Abortion is, on balance, immoral.

I am not the best at abortion debates. If you'd read the Weaker Edge's abortion debate, he tells us much more clearly why the chromosomes in addition to known human "life" is still a bad standard. Especially since even sperm still contains the chromosomes and DNA, meaning that there must still yet be something more to that. And the FLO is largely destroyed if the person is living in a life terminating illness with a high chance of death. (Not to mention incredible discomfort and danger in birth) If the mother is forcibly placed on life support to give her blood to her son, I would say she has the right to remove that life support, even at the cost of the son's death.

"You open up with the classic argument that killing the human life is equivalent to killing the human being, which is immensely flawed because it assumes that the measurement of beginning of life can be weighed the same as their right to life. "

As I stated in my argument, the term "right to life" isn't a very good one. Why should life be a "right"? Shouldn't this right start as soon as you have a life? Are you asserting that it is possible to be alive but not deserving of that life?

"Tell us *why* the fetus is a human life, but not dead skin cells, or sperm, or any of the other stuff."

I hope you're not comparing a fetus with dead skin cells.

Scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization, the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e. a sperm cell) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte ), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.

To understand this, it should be remembered that each kind of living organism has a specific number and quality of chromosomes that are characteristic for each member of a species. For example, the characteristic number of chromosomes for a member of the human species is 46. Every somatic cell in a human being has this characteristic number of chromosomes. Even the early germ cells contain 46 chromosomes; it is only their mature forms - the sex gametes, or sperms and oocytes - which will later contain only 23 chromosomes each. Sperms and oocytes are derived from primitive germ cells in the developing fetus by means of the process known as "gametogenesis." Because each germ cell normally has 46 chromosomes, the process of "fertilization" can not take place until the total number of chromosomes in each germ cell are cut in half. This is necessary so that after their fusion at fertilization the characteristic number of chromosomes in a single individual member of the human species (46) can be maintained otherwise we would end up with a monster of some sort.

To accurately see why a sperm or an oocyte are considered as only possessing human life, and not as living human beings themselves, one needs to look at the basic scientific facts involved in the processes of gametogenesis and of fertilization. It may help to keep in mind that the products of gametogenesis and fertilization are very different. The products of gametogenesis are mature sex gametes with only 23 instead of 46 chromosomes. The product of fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Gametogenesis refers to the maturation of germ cells, resulting in gametes. Fertilization refers to the initiation of a new human being. These a very different process which are not to be conflated.

You'll have to evaluate on your critique on the FLO as either you have not fully grasped it, or I have not fully grasped the point you are making. What is this 50 percent miscarriage statistic and how does it change the fact that a fetus has future value?

Alright.

You open up with the classic argument that killing the human life is equivalent to killing the human being, which is immensely flawed because it assumes that the measurement of beginning of life can be weighed the same as their right to life. There's a lot of good arguments about how development of brain matters a lot, because you need better standard than merely some medical opinion. Tell us *why* the fetus is a human life, but not dead skin cells, or sperm, or any of the other stuff.

You follow up with the classic FLO, which instantly falls apart at my first glance with the famous 50% miscarriage stat that would've severely negated this argument, making it nearly worthless. Even if we accept the unconscious person argument, I see no pre-emptive rebuttal against standard arguments about rape or self-defense, which would destroy FLO severely.

The uncertainty principle is one of the strongest pro-life arguments and you performed pretty well there. There aren't any severe flaws I can think of, but standard attacks still work by planting your feet solid in the ground with the knowledge that the woman's right to life is definite, while Pro essentially admits he has to take a gamble.

Evaluate

Sorry if this is spam(I don't want to get reported for spam), but I have a lot to say.

"Surely unwanted pain and finances are not good reasons to allow murder. A teenage son can give these two things yet surely you do not support murder?"

The teenage son provides less pain overall. For one, their pain isn't constant, it is merely an occasional demand every now and then. Second, the expense they require is significantly less than an unborn baby.

"Consider this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMp0WLLrFng . It highlights that donating is a good thing, but you should still be able to live an enjoyable life without feeling guilt. After all, I have not done anything to the children."

I'm referring to donating excess income. If I'm not forced to donate my excess income to 3rd worlders (or to anybody) even if it saves dozens of lives, then a pregnant female shouldn't be forced to sacrifice her excess income, her time, and her comfort to save 1 life.

"We are discussing abortion not starvation, and these two issues are not to be conflated."

If abortion leads to less death by starvation, then the issues kindof are conflated.

" It would be like if I went to a anti-gun rights protest and started yelling "how dare you protest against gun rights when there are children dying from malaria. You should dedicate your resources to the children instead of stomping around""

I think if your anti gun because guns kill people(I'm not anti gun, but that's a story for another time), you should be proportionate with your passion as this world is not ideal and being passionate about one thing because it kills people while not being passionate about something that kills an even bigger sum of people makes no sense. I try to be proportionate with my passion. This is why I barely care about the death penalty (because it effects very few people to a very small degree as the murderer is going to face something harsh whether it is death of life in jail) while I am an even bigger advocate against the US debt (since being $28 trillion in debt is something that effects every American to a significant degree).

Thoughts?

"This would be me saying "my teen son is a headache, guess I'll go and kill him now""

A headache is a very small amount of pain compared to 9 months of pregnency because they last for much less time (and I imagine the intensity is less as well). Consider the following scenario. Lets say you committed a murder in a country with the death penalty and they give you 2 options: Firing squad or you get to live a day longer, but they will burn you at the stake for your murder. Most people would pick the former because it's less pain. They lose a day of life, but they have less pain to endure with firing squad as they would from being burned at the stake. It's better to endure a little amount of pain to save a life, but it's also better to have a little less life if it will greatly reduce pain. An unwanted pregnency is a battle between a lot of pain vs a life. The precedent has been set with other issues. Losing money is painful, but you aren't forced to lose money to save someone else's life. If your not forced to lose a dollar a day to save someone's life, why should someone be forced to endure 9 months of pain (which is worth more than a dollar a day) to save someone's life?

"Moreover if you are ecmonomiclly unable to have a child, this is not a reason for you kill the fetus. Carrying a baby involves little cost"

Birthing a kid is expensive. https://www.parents.com/pregnancy/considering-baby/financing-family/what-to-expect-hospital-birth-costs/ states that the AVERAGE cost is $4.5K. If you think it's worth $4.5K to save a life, then you might want to consider donating that much money to 3rd world people, because you can save more than 1 life with $4.5K over there.

" if you are really unable to have a child, then put it up for adoption."

If the foster system could bring more children into their care, they would have adopted some children from poor countries and then sold the kids to consenting and competent parents, since adoption is a business. Currently, the foster system assumes that some unwanted pregnencies will be birthed and set up for adoption, so they don't rescue as many 3rd worlders as they could. They would rescue more if every unwanted pregnency was aborted, so it's the trolley problem. On one track is an unborn baby. On the other is a 3rd world kid. Aborting the baby will cause them to die a painless death. Birthing the kid will cause that kid to get set up for adoption, and as a result, the starving 3rd worlder ends up dying of starvation since they weren't taken care of by the foster industry instead. Someone will die no matter what, so I prefer the kid that dies to be the one that can't feel pain (and also causes less maternal pain).

" In fact, if you saw on the news a physically able mother sitting at home, exercising their right as a free being who doesn't need to work while letting their child starve and depriving them of an education, you would likely express anger towards them."

I'd want that kid set up for adoption, because you can't painlessly kill them, and the foster system will have more spots if the unwanted pregnencies were aborted. In this situation, the trolley problem on one track is the mother's kid. On the other track is a 3rd world kid. Here, if someone is going to die no matter what, I have no preference.
"A pregnant woman has a responsibility to the baby that they created. The mother owes a duty of care to the baby that she creates."

If someone is forced to take care of their biological children, this means that adoption would be prohibited, as adoption is parents ditching their parental responsibilities technically. I don't think adoption should be banned as this leads to inevitable abuse and poverty within the family unit as well as deprives certain infertile families from adopting.

"First off, people who (let children starve to death) should be locked away forever, except in unusual circumstances. Why shouldn't they? Killing children under the radar is definitely wrong."

https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/people-and-poverty/hunger-and-obesity/how-many-people-die-from-hunger-each-year/story states that 3.1 million children die a year of starvation. Assuming 1 kid starves per parent, This means that 6.2 million parents would face life imprisonment every year. Assuming they live for 50 years (so we have 50 years worth of parents to jail), and considering that there are only 3 billion parents in the world, that would mean cumulatively, around 10% of worldwide parents would face life imprisonment because they let their kid starve since they were unwilling to feed their kids. I don't think you should be forced to take care of your biological kid because that leads to inevitable abuse within the family as well as inevitable poverty, so it results in more people starving to death.

"Secondly, if abortion were to be legalised, the net number of abortion would statistically be dropped, which would be a win."

The abortion rate would receive a one time drop. Contraception is a better way to reduce abortions since that provides continuous droppings in the abortion rate. Sadly, the pope won't promote contraception.

"Third, you are conflating abortion and the secondary effects of abortion. This would be like saying "we should make rape legal because otherwise, rapists will feel sad""

If a rapist feels sad because he can't get sex, I'm okay with that. I am less okay with someone starving to death painfully because their parents (who couldn't afford to take care of them and couldn't set them up for adoption because of a full foster system) didn't abort them while they couldn't feel pain.

"I believe that in all ordinary cases (which are the majority), IF a women knows that a fetus is a human being AND they choose go forward with the procedure, the should chucked in prison"

This would mean that 16% of females would face imprisonment for abortion. For reference, only about 1% of the population is in jail in the US, and America has the world's highest incarceration rate. If every woman who had an abortion faced life imprisonment for abortion, it would single handedly increase our prison population 8 fold (since females are half the population).

YOU STATED: I imagine a lot of women who get abortions know a fetus is a human being and they don't really care; similar to how a starving 3rd worlder is a human being and most people don't really care that they die; otherwise they would give money to such causes that save their lives.

I still disagree that a person would willingly kill what they know is a human being. However, your comparison to the 3rd world country child is not equivalent. People do care, but they are should not be held accountable for not donating money to someone who they have in now way disadvantaged. Consider this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMp0WLLrFng . It highlights that donating is a good thing, but you should still be able to live an enjoyable life without feeling guilt. After all, I have not done anything to the children.

"if all the funds that pro lifers are willing to dedicate to saving unborn babies got instead dedicated to saving 3rd worlders from starvation, you'd have some babies dying from abortion, but you would have even more 3rd worlders saved from starvation, so the pro life charity could be way more efficient with its fund"

This is not a battle of which issue needs addressing. We are discussing abortion not starvation, and these two issues are not to be conflated. This is a common fallacy that you have fallen into. It would be like if I went to a anti-gun rights protest and started yelling "how dare you protest against gun rights when there are children dying from malaria. You should dedicate your resources to the children instead of stomping around". You are conflating two equally issues and silencing one with the importance of another. Sure, starving children are important just like how the discussion on guns is, but they should not get into the way of other equally important issues.

I STATED: "But of course if I killed my child because I was in emotional pain, I would be shipped off to prison."
YOU REPLIED: You sure about that? In many countries where abortion is heavily restricted, parents who don't want their kids due to the emotional stress of raising an unwanted kid abandon the kids, therefore subjecting them to a death of starvation. They don't face prison since they do it under the radar.

First off, people who do this should be locked away forever, except in unusual circumstances. Why shouldn't they? Killing children under the radar is definitely wrong.

Secondly, if abortion were to be legalised, the net number of abortion would statistically be dropped, which would be a win. Consider this from a logical point of view. If something get's illegalised, the average law abiding citizen would refrain from committing that act. Of course, there will be outliers who still opt for the illegal option, however the net number of abortions will be lowered.

Third, you are conflating abortion and the secondary effects of abortion. This would be like saying "we should make rape legal because otherwise, rapists will feel sad". You cannot use the fact that mothers in countries which restrict abortion kill babies as an argument against abortion, because this is not a desired effect of abortion, it is the result of irresponsible people. To make another comparison, it would be like saying "we should make the act of stealing pencils legal, because if we don't, those people will become pen stealers". Though pen stealing is an issue, just like killing your child is, it is not an issue of the fundamental law of no stealing pencils, and should not be made an argument against pencil stealing.

YOU STATED: Would you believe that some women who get abortions should be locked up in jail for life, if they knew they were killing a human being and they didn't feel like birthing the kid out of a combination of economic reasons and the unwanted physical and emotional pain with raising a kid?

I believe that in all ordinary cases (which are the majority), IF a women knows that a fetus is a human being AND they choose go forward with the procedure, the should chucked in prison. Again, you cannot use the pain of the mother as an argument for abortion. This would be me saying "my teen son is a headache, guess I'll go and kill him now". Moreover if you are ecmonomiclly unable to have a child, this is not a reason for you kill the fetus. Carrying a baby involves little cost, and if you are really unable to have a child, then put it up for adoption. Again, if we use this economic argument and apply it to a teenager, you will see that you being broke doesn't allow you kill your child. In fact, if you saw on the news a physically able mother sitting at home, exercising their right as a free being who doesn't need to work while letting their child starve and depriving them of an education, you would likely express anger towards them. I know if I saw them, I would be yelling at them to get their ass off the couch and work. What is the difference? Both are economically stressed.2 I would argue that the latter is better than abortion, as someone can actually come to the aid of the child, while fetus' must be killed.

YOU STATED: The reason for getting an abortions are listed here
The website you provided states the following. "Three-quarters said that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities, about two-thirds said they could not afford to have a child and half said they did not want to be a single parent or had relationship problems." If I used these reasoning to justify the killing of a child at court, how far do you think I would get. "But your honour, I have other responsibilities you can't possible charge me for strangling my son".

YOU STATED: Given that most pro lifers expect a pregnant female to sacrifice whatever is necessary to save her unborn child but they are unwilling to sacrifice a comparable amount of resources and labor to save even more 3rd world children(since $50/day can sponsor 50 3rd world children, yet most pro lifers are unwilling to pay that)

A pregnant woman has a responsibility to the baby that they created. The mother owes a duty of care to the baby that she creates. I owe no duty of care to starving children. I should be not asked to donate $50 a day for asking a women to take ownership of their child. I did not put the starving child into the position that they are in, that is on whoever isn't feeding them.

YOU STATED: I'd say it is better for an unborn baby to die a painless death than it is for a female to undergo unwanted pain and costs to bring an unwanted kid into the world.

Surely unwanted pain and finances are not good reasons to allow murder. A teenage son can give these two things yet surely you do not support murder?

"But of course if I killed my child because I was in emotional pain, I would be shipped off to prison."

You sure about that? In many countries where abortion is heavily restricted, parents who don't want their kids due to the emotional stress of raising an unwanted kid abandon the kids, therefore subjecting them to a death of starvation. They don't face prison since they do it under the radar.

"I don't believe that all women should get chucked into prison for life, though the abortionist should definitely get locked up."

Would you believe that some women who get abortions should be locked up in jail for life, if they knew they were killing a human being and they didn't feel like birthing the kid out of a combination of economic reasons and the unwanted physical and emotional pain with raising a kid?

"Again, I still believe that decent human beings have the empathy too, when seeing footage of abortion, withdraw from the procedure, especially when the top reason for having an abortion is because "it will dramatically change my lifestyle"."

The reason for getting an abortions are listed here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3243347/. I think an unborn baby deserves as much protection from non consenting individuals as starving 3rd worlders; meaning if no one is willing to take care of them, they are going to die, and who cares; it's not my problem. Given that most pro lifers expect a pregnant female to sacrifice whatever is necessary to save her unborn child but they are unwilling to sacrifice a comparable amount of resources and labor to save even more 3rd world children(since $50/day can sponsor 50 3rd world children, yet most pro lifers are unwilling to pay that), I'd say it is better for an unborn baby to die a painless death than it is for a female to undergo unwanted pain and costs to bring an unwanted kid into the world.

"Undoubtedly, a portion of women who are getting abortions do not know what they are participating in because they are being misled by abortion institutes fluffy lies about "discarding a clump of cells"."

I imagine a lot of women who get abortions know a fetus is a human being and they don't really care; similar to how a starving 3rd worlder is a human being and most people don't really care that they die; otherwise they would give money to such causes that save their lives.

Even if a pro lifer momentarily says, "I care about ALL lives and starving 3rd worlders should be saved."(Even though most pro lifers then decide to not dedicate their lives and fortunes to saving 3rd worlders even though they expect a pregnant female to sacrifice their fortunes (if necessary) to save their unborn kid), if all the funds that pro lifers are willing to dedicate to saving unborn babies got instead dedicated to saving 3rd worlders from starvation, you'd have some babies dying from abortion, but you would have even more 3rd worlders saved from starvation, so the pro life charity could be way more efficient with its funds.

"All in all, if you participate in the abortion, fully knowing what you are doing, then you should face some penalty, unless in circumstantial situations."

Is "some penalty" a euphemism for life imprisonment? I mean, that's the penalty for murder. If abortion is to be classified as murder, that would mean that anyone who has one would get life imprisonment.

I don't mean to sound condescending or anything like that, but this is just my thought process as to why I'm pro choice.

"I don't think they care since they are in a lot of pain that they would be willing to sacrifice a fetal life to end their unwanted pregnency pain."

But of course if I killed my child because I was in emotional pain, I would be shipped off to prison.

"If abortion was legally classified as murder, that would make abortion a class A felony, and anyone who either performs an abortion or hires someone to perform one for them (so an abortion doctor or a woman who hires an abortion doctor to perform an abortion) would get tried as someone who committed murder and would get life imprisonment for the procedure in the United States for an abortion. At least many pro lifers I met have advocated for life imprisonment for women who get abortions, so at least they are being consistent"

I don't believe that all women should get chucked into prison for life, though the abortionist should definitely get locked up. Again, I still believe that decent human beings have the empathy too, when seeing footage of abortion, withdraw from the procedure, especially when the top reason for having an abortion is because "it will dramatically change my lifestyle". Undoubtedly, a portion of women who are getting abortions do not know what they are participating in because they are being misled by abortion institutes fluffy lies about "discarding a clump of cells". All in all, if you participate in the abortion, fully knowing what you are doing, then you should face some penalty, unless in circumstantial situations.

"Do you think that the abortion rates would be so high if they saw footage of dismembered fetus's rolling around in puddles of guts?"

I think women who get abortions look up if an abortion kills an unborn baby. I think women who get abortions do their research and they find that it does kill a human being. I don't think they care since they are in a lot of pain that they would be willing to sacrifice a fetal life to end their unwanted pregnency pain.

"I would argue, however, that I am arguing that it should be murder."

If abortion was legally classified as murder, that would make abortion a class A felony, and anyone who either performs an abortion or hires someone to perform one for them (so an abortion doctor or a woman who hires an abortion doctor to perform an abortion) would get tried as someone who committed murder and would get life imprisonment for the procedure in the United States for an abortion. At least many pro lifers I met have advocated for life imprisonment for women who get abortions, so at least they are being consistent.

"If my case is successful, then it would be reasonable to label abortion as murder so I, as the advocate of this, can reasonably refer to abortion as murder."

It would only be reasonable to label abortion as murder if it was illegal. Otherwise, assuming your pro life, abortion should be referred to as an unjustified killing for accuracy's sake.

"Women who get abortions do their research on if a fetus is a human being, so I believe that they think a fetus is a human being"

You'll be surprised. Planned parenthood regularly misleads their clients into believing the wrong facts. Do you think that the abortion rates would be so high if they saw footage of dismembered fetus's rolling around in puddles of guts?

"If you think abortion is unjustified, you should refer to abortion as an unjustified killing."

Fair enough, though I will say, this is an issue of wordplay. I would argue, however, that I am arguing that it should be murder. If my case is successful, ten it would be reasonable to label abortion as murder so I, as the advocate of this, can reasonably refer to abortion as murder.

Women who get abortions do their research on if a fetus is a human being, so I believe that they think a fetus is a human being. If (hypothetically) you don’t believe blacks are human, it’s your right to believe it. But if you whip black people because you think it’s fun and you don’t think they are human, the law recognizes blacks as people, so you would go to jail.

“ as the whole point of the debate is to discuss the ethics of abortion and perhaps come to the conclusion that the law is incorrect.”

If you think abortion is unjustified, you should refer to abortion as an unjustified killing. Referring to abortion as murder is inaccurate. But referring to abortion as an unjustified killing is subjective. Pro lifers would agree. Pro choices would disagree.

It is (in most cases) no the women to blame for the abortion. Organisations such as Planned-parenthood usually mislead their patients into thinking that they are simply removing a "clump of cells". In most cases, the women is oblivious to what is occurring. The abortionist, however, I believe should face punishment.

Also, using the "abortion is not murder because it is legal" argument is a poor, as the whole point of the debate is to discuss the ethics of abortion and perhaps come to the conclusion that the law is incorrect. The law is a product of human reasoning and discussion, and my stance is that the conclusion they came to is incorrect.

Your first premise is wrong. Intentionally killing a murderer as punishment for murder is not murder since it is legal to do. Intentionally killing an unborn baby is not murder since it is legal. If abortion was classified as murder, then the 28 million females that got at least 1 abortion in their life would be murderers and therefore, have to be jailed for life or executed like any other murderer. Is this what you want?

Are we reading the same argument.

I’m impressed; that’s got to be the strongest pro abortion argument I’ve seen that only glances over women’s rights

Of course, I have no objections.
I will debate this one and the other one can be cancelled please.

I could give delete the other debate as we are now having this discussion. I'm not prepared to construct two arguments on one topic.

Thank you for putting up a second debate on this subject. However I have decided not to just sit there and watch you debate this subject with someone else whilst I sit there and give you a free unmerited extra win.
Your putting up a second debate and the chance of a jackpot bonanza has gave me the insentive I require to temporarily change my views on the subject. Many thanks for this adrenaline rush and opportunity. I look forward to this double decker debate, and good luck.