CreateDebate


Debate Info

75
48
TRUE FALSE
Debate Score:123
Arguments:89
Total Votes:164
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 TRUE (44)
 
 FALSE (36)

Debate Creator

agaravel pic



A human being in the fetal stage of their life is a "HUMAN being." (no troll version)

A question inspired by the denials of so many pro-aborts in these debates....

"A human being in the fetal stage of their life is a "HUMAN being."

TRUE or FALSE

this debate was inspired by also inspired by Chuz-Life banning all that disagrees with him

TRUE

Side Score: 75
VS.

FALSE

Side Score: 48
3 points

I am prochoice but I believe that the fetus is a human being. It is not feline or canine now is it? I just believe that mom has the right to choose.

Side: TRUE
3 points

It's interesting that none of the pro choicers are disagreeing with you on this.

Side: TRUE
2 points

So true. I think for myself. LOL. .

Side: TRUE
2 points

It is a being, it is human, therefore it is a human being. I challenge anyone to prove scientifically that it is another species.

Side: TRUE

I find it hilarious that people actually invents ridiculous excuses as to why Fetuses and Babies are different.

They are just the same Humans who hold the future of mankind! Whatever carelessness the parents has done is something that an innocent child is not eligible to pay with their life.

Side: TRUE
1 point

I know. Right? Look at any 3d Ultrasound and then check out the child once he or she is delivered. It's the same face, same body, same fingers and toes etc.

Some people seem to seriously believe the birth canal a magical passageway that transforms NON human cellular matter into a real live human baby.

Like POOF!

It's amazing.

Side: TRUE
0 points

Also pro choice libertarians give me a rebuttal to my arguments thanks!

Side: TRUE
0 points

This is already a scientifically proven fact that people in the pro choice completely deny. I'm a libertarian but I am pro life even though the technical position in the party is pro choice, 30% of libertarians including myself describe themselves "pro life", movements like the libertarians for life include people that fall under the pro life libertarian column, Dr Ron Paul A DOCTOR for Christ sake

is another example of a pro life libertarian. unfortunately compared to the 70% that self describe as "pro choice" the movement is rather small!

The biggest argument pro choice libertarians have for abortion and against pro life libertarians is that the main purpose of the party was to get the government out of our lives, however I should bring up that it violates the 9th amendment so it is unconstitutional already, besides it is murder regardless, something illegal in every human civilization, abortion completely eliminates the life of a healthy human fetus!

Roe V Wade the law that officially legalized abortion says that a woman can not legally have an abortion until she is 20 weeks pregnant last time I checked fetal brain waves begin at 6 weeks and the baby has all the parts necessary to feel pain at 12 weeks, these facts completely destroy arguments that say that there is a difference between a fetus and human life and you don't need religion to understand that, I am an atheist and I still understand that abortion eliminates human life and is therefore wrong.

Where do I stand on legislation? I think abortion should be legal from week 1 to 12 once you get to the 12 week mark you are too late to get an abortion. Now what about in cases like rape,incest or life of the mother? I would be more comfortable if the states could decide on rape/incest however in cases where mothers life is at risk I say completely legalize abortion.

If you don't believe the facts on fetal development check out the link the prove you wrong, also if you are curious about the libertarians for life movement check out the link to the website.

Supporting Evidence: Fetal development abortion facts (www.nrlc.org)
Side: TRUE
3 points

I know what you mean. I am also Libertarian and I am pro-life as well (for a moment I thought I was the only one!). That's my only qualm about the party. Personally, I would like to take it farther and just ban abortion altogether, but I know that will probably be impossible.

What I thought is interesting in Roe v. Wade is that the mother taking the suit to the Supreme Court had her baby, and became a strong pro-life activist afterwards.

Kudos to you man!

Side: TRUE
0 points

Luckily for us it is not as uncommon to find a pro-life libertarian as it is to find a pro-life democrat LOL, as I had said before 30% of libertarians are pro-life!

I do have to bring up that personally I do not want to abandon ALL abortion simply because women deserve the opportunity to get an abortion when the fetus can not even feel pain which is in the first 12 weeks because in that case abortion would be quick, simple and harmless, I think the states should decide if abortion would be legal under rape/incest which I would predict the majority of the damn country would allow abortion in that case.

I definitely feel abortion should be allowed if the mothers life is at risk for 2 big reasons, 1st big reason there are already alternatives to abortion if the mothers life is at risk early induced labor or c sections, etc. And 2nd there are also extremely rare situations where the baby's life AND the mothers are both at risk then I definitely support abortion in that case to because by doing this you are at least saving 1 life, besides the baby will die either way.

Anyway It's great that you agree with me for the most part, the biggest reason I am pro-life is because of this video from another libertarian fighting against abortion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSvP9nTiHYo

Side: TRUE
Sitara(11080) Disputed
2 points

Women have the right to choose. Forcing a woman to be pregnant against her will is no better than rape.

Side: FALSE
libertyFTW(213) Disputed
1 point

I have changed a view on this issue, I now support complete decriminalization of abortion under rape/incest instead of legalization under states rights!

Side: FALSE
1 point

My views on the issue have once again changed now I am pro-choice and a Liberal (I've come a long way)

Side: FALSE
4 points

LOL, Who in the world is pro abortion?

Could you even picture that.

Parents to be- Hi we're having a baby, and we just came to see how everything's looking.

Pro Abortionist doctor- Yea well I'm a pro abortionist so I'm gonna kill it.

I think the term you're looking for is Pro-choice

Side: FALSE
3 points

You rock bro. Prochoice is so not proabortion. .

Side: FALSE
Chuz-Life(497) Clarified
3 points

I appreciate your vote and comment on the human being question but I'm gonna have to pose the 'pro-abortion' thing as a question in another debate some other time.

Side: TRUE
Del1176(4974) Clarified
2 points

I am pro-abortion whilst not being pro-choice.

My reasoning to support abortion is purely based on population control.

Laugh at me all you want, I'll be pissing on you in hell. ;)

Side: TRUE
libertyFTW(213) Disputed
-1 points

First of all there is no God! Lets just make that clear.

Second of all pro-choice=pro-abortion you can not be pro-abortion and yet be pro-choice and visa versa.

Third of all your claims about population control are completely ridiculous, all of the left wing rumors about population control is sure bullshit!

So yeah I will be laughing at you all I want LOL

Side: TRUE
Chuz-Life(497) Disputed
2 points

Logic 101:

A proponent for gay marriage is called "pro-gay marriage"

A proponent for gun rights is called "pro-gun"

A proponent for legalizing recreational drugs is called "pro-drug"

A proponent for gays in the military is "pro-gays in the military"

A proponent for legalized abortion is called pro...

(answer: abortion)

Side: TRUE

It would be like if i made pro-slavery into pro-property

Side: TRUE
1 point

yea yea yea, join the argument about the lizzie's the ismaillas, and prodigee. This is too funny, abby's in on it too.

Side: FALSE
1 point

FALSE!

If I have a sexy bitch in a dressed stage of appearance it doesn't equal a sexy bitch alone. ;)

Side: FALSE

Agreed!

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible

Side: FALSE
1 point

As I posted in response to Chuz-Life on the troll debate before he banned everyone who disagreed:

If you believe this is a logical argument against abortion, then you have to by definition agree that a human being in the sperm state is a human being, or for females, a human being in the egg state is still a human being,

And then you must logically stop petitioning humans to follow your odd dogma, and spend that time demanding god do so, since in these states god, via nature, aborts far more humans than have ever even been in the fetal state, in all of human history.

Or if you are a reasonable being you could realize that the determining factor is self-awareness and not what that thing will someday perhaps become,

And accept that if one decides to have an abortion prior to the third trimester, nothing in fact is lost at all, not a human, nothing. Nothing more than all of the zillions of sperm and eggs who were never turned into people.

Side: FALSE
Centifolia(1319) Disputed
2 points

LOL Hell no!

A sperm is just the part of a man, an egg cell is the part of a woman. Losing them is just the same as losing blood.

But once they became together as one and fertilized to create a fetus, it is already meant to become and be treated as a human being. Funny how you guys give humanitary rights to animals but not among the humans who holds the future generation.

The carelessness of the parents is something that the baby is not meant to pay with their life. And Legal isn't always Moral

Side: TRUE
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

But once they became together as one and fertilized to create a fetus, it is already meant to become and be treated as a human being.

Fact: At the point of conception the fetus has no more self awareness than the sperm or the egg individually, nor does it 3 to 6 months after that point. After six months it may have the self-awareness of an insect.

So my analogy is factually correct.

But you are not basing your idea on facts, which is fine, I'm happy to address your concerns as well,

you are using potential. You believe that thing, upon conception is meant to be.

You've said so and I will show you where, but let's not gloss over exactly what you believe because I find it is helpful for individuals, like yourself, who have an invested ideological incentive to thoughtlessly defend an indefensible position.

You believe, literally, that of the millions of sperm in each ejaculation, and of the 300,000 eggs a woman has in her body, that those very two were meant to meet at that very time. Keep in mind all of the billions of people in the world as well. You believe that it was preordained for those two people to meet at exactly that time, have exactly that egg ovulating, and exactly that one sperm would win the race.

This is your belief, there was no free will, you did not choose, you were controlled by some divine power to make it just so regardless of the astronomical odds. That is the only thing that "it is already meant to become and be treated as a human being" can ever mean.

It is important to describe this exactly because people who say this rarely or never think of the true implications of it. There is no other implication for the statement "it is already meant to become and be treated as a human being." To be true there necessarily cannot be free will at all or choice at all.

But okay, that is what you believe.

If that is the case, then the person who aborts also has no free will.

This too is necessarily true because every action has a reaction, and if all potential was "meant to become" then at some point an abortion which was not "meant to be" would result in a different child than would have been born, who'd consequently have different DNA, who'd consequently make different kids than were meant to be,

etc, etc, etc,

This is not outlandish or silly. It is the only conclusion to your theory of "meant to become," the only one.

If you have free will then humans are random and you have to measure life by self-awareness because everything else is too random to apply.

If you do not have free will than humans are not random, in which case you are correct, but at the very same time you have no right to deny another an abortion because that too has to be in order for your own theory to work.

Logically, you prove my point.

Side: FALSE
timber113(796) Disputed
2 points

then you have to by definition agree that a human being in the sperm state is a human being, or for females, a human being in the egg state is still a human being

neither sperm or egg have the capacity to become human unless they fuse together. They are half of a human being and will never grow to be human and are never human, but a foetus is human because it has the necessary prerequisites to be considered human.

And then you must logically stop petitioning humans to follow your odd dogma, and spend that time demanding god do so, since in these states god, via nature, aborts far more humans than have ever even been in the fetal state, in all of human history.

I'll certainly entertain this argument. There is a difference between us and God- we can't create one hair on a child's body or a foetus from literal nothing, but God can, and because he can, he can abort as many babies as he wants.

Or if you are a reasonable being you could realize that the determining factor is self-awareness and not what that thing will someday perhaps become

Because we can't communicate with a foetus it isn't self aware. That's rubbish. Just because you can't speak to it doesn't make it unaware of what is happening around it. It is aware enough to collect the necessary nutrients to keep living, growing and specializing cells it needs for independent living. Anything that can do this is a little self aware. By your argument, people in a vegetative state are 'not aware' but yet we still feel the obligation to stick IV fluids in there arms and keep them alive.

And accept that if one decides to have an abortion prior to the third trimester, nothing in fact is lost at all, not a human, nothing. Nothing more than all of the zillions of sperm and eggs who were never turned into people.

If your mother decided to abort you I wouldn't have to have this conversation with you. And I think that counts as a loss

Side: TRUE
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

neither sperm or egg have the capacity to become human unless they fuse together. They are half of a human being and will never grow to be human and are never human, but a foetus is human because it has the necessary prerequisites to be considered human.

I could say no fertilized egg has the capacity to become a human unless it develops properly. I could say it does not have the capacity to become a human if the woman's birth canal is not wide enough. I could say it does not have the capacity to become a human via a million different scenarios, even after impregnation.

So why is your arbitrary point of "humanity" correct?

I say it is not. I believe the point at which it should be treated with this integrity is the point at which it has feelings, self-awareness, consciousness.

Which is well after the point abortion is not allowed already except in extreme cases.

I'll certainly entertain this argument. There is a difference between us and God- we can't create one hair on a child's body or a foetus from literal nothing, but God can, and because he can, he can abort as many babies as he wants.

Ah, so in your mind power has an inherent right to do with power what they please. But those without power must be held to a higher standard of morality than those with power.

By your logic then, if one is rich and powerful, and another is poor and has no power, that rich person should have more rights.

This is your logic, which is fine, religion is weird like that.

I disagree.

I believe if anything an all powerful being should be held to a higher standard of morality. If your god existed as you describe, this being should be despised in fact for abuse of that power.

But all of this is inconsequential to the subject of abortion because religion cannot be applied to legislation. It is unconstitutional and frankly stupid and backwards as you can plainly see simply by looking at nations who base law on religion presently and historically.

Because we can't communicate with a foetus it isn't self aware. That's rubbish. Just because you can't speak to it doesn't make it unaware of what is happening around it. It is aware enough to collect the necessary nutrients to keep living, growing and specializing cells it needs for independent living. Anything that can do this is a little self aware.

Your information is incorrect. We know when a foetus is somewhat conscious by the development of the brain, not by whether we can communicate, obviously. And abortion is not allowed well before this point already, except in extreme circumstances.

By your argument, people in a vegetative state are 'not aware' but yet we still feel the obligation to stick IV fluids in there arms and keep them alive.

1. We only feel the obligation to keep them alive when it is their will, set out prior to this disaster, or where the family decides when there is no such will present. Otherwise if doctors determine there is no hope for rehabilitation taking these people off of life support is in no way immoral. Sometimes it is the more moral choice when that individual may be in pain. So again, you are arguing with incorrect information.

2. Your analogy is incorrect because that person has a developed brain which is capable of conscious, perhaps depending on level of vegetation. A foeus is not in any way capable of this. These parts of the brain do not yet exist.

If your mother decided to abort you I wouldn't have to have this conversation with you. And I think that counts as a loss

Or if my mother would have had sex with my dad two days earlier or two days later it would have been a different batch of sperm and I'd not exist. Or if it were a different angle and a different sperm won the race I'd not exist. Or if they'd have never met. Or all of those scenarios for each of their parents, or each of those scenarios for each of their parent's parents, etc etc etc.

There are trillions upon trillions of scenarios in which I don't exist, someone else exists, several someone elses exist, none exist, etc.

And in all instances none would know the difference, including myself.

Side: FALSE
Sitara(11080) Disputed
1 point

Women have the right to choose. .

Side: FALSE

Merriam Webster Dictionary defines a "human being" as "any man, woman, or child of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage". A fetus is not yet a man, woman, and it is not a child until it is born. It is a human fetus.

Side: FALSE
Centifolia(1319) Disputed
1 point

Yeah sure, but according to biology, the characteristics of living creatures are as follows

1. Living things are highly organized, from the smallest part to the largest.

2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.

3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.

4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.

5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

Right at the very moment the sperm makes contact with the egg, the egg starts to act independently, It starts to organize, it quickly leans how to acquire nutrition and use it, it knows how to respond to their environment and knows how to adapt to it. It even knows how to reproduce by dividing its cells over and over.

An ordinary Egg and Sperm cannot do any of this. Which concludes that Life starts at conception.

(Yes, this is a repost)

Side: TRUE
0 points

If it's okay with my wife.... "Will you marry me? "

Side: TRUE
1 point

In the early stages for a fetus it is not a human being until the first trimester it's a fact that over 80% of abortions occur within the first trimester and are usually insignificant. You know about those fucking annoying pro-lifers that like to push pictures of fetuses in your face well those pictures are zoomed in because a fetus at 12 week is only a little bigger than a rain drop!

Side: FALSE

Does a woman have the right to an abortion under the U.S. Constitution? If someone is a strict constructionist who interprets the Constitution word for word, the sanction for abortion is given under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution defines a citizen “a citizen” at birth. If a woman is carrying a fetus in the womb, the U.S. Constitution does not designate the fetus as “a citizen.” It would take an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to declare a fetus a citizen. You have to be born in order to be recognized as a citizen. Therefore, a woman does have the right to choose. A fetus inside the womb is not designated as a citizen according to the U.S. Constitution so by default is not entitled to life, liberty, or prosperity. You have to be born in order to be endowed with those privileges. To conclude, neither the Federal government nor any of the States can deny a woman the right to choose.

If abortion is murder, abortion would have been terminated years ago due to the cruel and unusual punishment clause under the Eighth Amendment. Again, proof that a fetus is not recognized as a citizen of the United States of America.

Side: FALSE