It makes no sense to advocate for a 3 week abortion ban and then decide you'r against abortions all together, which is it?
I advocated for a 3 week abortion ban. I didn't know if abortions were possible earlier. If they are, then they can be legalized before 3 weeks. However, if they are not possible before 3 weeks, then they should be banned all together.
3 weeks is around the time when the fetal cells specialize, so they no longer resemble cancer cells. I would consider this at least somewhat of a compromise between the pro life position and the pro choice one, the one that wants to legalize abortion all the way up until 20 weeks.
Your comparison of a fetus to a 1 month old is false because a fetus is biologically more dependent on the mother specifically
They're both still dependent on the female for survival. It's just that the fetus is more dependent on the women for survival then the post born human. At the same time, a toddler is more dependent on the mother for survival then a 21 year old is. Despite this, the toddler is just as intrinsically valuable as the 21 year old(despite the former being much more dependent on the female then the ladder).
What does this tell us? It tells us that dependency is irrelevant to the intrinsic value of someone. It doesn't mean that a toddler is inferior to the adult, despite the toddler being much less independent. This logic also applies to a fetus vs a post born baby.
Yes, there are circumstances where a woman should be able to decide if their child's life continues, this includes situations such as ending life support.
Life support is only unplugged when it is uncertain if the person is alive, and even then it takes a while for the person to have the plug pulled. If the doctors knew that you wouldn't need life support in 9 months but you need it now, the doctors would keep you on the life support for the full 9 months with insurance paying for it.
The process of adoption can be extremely distressing for both children and adults so that is not always an option;
This is perhaps your best argument. The process can be a stress source for many people, the site that you posted states,
Birth parents may experience guilt and shame for having placed their child for adoption
So you mean to say that the parents would feel shame for setting up a kid for adoption, but they wouldn't have shame with killing the fetus version of the child? It seems that destroying an innocent human's life is worse then just making that life worse. However, these emotions don't exist forever in a prominent state. I know a few foster kids and they don't let the fact that they were adopted ruin their life.
In the short term, there's turmoil, but in the long term, most kids get adopted to other families who are better able to take care of them.
According to
http://www.adopt.org/adoption-statistics, it states that over 94% of kids who get set up for adoption get adopted within 4 years. Not only that, but since adoption costs a lot of money, this may sound like a negative but in reality, it means that only rich people are adopting. In other words, the foster kids go to wealthier consenting families.
In conclusion, over 94% of kids who get set up for adoption get adopted and they get adopted to relatively well off families who want to adopt.
Any that don't get adopted in that one fiscal year carry over to the next year.
My opponent then makes an incorrect assertion, while there may be differences in their DNA, insects such as flies are considerably more complex organisms in comparison to stem cells or aborted fetuses.
Just because an animal has more chromosomes does not make them superior. This is true. However, if you have a different number of chromosomes, or if your chromosomes are different enough, then your with few exceptions, your a different species, with a different amount of rights. Since a fly has a different number of chromosomes by a significant amount, they are not human. If they had the same chromosomes but were a bird or something like that, then the chromosomes themselves are too different to be a human.
and you have yet to explain this arbitrary 3 week cutoff.
I did above. It's not super arbitrary and it is based off of the cell specialization.
I defeated Our Boat is Right in a debate so I would know how to judge a debate better than him.
Our Boat is Right was pretty good at debating on DDO. I don't know what happened to him that caused his rating to be so low.
I don't think your rating classifies you as a "top debater" so what would you know?
alec just shredded u
I'll accept defeat, I'm not going to lose 3 times to a kid, my score is too low
Okay.
maybe later
Do you want a rematch?
I know! wtf
If it wasn't for that vote, we would have tied.
This debate result is BS, makes no sense at all, my opponent shouldn't have won just because my answers are more concise!