Instigator / Pro
4
1774
rating
98
debates
77.55%
won
Topic
#3059
A human fetus ought to be treated as a human
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 4 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
Benjamin
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1490
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description
Human: a member of the species Homo Sapiens
BoP is shared.
Round 1
Thank you, CON, for accepting this debate.
RESOLUTION: A human fetus ought to be treated as a human
BOP: Shared
My argument will be incredibly simple and short.
P1: A human ought to be treated as a human
P2: A human fetus is a human
C: A human fetus ought to be treated as a human
The first premise is a truism. The second will be backed up by evidence.
Remember that HUMAN = member of the species Homo Sapiens. The question then becomes, "what is a human fetus"? If a human fetus is a human then the resolution is true, and if a human fetus is something else than a human then the resolution is false. Thus, it falls upon PRO to prove that a human fetus is a human; and it falls upon CON to prove that a human fetus is not a human. The side that can prove their views correct with regards to the identity of a human fetus is also the victor of this debate.
A HUMAN FETUS IS A MEMBER OF THE SPECIES HOMO SAPIENS
I agree that human sperm and oocyte are not members of the species homo sapiens. They neither have a full set of human DNA, the ability to replicate or the ability to grow and live a human life. DNA, in particular, is very important, as it contains the very definition of Homo Sapiens. Chimpanzees, as you probably know, have a DNA only slightly different to that of humans, yet they look, act and most importantly think very differently. Unless you have 100% human DNA you can't be categorized as a human, and that is the reason why human sperm and oocyte are not members of the species homo sapiens but are rather just an intermediate step between generations. Yet fertilization changes everything.
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. [princeton.edu]
Thus, after fertilization, you get a cell with 100% human DNA that is also 100% unique and unlike the DNA of any other living organism. Classifying this as anything but a human is a categorical error, as a fetus will quickly grow and without being fundamentally changed will become an organism clearly identifiable as a human. One also cannot identify a fetus as an intermediate step between generations. It grows, which intermediate steps don't do. It also has 100% human DNA that is never going to change or combine with other pieces of DNA -- thus a fetus is clearly a member of the new generation of humans rather than an intermediate step or some kind of animal.
Fetus is a human -- logical evidence
The fetus grows into a baby, and the baby grows into a human
The above sentence is absurd -- it implies that a baby is not a human, that the baby must grow before it can be called a human. This is clearly not the case. A baby is already a human, it is just a small human being. Similarly, a fetus is a human, just a very very young human. One does not change species merely through growing. CON must overcome this claim and assert that one does change species through growing --- or else he can't justifiably deny that a human fetus is a human.
SUMMARY:
- A human ought to be treated as a human -- this is a truism
- A human fetus is a human because it doesn't fall into any other relevant category
- A human fetus is a human because it has 100% human DNA and isn't an intermediate step between generations -- it IS the new generation
My logical syllogism presented in the beginning:
P1: A human ought to be treated as a human
P2: A human fetus is a human
C: A human fetus ought to be treated as a human
One premise is a truism, the other is a fact CON has yet to dispute.
CONCLUSION
A human fetus ought to be treated as a human. The resolution is proven correct beyond a reasonable doubt.
VOTE PRO!
Forfeited
Round 2
O wow, what is this?
It is a first round forfeiture. My opponent thus leaves my argument unrebutted. I extend all arguments.
Forfeited
Round 3
Victory
Forfeited
this would have been an interesting debate
Please don't forfeit again. Especially not with a 1 week window to post an argument, or even a concession.
"It is not about change of species, it is about change of personhood. "
If you choose to use this "personhood" argument you are then faced with the uncertainty principle.
" If pro choice is correct, then no fetus should be treated as a proper human."
At what stage do you consider it immoral to abort a fetus. What is your criteria.
Aha, you are bringing out the woman. Of course, that is a whole other issue that isn't as clear cut, and also is not my position to deny women the right to abortion.
I merely claim that a human fetus, and a baby, are not valuable in themselves, only because of their future. Do you deny this?
You presumed that the baby was already born! Yes, even a time difference of one day can make a big difference! If I forced you to bring birth to a fetus by using your life and blood, you would be pain and discomfort, trying any and which way to refuse this imposed problem on you. But if it was an actual comatose person, things get a bit more blurry about whether you can disconnect the life support or not.
Yes. Thank you whiteflame for the wording.
Undefeatable, you have accused the pro-life position, which I have not pledged allegiance to, of having a warped logic. I challenge you to substantiate that claim of yours. Do you claim that a born baby is more valuable than a non-born baby even when the time difference can be less than a day (or do you allow the killing of just-born babies). Alternatively, do you simply mean that the traits of a late-stage fetus or early baby make it deserve to be treated as a human. If so, why? You do know that we accept the killing of dogs, whose traits of consciousness and personality far supersede that of babies. Yet babies are still treated better than dogs, not because of their innate traits, but because of their future as humans. It is this universally accepted logic, that the future lives of babies mean more than their time-specific traits, that explains why dogs aren't worthy of human rights while babies are. Your claims imply otherwise, and I ask you to clarify.
Until then, stop calling the pro-life logic warped.
Not that I'm on his side with this particular topic, Undefeatable, but I think Benjamin's argument is that the pro-choice position involves selecting a point at which the unborn should be treated as a human and that, therefore, every stage before that point should not be treated as human. He's arguing that there's a dividing line that is being placed arbitrarily. You can argue that that point does not take place at any stage that can be defined as a fetus, but presumably, you set that line somewhere. Not going to take this opportunity to make an argument of my own about how this argument affects the pro-life position (largely because I don't want to interfere with the debate), but I felt it should be clarified.
nothing makes them more valuable other than warped Pro-life logic (your logic). If pro choice is correct, then no fetus should be treated as a proper human. There is no manslaughter charge to "killing" it
Just tell me, what makes a 13-week old clump of human cells more valuable than a 12-week old clump of human cells? Why should one of them be treated differently than the other -- surely, neither have inherent value. The only reason we think of babies as valuable is their future lives as sentient and intelligent beings.
Ah, I see --- you deny that personhood and "humanhood" are the same. But still, a human ought to be treated as a human, but maybe not as a person.
It is not about change of species, it is about change of personhood. The fetus growing into the human only happens after 13 weeks (all body organs form), with brain function/identity created far after 20 weeks, while most abortions are before 13 weeks. So you still can't treat all human fetus as humans.
Can you tell me, what part of my logic do you deny:
-That a human ought to be treated as a human
-That a fetus grows into an entity clearly recognisable as a human
-That one does not change species merely through growing
Or do you just dislike my argument by virtue of disagreeing with its conclusion?
I feel you on that. Some stuff is clear as day, even if the implications of it are debatable.
Regarding your revised resolution, if doing this again I would toss a general statement into the description regarding how a human being (especially a sentient one) ought to be treated. ... Granted, given the common mistreatment of humans, how we ought to be treated is highly debatable.
"easy"? Hell no! Your fertilization and DNA logic is completely warped, especially since the Brain hasn't even fully formed! Not to mention miscarriage rates
I would prefer a definition of human that was correct. That is, a definition under which only humans are categorized as humans. LOL.
You made me change this topic to avoid it being an easy win. But even your version of the resolution was easy to prove. What do you think now?
Fixed.
i disagree with leaving definitions to the argument phase. Initiator-limitation of waiting for definitions until argument phase leaves an impression that the initiator is holding cards too close to the vest. No. Either definitions are revealed in the Description, or don't bother with them. We have opportunity to contest given definitions in Comments before accepting debates. I learned in my very first debate that even with definitions offered in Description, an opponent may still challenge them, using the challenge as a debate tactic to overwhelm the other side. Better to put definitions out there and obtain agreement prior to argument phase.
That said, I, too, am troubled by the Topic/resolution. I'm left thinking, of course a human fetus is human; it smacks of a truism, and I don't think that's what you mean. As Ragnar said, the distinction between human and person [even though we can equate the two, but not cleanly] muddles the topic. Worse that I think that is exactly your resolution, that a fetus is a person. If that is what is meant, say it. Or, stick with what is said, and be prepared for a barage of argument from Con, who ever it is. Not going to be me.
When I argue the greater topic, one of my key points is that human doesn't equal person. Granted, it does depend on definitions. Under some definitions cancer is human.
I would agree with Undefeatable
this is the worst possible premise. A better premise would be "a human fetus ought to be treated as a human"
I found a better way to phrase the debate's topic.
Definitions, time-limits-for-abortion-from-conception and the specific, detailed definition of 'valuable' are necessary.