CreateDebate


Debate Info

25
50
Yes No
Debate Score:75
Arguments:72
Total Votes:79
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (16)
 
 No (31)

Debate Creator

Akulakhan(2973) pic



If abortion is wrong, so is masturbation.

The argument is too often made that abortion is wrong because it kills a potential full human being.

And to that I say so is masturbation.

And sex that doesn't impregnate women.

Aaaaand having periods.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand shedding blood.

(stem cells in the bone that cultivate blood could potentially be scientifically developed into a fetus)


So why not just have an abortion to avoid any potential collateral damage that that child could have?

Yes

Side Score: 25
VS.

No

Side Score: 50

And if you swallow sperm, you are a cannibal ;)

Side: Yes
1 point

Dear god then that means I know so many cannibals, what "Sad, Sad" world we live in : (

Side: Yes

what "Sad, Sad" world we live in : (

It all depends. How happy have those cannibals made you feel ;)

Side: Yes
1 point

Don't even make me take this to quantum reality! Schrodinger's Zygote shall we?

Side: Yes
1 point

You want to take it to quantum reality? Ok...

Im pro life, but in certain cases, abortion is reasonable, just like animals will abandon their young if they know they wont make it. But if you want to talk quantum reality, then you need to realize if masturbation happens, the batch of sperm that is ejaculated holds a "soul" that will make it to the egg, however it is just not meant to be and so that soul will now travel to a different place to be born.

Obviously this is impossible to explain without writing a book, but in the quantum realm you must look at it spiritually, and illogically, as that is the only way you can interpret it, and you know this is true

Side: No
Akulakhan(2973) Disputed
1 point

But if you want to talk quantum reality, then you need to realize if masturbation happens, the batch of sperm that is ejaculated holds a "soul" that will make it to the egg

Untrue, unless the conditions are met to impregnate a woman in the process. And the soul thing is silly.

however it is just not meant to be and so that soul will now travel to a different place to be born.

Nothing is "meant to be* in quantum physics, it just happens to occur in such a way. And by that soul, if you mean that the sperm in another alternate dimension does impregnate someone, then it is worth keeping in mind that the identities of these specific people are different from one reality to another. If there is a reality in which I just stopped typing where I'm at and began cleaning the house, that me isn't exactly like me, is it? It begs the question of identity. And it asks if the baby born from this alternate sperm is even relatable to what was the potential baby in the original reality.

Obviously this is impossible to explain without writing a book

Quantum Physics: Particles behave unpredictably when not observed, and observing them influences their outcome.

but in the quantum realm you must look at it spiritually, and illogically, as that is the only way you can interpret it, and you know this is true

No you an just look at it as a theory and rationalise with it, as we both just did.

Side: Yes

Yes of course.

You kill potential lives, innocent children. All sperm should have legal rights, everything else is inhuman. Women who menstruate should be put in jail for killing of several innocent children.

Side: Yes
trumpet_guy(502) Disputed
2 points

-- really. Abortion is different than contraception. At conception, the thing has rights, its a human being. At a much lesser growth stage than you, but still a human.

Side: No
2 points

Well I believe that many things can be called human.

Human hair, human nail, human blood, human fetus and human sperm.

I think the only thing that should have rights are conscious creatures.

Side: Yes
BenWalters(1513) Disputed
2 points

Wow I thought you were joking but then you weren't and I'm a little scared of your opinions now.

Side: No
shoutoutloud(4302) Clarified
1 point

I was joking.

I often use sarcasm to show what I really mean, I get that some people don't realize that I'm joking, so sorry for that :)

Side: Yes
6 points

Look I'll make this easy for you. A fetus if left alone will become a child. A sperm left alone will not. A stem cell left alone will not. An egg left alone will not. Abortion is evil because it kills an unborn child. Sex that doesn't produce an offspring doesn't actually kill anyone. Any questions?

Side: No
Akulakhan(2973) Disputed
4 points

A fetus if left alone will become a child.

Actually, the mother keeps the fetus alive and allows it to grow. A fetus alone is dead.

Side: Yes
warrior(1854) Disputed
4 points

I mean if it is allowed to develop unhindered. Of course I know it gets sustenance from the mother don't be a smart ass.

Side: No
trumpet_guy(502) Disputed
1 point

The only way she can do this is suicide, starvation, or abortion :D perfectly normal for "leaving things alone" right?

Side: No
Centifolia(1318) Disputed
1 point

I believe that's a clarification than a dispute

....................................

Side: Yes
Chuz-Life(496) Disputed
1 point

Never mind the fact that embryos can be kept alive and even frozen for quite some time and still be 'alive'. And, let's just pretend that we don't know of cases where children have been delivered from a dead mother's body. Right?

Side: No
lupusFati(790) Clarified
1 point

But warrior, that's so simple! Are you sure you have your facts straight? D:

Side: Yes
warrior(1854) Disputed
1 point

Yes I'm sure. A fetus when left to run its natural course will develop into a child. None of those other things will though.

Side: No

I support all of this except the part where you say the fetus will become a child. If the woman is pregnant, she is 'with child.' She is pregnant with her child not something that might later turn into her child.

Side: No
1 point

Right well it will soon develop into a child as an independent life form. Is that better?

Side: No
1 point

Supported and upvoted.... but a child in the fetal stage of their life is already a child. They are more than just a potential child.

Edit: Damn. Someone else beat me to it. :P

Side: No
1 point

I understand that but I find you need to Speke to them in terms they will understand.

Side: No
3 points

sigh

To actually compare masturbation with abortion. How stupid can people be?

Side: No

Either I am skeptical or I dont understand. If masturbation is wrong then how so? I mean sperm can create life but by itself it cant. If a cell has potential to become life but it must be brought into life by expierimentation but not on its own then is masturbation really bad? Anyone can dispute this is I am wrong but this is how I am currently seeing it.

Side: No
Julius(201) Clarified
2 points

As I saw on a university desk, "If abortion is murder, masturbation is genicide", it's the theory that the sperm(assuming you're male) is going to waste, and some would argue that sperm is a living thing.

Side: Yes

Hmmm. I guess in a way yes. I mean I can see why since it moves and does stuff.

Side: No
2 points

This is very stupid. Masturbation and abortion are completely different. No matter what it always seems that the pro abortionists just don't understand

Side: No
2 points

This kind of logic is ridiculous. I don't think you understand the difference between abortion and masturbation. Way to try to make me feel guilty for rubbing myself bro. It's real nice of you. If rubbing my arm is wrong because abortion is wrong I don't know what to believe anymore.

Side: No

Let to its own devices, the sperm will not devople into a person. Absorption on the other hand is an intentional intrusion in the development of a fetus

Side: No
1 point

A sperm alone has the same genetic code as the father: it is, therefore, not a new being but an extension of the former. A fetus is the combination of two sets of genetic codes, which is a new being, which is growing: it is, therefore, a completely separate being than the father. Abortion is murder, while masturbation is not.

Masturbation, though, is still wrong; it is wrong in a different sense though

Side: No
Akulakhan(2973) Disputed
1 point

A sperm alone has the same genetic code as the father: it is, therefore, not a new being but an extension of the former.

Whether or not it is a new being is not the argument. Regardless, the originality of it's genetic composite does not affect the argument you're making. For instance, if the father were say a perfectly identical twin, or clone, would not both persons be people in their own right?

A fetus is the combination of two sets of genetic codes, which is a new being, which is growing

As is the aforementioned father's genetic code from two other genetic codes.

it is, therefore, a completely separate being than the father.

Does nothing for the argument...

Abortion is murder, while masturbation is not.

Unsupported opinion based on the assumption that a fetus is entitled and bestowed rights, when it is in no way sovereign, or able to act on the responsibilities that said rights bear.

Masturbation, though, is still wrong; it is wrong in a different sense though

Masturbation is an incredibly healthy practice. Masturbation reduces the chance of prostate cancer and also makes you all tingly, no wrong to be had there.

Side: Yes
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

Whether or not it is a new being is not the argument. If the father were say a perfectly identical twin, or clone, would not both persons be people in their own right?

Thats an impractical and irrelevant question: for there are no perfectly identical twins. And if there were, then it would still be irrelevant, for the sperm would be an extension of that person's, which ever twin it happened to be, self.

Unsupported opinion based on the assumption that a fetus is entitled and bestowed rights, when it is in no way sovereign, or able to act on the responsibilities that said rights bear.

1) We have no absolute rights.

2) Nothing, except God, is sovereign

3) Sovereignty, in the sense of commanding one's life in the narrow sense of how we perceive, does not necessitate the affirmation of "right," in the constitutional sense.

4) Ability to act does not necessitate the bering of those same types of rights either.

5) This is quickly turning into a social darwinistic type attitude: if fetus doesn't deserve rights, in the latter sense, because of inability, then we are discriminating.

Masturbation is an incredibly healthy practice. Masturbation reduces the chance of prostate cancer and also makes you all tingly, no wrong to be had there.

Physically healthy, maybe so. But physical goodness does not necessitate moral goodness.

Side: No
VecVeltro(412) Disputed
1 point

Whether or not it is a new being is not the argument. Regardless, the originality of it's genetic composite does not affect the argument you're making.

I agree that originality doesn't matter, however the completeness of the genetic information does. As long as the information is incomplete (in the case of the sperm, half the composite is missing) it doesn't have the capability to develop into an adult human being.

For it to gain the capability, the sperm needs to fuse with the unfertilized egg or in the case of cloning, you need to fuse the nucleus of the person with an egg that has no nucleus. Keep in mind, cloning changes nothing about how we perceive the beginning of an individual's life - it just shows that there is more than one way to get there, as in there is more than one way to create a zygote.

Once the genetic information is complete, then the being will develop into an adult human. The mechanics behind the zygote developing into an infant and the said infant into an adult are completely the same. The only thing that separates them is the amount of time it takes. Any cut-off point in the middle of that development is arbitrary and casually selected.

Unsupported opinion based on the assumption that a fetus is entitled and bestowed rights, when it is in no way sovereign, or able to act on the responsibilities that said rights bear.

If the fetus is a human being, then clearly it is a subject of human rights. I don't know how you define human rights, but the general theory behind it is that you don't have to do anything to have human rights. You have them by virtue of simply being human, you have them by simply existing. Nobody can give these rights to you and nobody can take them from you. These rights can only be violated.

The fact that it isn't sovereign or the ability to act on the responsibilites doesn't have any bearing on the status of the being nor the ability to bear those rights. Children, babies especially also aren't sovereign and they have no concept of rights whatsoever. Yet still, we consider them human and we still consider them to have a right to life.

If the quality of being sovereign/the ability to act on the responsibilities that rights bear is the criteria to determine, whether the subject has rights - then you now have a lot of people that have no rights and can simply be killed off. From children, to the demented/insane to the comatose etc.

Side: No
1 point

Oh lawdy, save the babies! We is heathen, yo! Sorry, I had to entertain.

Side: No
7thDebater(294) Clarified
2 points

You failed to entertain .

Side: Yes
1 point

Lol why are you comparing masturbation to abortion? ...................

Side: No

No since abortion can only be committed if premature baby also known as the fetus is aborted from the female.

Side: No