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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
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?
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?
Hold on I'm going to group our chain of arguments together, I'm getting sidetracked.
shoutoutloud
-Of course, then it would kill a human being, and that is murder.
-
Akulakhan
-I disagree, what do we call killing a human being that belongs to a warring country of our own?
-
shoutoutloud
-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?
-
Akulakhan
-No, citizens have to had been born already; it's a prerequisite for qualifying.
-
shoutoutloud
-Okey then. But if it were somehow proved that fetuses are in fact human beings, wouldn't the law have to be changed to include them?
-
Akulakhan
-No, not all human beings are citizens in the country they sit in.
-
shoutoutloud
-You mean illegals?
-So that would mean a fetus, AKA human being, is an illegal in it's own country before birth?
-
Akulakhan
-.....
-Yeah I guess so, if you're willing to prescribe them the property of an independent "human being".
-
shoutoutloud
-But it is still a crime to kill an illegal, it is still murder and people have been put in jail for killing illegal citizens.
-
The error here was implying that unborn fetuses are prescribed any rights at all, or any citizenship at all. In that sense, fetuses aren't illegal; or no less illegal than any other organism that naturally grows or thrives in a given country.
-
The only exception would be for endangered animals, and humans are anything but.
But the debate said if fetuses were human beings, pretending that they actually were human being, then they should have citizenships and rights, right?
For no reason should humans be entitled to citizenship prior to birth. If you can give a reason as to why it'd certainly help your case, otherwise it seems a cheap way to legally protect fetuses from abortion for no actual reason.
The reason is because they are human beings. Isn't that a reason?
Let me clarify, I'm actually pro-choice - but that is because I don't believe fetuses are human beings when they are only a few weeks old. But if it somehow was proven that they ARE human beings, then I probably think they should have the rights as other human beings.
Just being human isn't reason to grant someone rights. Attaining responsibility and awareness and/or consciousness earns certain rights in almost every social system. Babies are conscious enough to deserve the right to life, and most everyone would agree to that, I'd think. The point to be made here is that the line between deserving life and having no rights is undefinable due to a number of variables and beliefs, and anyone whom tries to define that line arrogantly claims to know when YOU deserve your own right to life.
Like you HoldtheMayo so truthfully said, a 17 year old doesn't have a right to vote, but not because she isn't a human being. A fetus being a fetus isn't the only reason why it should be legal to abort, there are several other reasons.
According to our Constitution, a person does not have to be a citizen in order to have a right to the equal protections of our laws.
Yick Wo was not an American citizen – because by law he wasn’t allowed to be. Yet the Court ruled that his rights were still protected by the 14th Amendment because it says that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It does not limit that protection only to citizens.
Still this pivots on the idea that a fetus is a human and deserves personhood, which is a stretch upon an imposed faulty truth.
Do you honestly believe that a fetus is a person, entitled to all rights of the law and subject to all repercussions of the law? If so, you MUST believe that a baby whom's birthing kills it's mother should be arrested for manslaughter.
A) The mother is involuntarily forced to give birth, with or without inducing, for it still depends on the will of the fetus-then-baby to be born.
B) The fetus-then-baby causes unintentional harm to the mother in doing so. Consented or not, the harm done to the mother is still criminal.
C) The mother dies due to blood loss or other complications due to the unintended criminal negligence caused by the fetus-then-baby.
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.
Well, first I said killing an human being is murder, then you suggested war, and then I said that in war there are not really any laws and if a fetus were to be a human being it would fit under the world of the country it's mother is from, then you mentioned illegal people do not fit under the laws of the country their invading, so I said killing an illegal is still murder:)
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.
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.
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.
November 5, 2003, the referenced language precludes the patenting of human organisms, including human embryos. He further indicated that the amendment has "exactly the same scope as the current USPTO policy," which assures that any claim that can be broadly construed as a human being, including a human embryo or fetus, is not patentable
Alright, you said "there are reasons for being pro choice that have nothing to do with this. A 17 year old can't vote but it's not because they aren't human. " What was that supposed to mean?
It means that just because someone is human, that doesn't automatically mean they're entitled to all rights that a human can have. A 34 year old can't be president, even though they're human. And I wouldn't say that a fetus has a right to life, even if they're human.
I think you have a strange view of equal rights because you are confusing human rights with other rights and privileges. Your right that people have to be more than just a human being in order to be president or to vote but you only have to be a human being and alive to have a right to your life.
To do that, you would need a good (Constitutionally justifiable) reason for amending the Constitution so as to deny basic human rights to people who now (or who arguably should) have them...
With Slavery and other periods like that to learn from? I don't see us going in that direction again.
Here I'm going along with making a list as you suggested.
My contribution will be what I don't put on the list: pregnancy.
Here I'm saying that pregnancy doesn't belong on the list (i.e., pregnancy may be a situation we don't mean to get ourselves into, but not one where we don't have the right to kill children to get ourselves back out).
Were you for or against the killing of children at Sandy Hook?
I'm just having a hard time reconciling the whole pro-gun/anti-abortion thing.
I said: "Shall we make a list of situations we don't mean to get ourselves into... where we don't have the right to kill children to get ourselves back out?"
You answered "Sure let's do that"... and you submitted 'PREGNANCY' and then claimed that it doesn't belong on the list... ???
Like I said "Dafuk?"
As for your crap about guns? Guns are one of the best tools we have for defending innocent lives. That's why cops carry them.
But hey,... thanks for that look into your thought process.
Pregnancy is not a situation where A and not B. A = we don't mean to get ourselves into it, and B = we have the right to kill children to get ourselves back out.
I'm disagreeing with the not B part. We have the right to kill children via abortion. Does that clarify dafuk?
I still haven't heard whether you were for or against the killing of children at Sandy Hook. Do people only have the right to life until they're born?
We have the right to kill children via abortion. Does that clarify dafuk?
I almost missed this.
Thanks for being honest about it.
So, I'm guessing you oppose the Roe v Wade decision because it secures the State's right to regulate abortions and even to ban them after the child is viable?
Roe v Wade is good enough for now. I just want abortion to be an option until we're able to reversibly sterilize everyone at birth, and abortion becomes unnecessary.
If abortions are a woman's right and it doesn't matter that it kills a child.... she should be allowed to kill it right up to full term though.... right?
It becomes more creepy the later it gets, but I can't point to one particular time when it crosses a line. As a practical matter, you don't need to wait until you're 8.5 months pregnant to get an abortion.
Appeal to authority fallacy. Unless you can prove that the constitution is perfectly moral and must be accepted with absolute authority (you can't) you cannot use it in a debate and expect others to accept it as absolute truth.
Yes, I am fully aware of that. Were this a legal argument, specific to the United States, then I would not have made the point. But, this is a moral debate, in the general sense, so we are not debating with the assumption that the constitution is a binding document.
Do you have a Constitution where you live? An adoption of or establishment of human rights? (I'm betting that you do) Do you have laws against murder? Genocide? Fetal Homicide?
That's not the point. If there are any laws on morality, then they are true wherever someone lives. Simply because a bunch of people said that something should be a certain way does not make it that way.
If you want to argue a point, then you need to defend that point with logic and reasoning. Saying 'someone else said it so it must be true' does not fulfill those requirements (although it can be used as part of an argument).
If you want to argue a point, then you need to defend that point with logic and reasoning. Saying 'someone else said it so it must be true' does not fulfill those requirements (although it can be used as part of an argument).
I have done both - consistently and for a long time. Like you said, the wording, existing laws, legal and other definitions, etc. are all separate parts of the overall argument for my conclusions.
I would like to weigh the totality of my findings against yours (point for point) on any given day... but so far, I can't get any pro-aborts to support their claims with anything of substance, logic, nor lines of reasoning.
are all separate parts of the overall argument for my conclusions.
You can disagree with him about it all you want.
It's exactly what the Constitution says.
I have no problem with you saying that the Constitution supports your argument - arguably it does. But that's not what you said. You completely disregarded the argument he put forward and used the Constitution as absolute truth. That's what I argued against.
I'm not even trying to argue on this debate with you - I have no wish to get involved with yet another abortion debate. But you most certainly did act as though you could not be wrong because a single piece of evidence supported you.
It's not too late to prove me wrong about anything. I will consider any and all arguments - but you better be ready for me to present things to defend my own conclusions too.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You apparently do no understand logic. Logic is based in necessity................... But I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't understand logic to understand that.....
Except that I only used logic. If you'd like to say that logic is illogical, then A=~A and reality is literally subjective. Therefore, what you are saying is necessarily illogical. I have only used logic this entire time.
Go fuck yourself Lolzors and stop blaming me for conducting abortions because I have opinions. Saying I am worse then a tyrant hellbent on killing off the entire world is illogical.
There are worse out there then Hitler but, those people are at a Bilderburg meeting right now in Waterford north of London. Stop demonizing me. To the extent you got going on it may even be a crime.
Saying I am worse then a tyrant hellbent on killing off the entire world is illogical.
You are advocating abortion, which has killed millions more than how many the Nazis killed. You are, therefore, worse than Hitler.
There are worse out there then Hitler but, those people are at a Bilderburg meeting right now in Waterford north of London. Stop demonizing me. To the extent you got going on it may even be a crime.
I have only been speaking logically. If you are saying that it is a crime to stop logical talk, then you are really worse than Hitler. Hitler burned books to stop people from speaking out against him. You are just falling more and more....
You are advocating abortion, which has killed millions more than how many the Nazis killed. You are, therefore, worse than Hitler.
Your logic is as flawed as global warming. I don't advocate abortion for no reason. I believe woman have rights and the right to choose and under extreme circumstances. I do not believe woman should be forced against their will to have a baby they next asked for and never wanted in the first place (as in the result of rape). I don't believe people should be having abortions for no reason. Saying I'm worse then Hitler for advocating something is not the same as actually going out and killing millions of people myself. Therefore, I am not worse then Hitler.
I have only been speaking logically. If you are saying that it is a crime to stop logical talk, then you are really worse than Hitler. Hitler burned books to stop people from speaking out against him. You are just falling more and more....
No actually what you are doing is abusive. It's comparing one person to another to demonize the targets character.
Your logic is as flawed as global warming. I don't advocate abortion for no reason. I believe woman have rights and the right to choose and under extreme circumstances. I do not believe woman should be forced against their will to have a baby they next asked for and never wanted in the first place (as in the result of rape). I don't believe people should be having abortions for no reason. Saying I'm worse then Hitler for advocating something is not the same as actually going out and killing millions of people myself. Therefore, I am not worse then Hitler.
People don't have rights. And if they did, would a woman's rights trump the rights of another? You are forcing a human to die if you are not pro-choice. Which is more immoral? Rights, if they are real, being revoked to save a life are more moral than allowing a woman to have a choice, which could kill an innocent. You are, therefore, worse than Hitler because he believed the same thing: that people's lives should be revoked for the betterment of humanity at large. Hitler did not kill really anyone; he had people kill them. You are advocating the killing, which is what Hitler did. Though you don't actually tell people to have them, you are allowing them to have them and reverting a human to that which is not a person. You are, therefore, advocating the philosophy of Hitler. So you are equivalent or worse than him from that premise. Abortions have killed more people and you are advocating them; therefore, you are worse than Hitler. Which is worse? Telling another person to murder one person or advocating the murder of 10x more? You are, therefore, more evil.
No actually what you are doing is abusive. It's comparing one person to another to demonize the targets character.
I'm comparing you to another because it is logically correct.
People don't have rights. And if they did, would a woman's rights trump the rights of another?
Logical statement: If people had rights then they would have rights.
you are forcing a human to die if you are not pro-choice
I am pro choice therefore I am not forcing a human to die.
Which is more immoral? Rights, if they are real, being revoked to save a life are more moral than allowing a woman to have a choice, which could kill an innocent
Rights being revoked from people who have them.
You are, therefore, worse than Hitler because he believed the same thing: that people's lives should be revoked for the betterment of humanity at large.
I am not saying kill children for the betterment of humanity at large. There again your logic is ill.
Hitler did not kill really anyone; he had people kill them. You are advocating the killing, which is what Hitler did.
I'm not advocating the killing. I'm saying that everyone has a choice and people shouldn't give up there rights or have them stripped from them.
Though you don't actually tell people to have them, you are allowing them to have them and reverting a human to that which is not a person. You are, therefore, advocating the philosophy of Hitler.
You obviously do not believe in freedom of choice. You also do not understand the difference between me saying you have the right to choose. Legally or illegally and I would be more concerned with the safety of those involved rather then just saying it's wrong. Women would have abortions regardless if it was legal or not. You on the other hand are advocating that if you want an abortion you deserve the chance to die as well. Potentially killing more people. Therefore you are worse then Hitler.
Abortions have killed more people and you are advocating them; therefore, you are worse than Hitler.
I'm advocating that people under extreme circumstances should be allowed to have an abortion... I am worse then Hitler.
Telling another person to murder one person or advocating the murder of 10x more? You are, therefore, more evil.
You need to get a life.
I'm comparing you to another because it is logically correct.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
I think the US declaration of independence says it even more eloquently - We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The whole idea here is again, a deontological one - that human beings have certain unalienable rights that come from a higher power, a divine source even. Since such rights come from a higher source, the government cannot ever legislate them away and when the government attempts to do so - it violates the natural law and as such becomes illegitimate.
The right to life cannot be taken away, it cannot be given - every human being has it by the sheer virtue of their existence. The right to life can only be violated.
This idea that human beings have intrinsic value is, in my opinion, the greatest philosophical and moral triumph of the human race. This idea is something that is not self-evident at all if you look at history and it saddens me that such a principle is once again chipped away when it took such great effort and time to construct it.
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.
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.
Sorry hon, your side has already lost that debate. We already have legal definitions which not only declare a child in the womb to be a human being... they also make it a crime of murder in many situations other than abortion.
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.)
