their values to the society.
However, even if not valuable to society in general, some people are valuable to CERTAIN people.
So if a mother is choosing will she kill a fetus or an ant - she will choose fetus if she wants it, because it has significance to HER. If she doesn't want to, she will choose ant because the fetus has no value to her. However, in both cases, the fetus has no value to the society or even me as individual, so I'd choose the ant unless I choose to respect the mother's wishes.
Jesus had family/friends.
Ancient Christians did too.
Accused women did as well.
Protestants also.
Supporters of Confucios alike.
Black people the same.
They had value to someone, they were significant to someone. Their lives did mean something, the mistreatment of them did affect them AND others.
However they had no value to the society that rejected them. Still, they were HUMAN and there is no justifiable reason to kill a human unless they pose true danger to others.
But, if something is NOT human and it's completely unwanted, it's fine to eliminate it because there's no reason to keep it, and usually not a way except for affecting someone else's life, in this case the woman's.
So basically - a human has the right to live regardless of their value. However, not everyone has equal value. The treatmant of an individual depends on their value. Still, it doesn't take away their right to live.
Yet a fetus is not a human, it's not living, so it can't be killed, nor can its life be taken away, nor does it have a right to "live" because it can't actually live.
However an ant is already living, therefore killing it is taking away its right to. Plus it contributes to the colony, which gives it value,and puts it ahead of something with no value to anyone/anything.
If the fetus is unwanted by EVERYONE its related to, it absolutely holds no importance. And since the only ones who are in its life while it's a fetus are the parents, it has no value if they don't want it.
-So now your saying that Child Abuse and Animal abuse should be legalized because their parents, and owners does not want them. And therefore gives them all the rights to kill them?
I'm not saying that a human does not deserve to live if its unwanted to everyone. I'm saying people have different values and they get treated according to their values to the society.However, even if not valuable to society in general, some people are valuable to CERTAIN people.
- Dude you just contradicted yourself. Are you saying again that the vote of the people is the vote of righteousness?
However, in both cases, the fetus has no value to the society or even me as individual, so I'd choose the ant unless I choose to respect the mother's wishes.
-No value to the society? Are you saying that you were never once a fetus?
Jesus had family/friends.
Ancient Christians did too.
Accused women did as well.
Protestants also.
Supporters of Confucios alike.
Black people the same.
They had value to someone, they were significant to someone. Their lives did mean something, the mistreatment of them did affect them AND others.
- Then I suppose that abortion is even worse as you are killing someone who did nothing wrong.
But, if something is NOT human and it's completely unwanted, it's fine to eliminate it because there's no reason to keep it, and usually not a way except for affecting someone else's life, in this case the woman's.
-If a fetus is not a human, then would you mind telling me your definition of "Humanity"?
So basically - a human has the right to live regardless of their value. However, not everyone has equal value. The treatmant of an individual depends on their value. Still, it doesn't take away their right to live.
-Again, you contradicted yourself.
You said that as long as you are significant to the community, you have the right to live. Now your saying that you cannot take away someones right to live
Yet a fetus is not a human, it's not living, so it can't be killed, nor can its life be taken away, nor does it have a right to "live" because it can't actually live.
- Again, if you believe that a fetus is not a human, then what is it?
Nope. Just because the owners or parents don't want them doesn't mean NO ONE does. Obviously social services care.
I didn't contradict myself. Having less value than others doesn't mean that someone deserves to die.
I was a fetus, and as a fetus I only had value to my family. No one else.
Nope, abortion is not wrong. Often only the parents know about the fetus, and they don't want it. Others don't know it exists, therefore can't even want it.
A blob of tissue in the first three months.
I never said that someone's right to live is defined by their value to a community. I said their general value is defined by their value to the community. But even the less valuable have a right to live.
Nope. Just because the owners or parents don't want them doesn't mean NO ONE does. Obviously social services care.
So I guess im right. Your saying that it is ok to abuse animals as their owners do not want them.
I was a fetus, and as a fetus I only had value to my family. No one else.
- Dont you find it funny that endangered species was protected and valued by the government while the fetus was offered none?
Nope, abortion is not wrong. Often only the parents know about the fetus, and they don't want it. Others don't know it exists, therefore can't even want it.
- So, now your saying that as long as no one heard of your existance, everyone has freedom to kill you?
I never said that someone's right to live is defined by their value to a community. I said their general value is defined by their value to the community. But even the less valuable have a right to live.
-Translation: If the community does not like you, you should just die?
Why should I give you a reason for that? I wouldn't beat up MY dog, nor would I beat up YOUR dog. Why shouldn't you? The fu*k do I know. I don't know reasons for your actions or lack of them.
You can take your animal to get an abortion.
You can't KILL a fetus. You can abort it. Which is different from killing.
Even if no one cares - a person has a right to live.
However a fetus is not a person, it's a blob of cells, so it doesn't have a right to live. It can only stay in the womb if the woman wants it, and if she doesn't, she has a right to take it out of herself.
Like I said before - Your value does not decide your right to live.
I'm not contradicting myself, you just can't grasp basic concepts. You should give it up because you don't seem to be able to understand some very simple theories.
Do you have any knowledge with fetus's? You obviously don't because the fetus begins to grow a brain at 4 weeks old. Which means when its brain fully develops. The fetus is alive. Tell me this, Would you rather be born into this world or not at all?
Just because I enjoy pissing off the people who feel the people who support side ant are crazy, I'll add this tidbit: In the great grand scheme of things, the workings of the universe that humanity still hasn't discovered an answer, killing either an ant, or a fetus is so infinitesimally small that the effect would be incalculably small. Measuring the effect either one could have had, if that were possible, would be like trying to even divide the number of atoms on a pin head accurately. We are an insignificant species people, get over yourselves.
Ant can carry a huge amount of weight and have a brain to body ratio higher than any other creature. They're far more incredible and worthy of life than foetuses.....
Well the thing is... I know its prejudice but I don't really like the ones that bite. But the ones that don't bite I'd say it was worse to kill them than a fetus yeah.
I already answered. That its worse to kill the non-biting ants than the fetus. So conversely killing a fetus is less bad than killing a non-biting ant.
World population is increasing. If we culled 1 in every 2 foetuses population would level out and we wouldn't be at risk of running out of food and fresh water (as we are now).
If it had to be 100% of both of them then I'd say kill the ants. If it were only 75% or so, I'd say definitely foetuses in order to avoid overpopulation.
