CreateDebate


Debate Info

75
93
Yes No
Debate Score:168
Arguments:118
Total Votes:182
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (45)
 
 No (47)

Debate Creator

HoldTheMayo(5908) pic



If a fetus is a human being, is abortion wrong?

Assume that all the "is a fetus a human being" debates have been resolved, and everyone (including you) agrees that a fetus is in fact a human being. That being the case, would abortion be wrong?

Yes

Side Score: 75
VS.

No

Side Score: 93

Of course, then it would kill a human being, and that is murder.

Side: Yes
Akulakhan(2973) Disputed
3 points

I disagree, what do we call killing a human being that belongs to a warring country of our own?

Side: No
shoutoutloud(4245) Clarified
2 points

You have a point, although if the fetus, which in this debate is considered a human being, is from a citizen in your country, then that makes the fetus a citizen in the same country, right?

Side: Yes
shoutoutloud(4245) Clarified
1 point

That would also mean that the fetus is living under the same laws as all human beings. When you are in war, you are most likely in an area where your own laws aren't valid.

Side: Yes
4 points

If you define human life as something important, then the argument is over

Side: Yes
2 points

By the wording of your question, I'm guessing that you are asking about elective or non medical necessary abortions. I don't like to use the terms "right and wrong" for this debate but I would come down on the side that says they (non medically necessary abortions) should be banned. Absolutely.

Side: Yes

Yes, I was thinking about elective abortions. I figured you would still be pro life, but I was wondering if any pro choicers would change their mind.

Side: Yes

I don't know what the percentage of pro choicers would be who changed their mind. It's not a bad thing to ask though. But I know a reasonable percentage of the women I know would probably want to keep abortion. Not all of them, but a lot of them would.

Side: Yes
2 points

I should think that any human being would fall under the laws that prohibit and punish murder. But then, we do live in a corrupt society, so whatever.

Side: Yes

What's the fetus going to do if abortion is legalized? Nothing, duh. So I think yes it is. Once it's assumed a fetus is a human being, by the definition of human your going by, it's wrong. It's like killing a paralyzed person who's less than a day old in the sense that that person can't do anything.

The only thing I would ask you is what's your definition of a human being? Is anything with enough human DNA human? Do you count neanderthals as human because some people do? I mean, people educated on the subject have a pretty strict definition of human, but some people think if it's homo sapient, it's human. In that case, if you judge it by DNA, the fetus is human. Therefore it is wrong to abort.

If you judge it by something else to make it human, then that's different. One may, under the definition of human, not include fetuses and just a human that's lived outside of their parents stomach. That's not the scientific definition of human though.

Then again, does a fetus have feelings? Maybe, and if that's part of your definition of human, then that's probably the $64 million question.

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes killing is wrong period end of discussion done goodbye.

Side: Yes

There are reasons for being pro choice that have nothing to do with this. A 17 year old can't vote, but that's not because they're not human.

Side: No
ghostheadX(1104) Disputed
3 points

That doesn't address his question though. He's talking about the fetus, who is a lot more helpless than the 17 year old girl if it is human anyways.

Side: Yes
5 points

Whose question? What question?

Side: No
1 point

Why does an unborn childs right to life have to depend on voting ages?

Side: Yes
1 point

Um, it doesn't. Thank you for your excellent question.

Side: No
5 points

If foetuses are human beings then we must establish human rights that only apply to born human beings versus those that may also include unborn human beings. Clearly no one is suggestion that a 5 year old child and a fetus of 5 months gestation should be treated exactly the same in all circumstance.

Side: No
4 points

Not in all cases. Abortions should be allowed under extreme circumstances.

Therefore legal in some respects. And killing is not wrong morally. I say that because noone finds it morally wrong to walk out and slaughter anything else. However, when it comes to one of it's own species it has a hissy fit. It's biased and I don't care if I look like Hitlar. Comparing me to that man is in no way accurate and it just show's how far Chuz and his possy will go to demonize any individual that disagrees with his logic.

Side: No
5 points

In that case I agree with you, but that falls under the category of a special case. If a 16 year old girl gets raped that's one thing, but if an 25 year old girl, just out of college, chose to have sex and not use a condom, they should live with their decision.

I think that if a fetus is a human being, that life should be given a lot of legal priority since a fetus can't defend itself in court. But I agree with what your saying only as a special exception.

Side: No
sauh(1106) Disputed
1 point

Not to be a 'spelling Nazi' but its 'Hitler' you are like; not 'Hitlar'.

Side: Yes
link6065(741) Clarified
1 point

I lol . then was like |o.O|9 <-----sieg heil

Side: Yes
ghostheadX(1104) Clarified
1 point

I know how to spell Hitler. That was a typo. How does that affect my argument?

Side: Yes
1 point

And killing is not wrong morally. I say that because noone finds it morally wrong to walk out and slaughter anything else.

You dont see dog slashers or horse slashers. We do have animal cruelty and people dont like it. Some vegetarians dont eat meat simply because of what happenes to the animals. Also lots of people do see "killing" as morally wrong. If there was nothing wrong with it then it probably wouldn't be illegal.

However, when it comes to one of it's own species it has a hissy fit

Quite true mostly because it is our own species and we tend to be more closely related with one another. I am sure if an animal could talk we would probably see killing them as terribly bad.

Side: Yes
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
0 points

It's biased and I don't care if I look like Hitlar. Comparing me to that man is in no way accurate and it just show's how far Chuz and his possy will go to demonize any individual that disagrees with his logic.

Logic is universal and necessary; it is not subjective. I used logic against you and won in regards to a fetus being a human being and human organism. The only argument that pro-choice and pro-abortion peoples can make is that the fetus is not a philosophical "person", because by definition the fetus is a human. However, if one is to degrade certain humans from being persons, then one is philosophically identical to Hitler, only a worse person. Why do I say that? Because more humans have been killed by abortions than by the Holocaust. Therefore, you are actually worse than Hitler. So in that sense, it is not accurate to say that you look like Hitler, because you are worse. And because you are complaining about being compared to Hitler, it shows one of three things: 1) you either do not understand that you are worse than Hitler, which is ignorance, 2) you know that you are worse than Hitler but don't want to accept it, or 3) you don't want to be morally better than you are now, because Hitler did that which is morally better than you, because he condoned the killing of a lesser number of humans. I'm sorry, but your position is one of the most evil things that has ever happened in the history of the world.

Side: Yes
Nox0(1393) Disputed
3 points

Logic is universal and necessary

I've honestly laughed :D Talking you about logic really diminish meaning of that word :D

Side: No
link6065(741) Disputed
1 point

you're whole argument here is completely illogical. .

Side: No
ghostheadX(1104) Disputed
1 point

I didn't speak against logic. I spoke against YOUR logic. I say that because you make no sense. 1. Your talking as if I'm speaking FOR abortions when I talked. I was speaking against other than in small circumstances. So Im not disagreeing. 2. You aren't using logic.

Side: No
4 points

I think abortion is question of relative morality. Personally, I believe that it is mainly wrong with the exception of the child effecting another's life. Rape victims should be allowed to go through the process of abortion, or if it affects the mother's health. The mother has a lot more meaning to the world than the child has- so far; however if it was the mother's fault in any way, or if the couple just do it because they're not ready for the child, they should have thought of that before!

Side: No
3 points

This demands there be criteria established or what constitutes the stages in life that a human deserves specific rights.

Side: No
3 points

No it's not a human being. It could be but obviously it's not.

Side: No
3 points

What about giving some rights to sperm? It's pretty much half of potential human being? :D

Side: No
trumpet_guy(502) Clarified
1 point

A sperm cannot grow without an egg.

Side: Yes
Nox0(1393) Clarified
1 point

same as fetus can't do without woman :D

Side: Yes
Nox0(1393) Clarified
1 point

same as fetus can't do without woman :D

Side: Yes
2 points

I think there's a tendency among pro-life advocates to deny any arguments that aren't purely deontological. I think this is stubborn position to take; we absolutely have to take some consequences into consideration. For example, we have to take into consideration that if somebody wants an abortion then the child is probably unwanted. This means that the quality of childhood the baby will get is likely to be low. This is a crucial point, which I don't ever hear addressed by pro-lifers.

But there's another purely consequantialistic point that is never being addressed either. The global ecological system is under a tremendous burden due to our ever increasing human population. If we haven't already reached the earths carying capacity we surely are very close to reaching it. We should strive towards stabilizing the growth of the human population or even decrease our amounts, because overpopulation means suffering - a whole lot more of suffering than a half-conscious fetus is capable of experiencing. So for this reason, abortion shouldn't not only be allowed. It might just be praised.

Side: No
VecVeltro(412) Disputed
2 points

This is going to be long because I find your post to be one of the more balanced and sensible ones.

I agree that there is a tendency towards deontology. I myself maintain that consequences have no moral dimension, only the action has moral relevance. Still, however it seems to me that the pro-choice are are equally stubborn with their utilitarian approach.

Pro-lifers generally see intrinsic value in human life and that human beings can never be used as means, but ends in themselves. The right to life is something so sacred that no socio-economic motive can justify violating it. The principle is that it is always wrong to kill innocent human beings, it is always wrong even if it brings about a greater increase in happiness, wealth, stability etc.

Even if the baby is unwanted or if he/she's gonna have a bad childhood - it doesn't matter to a pro-lifer because people do not get their value from other people - we don't measure a persons value just by how much people like them or enjoy their presence. If you have some loner who has no friends or family - is his life no longer valuable simply because nobody wants or desires his presence?

Likewise, we do not measure a persons right to life by his/her socio-economic conditions - we can't just start killing vagrants because we simply decided that their living conditions and life-style can't possibly be fulfilling, so we're doing them a favor by killing them.

When it comes to overpopulation - yes it is a problem and I agree that some solutions need to be found. However, that solution needs to be compatible with the principle of the right to life.

First of all, we need to understand that overpopulation isn't a problem because people have more children - it's a problem because human beings simply live far longer than they used to. This has led to very severe sociological problems, especially in Europe where the number of elderly people is very high and the number of young people keeps dwindling - not only because of emigration, but because there is a huge number of pregnancies being terminated and there just isn't a large influx of youth into the population.

A very interesting solution to overpopulation would simply be to stop funding the sort of medical research that has the purpose of extending our lives. That way we'll make sure that there is a steady influx of youth while not killing anyone.

Side: Yes
1 point

I would like to thank you for taking the time to write such a long and sophisticated answer.

It appears to me that the root of problem may lie in the the consequence ethics / deontological ethics debate. It is argueable a debate that has to be resolved before any real conclusion can be made about this whole topic. But if you maintain that consequences aren't morally important, then I will refrain from going into this side of the debate.

I agree that every human is of paramount value in and off itself, but I don't agree with the Kantian view that no human being may be used a means for other goals. I think there's a lot of intuitive truth in such a proposition, but I don't think it really cuts to the bone of it. I believe that it's alright to use a human being as a means for another higher goal, but that if we are to do this, we have an incredibly high burden of proof that said goal indeed is higher, and that there is no alternative course of action.

But you actually convinced me that there indeed are other alternatives to the overpopulation problem, so right I don't really know if that argument supports pro-choice anymore. I will have to think a bit more about it. As for how airtight the 'unwanted child'-argument is I don't really know either. I only think that it's a good argument if we have strong arguments that pro-life dramatically reduces quality or possibillity of life for a lot of people. This post of yours drastically weakened my arguments, so if you are wondering, that's why I am supporting your comment.

Side: Yes
0 points

Very nicely worded and it can all be reduced down to the fact that all human beings (persons) are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

It's what our Constitution says and it's why I never allow myself to be drawn into debates about the "values" of humans and such to begin with.

Side: Yes
2 points

It is not a human being, not yet. So no, abortion is not wrong.

Side: No
ghostheadX(1104) Disputed
1 point

You don't know that. You don't know what point makes it human. The argument is in the case that it is, is it wrong? Your making up scientific fact. There's no rule that says it's not human at some point. There are no conclusive studies yet. And you aren't addressing the argument properly. Until you just announced that just now.

Side: Yes
Gloria(135) Disputed
1 point

Then, going by YOUR logic - you don't know that either, and since there are no conclusive studies - neither of us CAN know. So debating this is pointless since neither of us can know therefore can't be right or wrong.

Side: No
Chuz-Life(496) Disputed
0 points

If a human being who is in the fetal stage of their life, growth and development is not 'a human being'.... Then what kind of being are they?

Side: Yes
Gloria(135) Disputed
1 point

It's not a human yet.

It's a blob of cells with a potential to grow into a human being.

Side: No
1 point

No. I support choice no matter what the Facebook bitches say. .

Side: No
1 point

I think that overall, the woman's rights come first.

(The minimum argument length 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: No