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.
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
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.
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.
-- 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.
At what point does a child grow conscious? Does that quality suddenly pop into existence after birth or does it grow gradually? If it grows gradually how do you know when a fetus is too conscious to kill it?
You ask some great questions. Indeed, of what value are the thoughts or feelings or a newly concious child if their life is of no value at all prior to their becomming concious?
What do you mean by conscious? A baby lives purely off instinct in the first few weeks, its brain still isn't developed enough. I base my person hood off the first concrete sign, DNA from the male and the female to make a human.
as I said before, I think the word human can be a lot of things.
Human hair, human blood, human skin, human fetus, human eggs and human sperm. Human being is a conscious thing unlike human eggs, human sperm, human blood or human fetuses.
My point is you say consciousness (and even further still) is when a baby is given rights. Let me illustrate. You have a heap of sand. You take one grain of sand away, is it still a heap? Most would say yes. Another? Most would still say yes.At what point is the heap a non-heap? Why don't you avoid the possibilities of killing a "heap" instead of a "non-heap" and say conception is the barrier to which their is not possible mistake?
A single human hair, human blood, human skin, human eggs and human sperm alone does not have the potential for life. When a sperm and egg do combine (jacking off, periods, and contraception don't involve this) and the women conceives is when their is potential for human life. That is when a human, a person, begins to grow.
If you want to save all potential lives, then save those too.
Because a fetus will never be anything more than a potential life, you can never give a 2 week old woman solid proof for that her fetus will one day be a real baby. Why? Because right now it is just a potential life.
The term conception commonly refers to fertilisation, the successful fusion of gametes to form a new organism. 'Conception' is used by some to refer to implantation and is thus a subject of semantic arguments about the beginning of pregnancy, typically in the context of the abortion debate. Gastrulation, which occurs around 16 days after fertilisation, is the point in development when the implanted blastocyst develops three germ layers, the endoderm, the ectoderm and the mesoderm. It is at this point that the genetic code of the father becomes fully involved in the development of the embryo.
A human sperm by itslef has no potential for life at all. At fertilization (conception), their potentail for life. If you want to continue to hold this view that sperm by itslef has potential for life, simply to keep abortion rational in your mind, that's fine, but you know its BS. Conception is the only time when a person can begin to grow. I've never seen a baby from someone masturbation, have you?
You still failed to answer my question. When does a baby have rights and what does it have that an unborn baby doesn't? An infant is garunteed life? The rate is 5.98% for the US but this is still not guranteed.
If you want to continue to hold this view that sperm by itslef has potential for life, simply to keep abortion rational in your mind
I don't remember me saying sperm alone is potential life, if I said so I apologize.
I said sperm IS potential life. Sperm is potential life, and sperm alone is potential life are two different claims.
You still failed to answer my question. When does a baby have rights and what does it have that an unborn baby doesn't?
No I didn't fail to answer, I answered it before in this very debate.
I said, that a fetus doesn't develop a brain before the 5th week. In my opinion a creature without a brain can not be categorized as a human being, only a human fetus.
How is sperm different from sperm alone? Anything dealing with sperm minus the egg has no potential for life. The millions of sperm in woman beside the one that is with the egg has no potential. The millions sperm jacked off by a guy are going to die unless theirs a egg. The millions if sperm are going to die in an infertile women.
Also why a brain? A brain is just another body part until their is consciousness which doesn't happen until 21 weeks, and that's the most liberal. Are you starting to understand my heap argument? Pssst...its not really mine, its ancient. Soriatese argument
Also why a brain? A brain is just another body part until their is consciousness which doesn't happen until 21 weeks, and that's the most liberal. Are you starting to understand my heap argument? Pssst...its not really mine, its ancient. Soriatese argument
Not until the fifth week does the fetus develop organs.
The heart, brain and other organs will develop in this week.
Before the fifth week, I don't see how the baby should be called a human being.
What I believe separates animals from plants are that we have organs, blood and consciousness.
What I believe separates human beings from other animals are that we are much more intelligent than .. for example pigs.
Without a brain there is nothing separating us from fish, and without organs, blood and consciousness there is nothing separating us from plants.
I don't think a bunch of cells should be defined as a human being - why? Why should a 4 week old fetus be called a human being when it has no brain, no organs, no consciousness?
It is a human fetus in my mind - it has human DNA, but human hair also has human DNA.
"It is a human fetus in my mind - it has human DNA, but human hair also has human DNA."
But the hair can't make a person. An egg and sperm can. The DNA of human makes them human. The DNA come forms from the sperm and the egg when combined.
Sorry for separating my arguments, but this is the last one.
I think women should legally have the right to abortion, at least before the fifth week. Because at that point there is really no evidence of the fetus becoming anymore than what it is.
I would personally like that a woman would have the rights to remove her fetus to at least the 12th week.
My arguments for this is that women often don't find out that they're pregnant in the beginning of their pregnancy, and just because they didn't get any symptoms shouldn't mean you shouldn't be able to decide for yourself whether you want to become a parent or not.
I don't support unconscious fetuses, I support women who made a mistake they regret.
My stance us the very last thing you said. You believe in being able to correct a regrered desicion. I believe it is wrong that you have to kill, yes I say kill, a human life to do so. You effed up, so you screw somebody else over permanently before they even see the light of day.
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?
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?
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.
It's not better as far as I'm concerned because for me it's a child at conception. If you can see that a human being's life begins at conception, you should be able to see that they are human beings at that point too.
How are you going to convince them that it is a child from the moment of conception by adopting their terms and by saying that it doesn't become a child until some point after conception?
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.
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.
This is very stupid. Masturbation and abortion are completely different. No matter what it always seems that the pro abortionists just don't understand
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Thats an impractical and irrelevant question: for there are no perfectly identical twins.
And that's avoiding the problem; the problem still remains. You made an inherited claim that the genetic code from one individual isn't adequate to create another human, when the individual his/her/itself is the converse example, a contradiction. In fact, the reproduction of genetic code from a single code, is called cloning.
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
Which again changes nothing, because the clone is just as "being" as the original.
1) We have no absolute rights.
So why would it matter if the fetus was some precious human with dignity and importance?
2) Nothing, except God, is sovereign
Everything but God is sovereign. If no one talked about God, He'd be non-existent within one generation.
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 [being] of those same types of rights either.
And again you are shooting yourself in the foot. So you are telling me you don't believe that a sovereign individual is necessarily entitled to rights? Then why not abort after birth?
Physically healthy, maybe so. But physical goodness does not necessitate moral goodness.
This is a separate debate I'd love to have later, would be too much fun.
I'm not going to debate with you. You, unlike most people, have good points. I just am too lazy to actually debate them; and yes, I do disagree with them on logical grounds. The problem is that it reverts into too many sub-debates.
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.
