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.
Is it worse to kill a fetus or a grown woman?
I don't know what the woman did, will do, could, wants to do etc, same for the fetus. I got to thinking about this after having heated discussion on this debate. In the end I still believe objectively either side could be worse, or both sides could be neutral, but what do you think and why? I really hope to see some answers because I genuinely want to know if the tables would be turned and their true reason for turning.
The fetus doesn't have a conscience, the fetus never got to live, so it will never know how it is to live, thus if there is an afterlife, it will never miss it's life.
And I would probably miss my mother more, if someone killed her, than if I was forced to abort my 10week old fetus. People get over fetuses faster, since they first of all never really met them, never got to know them, never got to bond with them and second of all because miscarriages happen all the time.
This requires perhaps four options. The other two, besides woman and fetus, being 'both' and 'neither'. Because I'd have to say both. So instead I'll answer on the fetus side, since the OP clearly lacks the foresight to stage a proper question in a proper format.
Well you already know who the woman is; her personality, style, sense of humor, experiances. But the fetus could grow to be anything or anyone! It hasn't had any experiances or even emotions what so ever. The fact that it hasn't had the feelings of dread on a suprise test, the glee of its long-time crush asking it out, or the guilty pleasure of having its first energy drink. Surely its worse to kill someone who hasn't had the chance to live.
So many times in our history that mankind invented lies to pretend that their own brother is not a human. Once, it was the Slave Traders to the Africans, now, it is the mother to her child.
Dont worry, ive seen it before (together with Mexican Executions and human trafficking). And I must say, so far, nothing is worse than a mother treating her own child as an animal.
If she can do that to her own flesh and blood, what makes you think she can spare others life?
I disagree. She is saying that people create lies to devalue humans which is bad. Therefore she values humans highly and it does lead to valuing humans over ants.
Right, but she was saying that about people who think it is ok to enslave other people, or who don't value a fetus, or maybe even those of us who think ants should live over humans. The first part of her argument clearly shows that she values humans very highly.
So many times in our history that mankind invented lies to pretend that their own brother is not a human.
This is a negative statement because of the use of the word lies. The negative part leads us to believe that the writer thinks that considering your own brother is not a human is bad. Therefore, she believes that devaluing humans is a bad thing. With her believing that, it is NOT a contradiction to believe that humans have higher value over ants.
This is a negative statement because of the use of the word lies. The negative part leads us to believe that the writer thinks that considering your own brother is not a human is bad.
Leads us to believe is not a valid position filler. One would assume a person who picks a fetus over an actual person doesn't value people, yet as I'm sure you would say, that'd be wrong.
She picked a human fetus over an adult human. Let's stick to the word human. If you change to the word people we will get into a gray area. She is saying that indirectly that unborn humans are just as human as born humans. Since she views the 2 subjects of the debate as equal picking sides becomes her preference. She directly says that humans should not be devalued, thus still not a contradiction for valuing humans over ants.
Leads us to believe is not a valid position filler.
Maybe so, but you fail to give any reason why. When someone says something negative how would they not feel that it is a bad thing?
the fetus is not yet born, therefore has nothing separating it from a piece of meat. would i kill a piece of meat or a woman who already exists and have rights? i choose the piece of meat
My wife suffered a cardiac arrest and subsequent brain injury only three years into our marriage. She now functions at the capacity of about an 8 year old (if that)... so I'm asking this with a great deal of interest. Is it really your opinion that she has less of a right to her life than I do?
I am thinking of it like this. Let's say you are on a boat and we have a life boat and only one person can be saved. Do we put you on it or your wife? Let's also assume that the person on the life boat will need to take care of themselves until they can be rescued. We have to choose you because your wife will not survive.
If we have the resources, we keep her alive. When we don't have the resources, we have to make a choice between you and her, and I choose you because you can function better.
I understand your analogy and I would have had pretty much the same take on it as you do now - prior to my wife's cardiac arrest.
When my wife was in her coma, our doctors came to me twice to ask how long I was willing to leave her on life support. Because of my (our) 'pro-life' views, i asked to speak to some of the doctors on the ethics committee and we had some in depth conversations about the right to life, value of life, etc. for someone in my wife's condition.
You are making a 'values' judgment in your lifeboat analogy. You are not making a determination about the person's 'rights.' Rather, you are making the choice based on your own prejudices and preferences.
I could have pulled the plug on my wife's life support. In fact, I was ready to do so, when she started coming out of her coma. But the deciding factor had nothing to do with her mental or physical state or chances for recovery. The reality is that it comes down to what is a 'reasonable' expectation for care.
My wife or any other person in a coma has the same right to their life that anyone else has. As does a child with downs or some other form of retardation. The thing that would gave me the right to pull the plug was this. "While we all have the same (equal) right to each our own lives.... we do not have the right to live at extra-ordinary or un-reasonable costs to others.
It's not a matter of the availability of resources that makes that determination (as you claimed). In your scenario, I could choose to stay with her or insist that you take her instead of myself.
Our disagreement only comes from the terms that we use. When I say not everyone has the right to life it is in the situation that you presented: we do not have the right to live at extra-ordinary or un-reasonable costs to others.
When I am talking about resources I am talking in relation to unreasonable costs.
Our disagreement only comes from the terms that we use. When I say not everyone has the right to life it is in the situation that you presented: we do not have the right to live at extra-ordinary or un-reasonable costs to others.
I don't understand how you can reconcile that with what you said earlier.
Yes, a person with normal intelligence deserves to live over the mentally handicapped person.
When the person IS born, and the person IS conscience, then it doesn't matter if he's mentally or physically handicapped. Once he's put in this world, then he has as much value as any other person.
No, it's not okay. You shouldn't judge by who is the strongest.
If I were to choose between 5 people, where one must die, and one is handicapped, I would not choose the handicapped one just because he is handicapped, he has just the same right to live whether he is handicapped or not.
I don't know how I would choose, but I know that I would not be able to live with the decision I took, if it was based on who was the healthiest.
Your situation is different than what I am talking about. I am talking about 2 completely separate groups. 1 group consists of 1 handicapped person. The other group consists of 5 people. You can save every individual in 1 group, but you can't save individuals in both groups. In this case it makes sense to assist the group of 5 normal people.
Yes, but then I would choose the handicapped person because of the quantity.
If 5 handicapped were to be in one group, and one healthy person in another, I would still choose the 5 handicapped to live - it seems more humane to kill one person, not five, unless you are very close with that one person.
Why does a person have value? Just because they exist?
I disagree. A person is valuable if they create their own value, which means do something, contribute. If a person is handicapped, they're hardly going to do anything valuable, or contribute, which means they're not going to create or earn their own value. And if they don't create it, they don't have it. No one is born with real value. Being alive doesn't make you valuable in the greater picture, especially in this overpopulated world.
Which means they do have less value then those who actually do something that matters.
A doctor who saves life is more valuable than a handicapped person who does absolutely nothing.
Why does a person have value? Just because they exist?
Everyone has equal value.
I disagree. A person is valuable if they create their own value, which means do something, contribute. If a person is handicapped, they're hardly going to do anything valuable, or contribute, which means they're not going to create or earn their own value. And if they don't create it, they don't have it. No one is born with real value. Being alive doesn't make you valuable in the greater picture, especially in this overpopulated world.
I think we disagree greatly on what creating value is. You obviously think value is some material - like money. Whilst I think true value is friendship and love. Handicapped people are fully capable of giving love.
Value is what you contribute to society, be it teaching youth valuable lessons, helping the needy, creating a stable family that will contribute...
The society doesn't function on love - so no, loving someone is not creating actual value. Sure, it may be of some value to you and the person you love, but to the greater picture it's insignificant.
A doctor has value, because they save lives. A teacher has value, because they teach children. A firefighter has value because he saves people's lives and homes. etc.
A person who can't contribute to the society in any other way by loving ( which might as well be unrequited, unappreciated an unwanted, which makes it useless and unnecessary) has less value than someone who actually does things.
When did I say everyone has value to the society? I said everyone has value. Value isn't only given to society.
My mom is valuable to me because she loves me, my friends are valuable to me, I know I will be as valuable to my child as my mom is to me. My family has the most value in this world.
As I said before - we have very different opinions on what has value.
I don't think a doctor has more value than anybody else - he probably has more value to society, but for an individual person, who doesn't know him, he is as valuable to keep alive as anyone else.
The society doesn't function on love
That can easily be discussed. Without love there would be no society.
Value to an individual is different. If we're talking about killing a fetus and a woman that we don't personally know, obviously we'd be looking at their value to the society, to the greater picture.
With only love, there would be no society.
So maybe we need love for the society to function, but if there was nothing but love, there would be no society either.
