In recent years the topic of abortion has become extremely relevant, and this discussion is to ignore all religious and personal beliefs to find the truth (remember, this is a persuasion debate so you have to have an open mind, that doesn't mean totally changing your mind, but at least be open to opposition and think about what the opposite side is saying.) Everyone should agree murder is a horrible act, if you refute that you need serious psychological help. Also, nobody is refuting rape and incest are bad acts nor are we condoning these acts, but remember there is no need to avoid these topics, nor waste time repeatedly stating you understand these are horrible acts.
If you turn on the news almost any day in America, you will likely hear people protesting for or against abortion, side note, there is a series on youtube called middle ground check it out, but abortion has become extremely problematic as women where women used to have abortions to save their lives, now they are killing their children because they have down syndrome or because they are boys and not girls. Also, women are aborting their children because they are raped or incest has occurred, again we don't refute these are horrible acts we just need to make a point. I see people all the time go out and protest, "This is my body, a sacred ground, and I don't have to carry something that isn't me and then raise it." The problem is though, when you kill a baby, it isn't your body, it is the babies, and if you say the baby isn't your responsibility to raise, why did you have sex or an ivf I mean I understand you wanting to have sex, but can't you protect yourself. You also have so many women who once they have an abortion they regret what they have done and try to reaffirm other people support their choices even if they know they aren't right. I also have a question, if your body is this sacred temple, why did you let this man invade you? I will keep this first point short ending with one last major point and then expanding these points later, You are raped and or incest occurs, and many people argue you will always think of being raped or the incest event when you see the baby. If you talk to women who has let their baby lived after they are raped you see they do think about the rape sometimes, but they love the kid with all their heart and just because they were raped doesn't make them love that kid any less. People also need to understand the kid committed no crime, so why should he be punished with death. The person who commited the crime should be subject to penalization, but why does what they did justify killing a kid. I have spoke to women who are pro choice, and they say they would give their life for their kids, but when I say would you die for your unborn baby to live they say why should they die for it. I have a question, if you would give your life for a three year old kid why not give your life for a kid that won't be born for a month. The only case to commit an abortion that has any ground is if a mother and the child will die, but an abortion will save the mother. I hate that option, but it is the only case with any ground.
There is no greater love than to give your life for a friend, and I would give my life for many of my friends, then why would I not give my life for my child? If I was to give my life for a friend, say Emma, why not for my soon to be born kiddo?
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
I notice in your entire speech, you never once take into account which sides rules out the other to act out their urges.
You say you would lay down your life for your unborn fetus in the closing statement. You are in no way whatsoever inhibited in doing so in a pro-choice society. A pro-choice society is not an enforced-abortion society.
Rebuttal 2 - The way you justify the killing of a fetus being wrong is assuming that the fetus 'deserves' to live.
I'm going to go ahead and assume you are not anti-contraception and not anti masturbation. The 'wasted seed' is as much killing off potential life as is abortion, it's just less blatant and invasive into the uterus in doing so (unless it's cutting the tubes because that is very invasive). The fetus is a potential life, a potential baby to be born and raised. The state doesn't really want to have to pay its tax money on that baby's welfare, it also doesn't really want abusive, or neglectful parents to raise a being they never intended to exist for most of its conception and who would absolutely have aborted it ASAP given the choice.
The point being, unless the baby is in the third trimester and they have clearly gone past what can be justified as 'time to opt out' which even in the act of masturbating is what you are doing, you are opting your sperm out of the gamble to have a baby (a miscarriage means it is indeed a gamble to have a baby as there is chance it will still amount to nothing in terms of living human beings).
I'm gonna leave those 2 rebuttals as the main holes in your case. If you can't defend against even those 2, I will then push further to achieve the 'persuade me'. I want to see if you can defend against those two and focus on ensuring your case is already weak based on them.
  Considerate: 58%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
What is the reason for the existence of everything?
Unless you can truly answer this question, you cannot truly decide if "abortion is bad".
I would suggest that the word "bad" is somewhat insipid anyway. It would be far more questioning to ask, is abortion wrong.
If you conclude that everything has purpose, then realistically abortion may or may not be wrong.
If you conclude that everything is chance, then realistically abortion becomes irrelevant.
If you cannot come to a conclusion, then realistically abortion may or may not be wrong.
What we are actually discussing is.
Is abortion wrong, in a modern social context?
But of course. No one person has the real authority to make such a decision?
In a fair society, we can only legislate, based on a consensus of opinion.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 60%  
  Substantial: 51%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 51%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
So what is the difference between a normal organ and a fetus then? Both the organ and the fetus have living cells but no mind. It can be argued that the fetus will eventually become a child and the organ won't, but that doesn't change the fact that the fetus itself isn't living. This would make ejaculation genocide due to the fact that sperm cells contain cells, no mind, and will eventually become a child.
Adults will always have a mind so there is no case where they could be alive without a mind. Even when in a coma their mind is active to an extent.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
First I understand Pro-Choice isn't forced abortion it is simply acceptable, and I may have stated my point incorrectly, but I was really asking what the difference between Pro-Choice and Pro-Abortion is, because Pro-Choice seems more like a "softer" way of saying Pro-Abortion. Where you also said the state doesn't want to have to pay for raising the child, there is a "washing out" procedure which is almost like contraception, and very close to a rape kit. Within three days of the rape, incest, other sex act, and for whatever reason you don't want the baby, you can go and get your ovaries flushed and the sperm will be washed out. This is not abortion, while people will argue it is still wrong, at least you are not killing a baby yet. Now once the three days has passed(a baby conceives at that time) the sperm and egg have come together and a life is formed. You asked who outlaws who in your first rebuttal, and that is an interesting question. In our American democracy especially, everyone can expect a right to life, and what Pro Choice or abortion activists are doing is eliminating everyone's right to live. Where before your parents had almost no choice (at least supported) in whether you were born, now they can kill you because they feel like it, because they want to. Also yes, everyone does deserve to live, I can't kill random Joe off the street because he deserves to live. Why would anyone (save murderers) not deserve to live?
And no, the state may not want to have to raise the child, but then why is there welfare for people who can work, even though they just choose not to? I will almost completely ignore the baby deserves to die because of what the father did argument simply because the answer is obvious, but again, why would anyone deserve to die because of another's action? I want to quickly point out I am not asking a rhetorical question. I have just one last question, if a grown man deserves to live, why would a fetus not? Simply because someone is not born yet doesn't mean it doesn't have life.
My argument is pretty weak, easy to beat.
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
For fun I'll answer this one question.
A grown man deserves to live because of everyone being too terrified or too incapable (or both) to kill him. Simple as that, period.
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
It's my view that selecting any point along the life cycle of a human being as the start of said human being's life is inherently arbitrary. What you're doing is stating that a select set of characteristics effectively constructs what a human being is. In fact, this is a very common argument from Pro-Life people, but they don't seem to understand that they're damning their own point in the process of making it. Usually, it's addressed at claims like those made by @Fascism, wherein there is some characteristic (in this case, a mind) that is absolutely necessary for a human being to come into existence. I view that argument as arbitrary as well, partly because human development cycles aren't all so clear-cut, and partly because I don't feel that there's anything inherent to the creation of a "mind" that actually specifies what is human. But the argument stretches across all supposedly human characteristics.
Assuming we could somehow strip out pieces of ourselves, at what point would we cease to be human? That's basically the question we're asking ourselves here, since the zygote formed upon conception is effectively a completely stripped down human, i.e. a single cell with "unique" "human" genetic material (note that the quotes are meant to demarcate terms that aren't altogether clear, reasons to separate a zygote from any other organism). Why is this a human? What makes it human? If it's not human, what makes a blastocyst human? If not that, what makes an embryo human? A fetus? At what point is humanity applied to this organism growing within the womb? More importantly, what separates that entity from any of the prior stages in its life cycle? The gametes (sperm and ovum) contain human DNA, and are necessary components of a zygote, as a zygote is a necessary component of a blastocyst, and so on. Why aren't these gametes humans? Why aren't the cells that were their progenitors humans? At what point do we stop, and why do we stop? The only realistic argument I've heard against all this is that uncertainty should lead us to be as careful as possible because we don't know, that we should set the bar as low as possible to prevent any humans from dying. But that runs into the same problem. If we really want to be that careful, why aren't we talking about banning masturbation? Why are contraceptives allowed in a world where every instance of intercourse is a potential child lost? Why allow rape kits at all when they actively prevent the formation of a new life?
Now, I'm Pro-Choice. However, it's not my argument that human life begins in a specific trimester. I'm not pretending that I know when a human life starts. What I do know is that we're all setting that line arbitrarily. We define certain traits as being sufficient for defining an organism as human, and we justify those traits by various means. My perspective is that, since there is nowhere to define the beginning of a life, we have to instead define the beginning of a separate life, i.e. the point at which viability outside the womb is possible. I'm not pretending that that is the point when a human life begins, but rather the point at which a human life achieves a degree of independence, one where it is not physically attached to the mother. Maybe this is just as arbitrary as any other view, but as far as I'm concerned, there's no harm in taking it. It draws a clear line between a child born into the world and one that is not, and thereby treats the two lives very differently. By definition, it does not devalue any human life that exists outside the womb.
More importantly, it deals with a number of nasty problems. A mother who loses her life at the end of her pregnancy is never going to have another child. The loss of that woman inherently results in the loss of any future children. Why should she be forced to sacrifice their lives for this one? Rape victims tend to be traumatized, and as a result they do not rapidly report their rapes or seek help. Blaming them for not getting a rape kit in time to stop the pregnancy is literally victim shaming, so abortion functions as a more than reasonable back up. But getting into individual cases like this misses the forest for the trees. Requiring every single woman who gets pregnant to be so strongly protective that they must carry it to term is ludicrous. Women would sabotage their own pregnancy through numerous means, harming themselves and the potential infant. In the process, they may lose their ability to have any future children when they're ready. They may give birth to a child with severe problems. You may view this as an issue where life should always be paramount, but when the harm is a tremendous loss in quality of life, that has to be considered as well.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 28%  
  Learn More About Debra
You state that, "as far as I'm concerned, there's no harm in taking it. It draws a clear line between a child born into the world and one that is not, and thereby treats the two lives very differently. By definition, it does not devalue an human life that exists outside the womb."
I believe similarly of my separation. I don't think there is no harm in taking it. It draws a clear line between a fetus that matters and an organ, and thereby has different value in the society. By definition, it does not devalue a human life that exists outside the womb.
Of course, my definition has the same problem as yours since both of them have the same amount of merit if I don't explain myself. So I will explain why I chose the presence of a mind as the deciding feature.
I chose a mind because the whole concept of life is the presence of consciousness. What separates a human from a robot that acts exactly like a human? The only difference is the presence of a mind. Of course, that particular robot would have the same processing power as a human and will be programmed to act exactly the same as a human would to certain stimulus including social interaction hypothetically, but it cannot truly think and feel from its consciousness. It is just a machine. This is why I chose the presence of a mind as the deciding feature.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
I didn’t mean to put down your view of a meaningful means of separation, nor to state that mine is more meritorious. The statement I made regarding yours is that it’s still an arbitrary basis for designating the start of a human life. It’s fine as a pragmatic basis for determining what separates an entity with rights from an entity that mostly lacks them, which is the same basis as mine, so there’s no harm in it.
Your explanation makes sense to me. I think along similar lines about the issue, and the mind is something I’d consider to be essential.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Arbitrary this and arbitrary that,
Arbitrary anorexic and arbitrary fat,
Arbitrary very scary, arbitrary very chill,
Arbitrary worthless fetus, time to eat after I kill.
Darwin was wrong. It isn't the most adapted to the environment who make it. It's those who adapt the environment to them. You aren't born a winner, you need to pave the way for you to become one.
Stop crying about a fetus, be thankful you were not the aborted one and get the hell on with life.
  Considerate: 45%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.2  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Not sure I see a response to my points in there. Can’t tell if you meant this to be a comedic embellishment or an actual response.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 36%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes but we can still argue which arbitrary basis is better, can we not?
Many morals are arbitrary, but we can still determine certain morals which are better than others. For example, is the freedom for someone to kill more important, or is the freedom for someone to not get killed more important. Both are certain freedoms which are based on arbitrary morals, but we can still determine that the freedom to not get killed is more important based on cultural and universal values.
In this case, it would be the argument of whether a human being that could be valued should be defined by having a mind, or being outside the womb.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
If you want to enter a debate, pick a side and get on with the debating.
Human life begins when human DNA has formed. Yes, that's right we're killing humans who are a parasite to a member of society who can be a lot more productive in her life if she doesn't have this child. Even if she gives it up for adoption, that really is not too helpful considering the overpopulation going on around the world.
Don't pretend that life is supposed to be nice and do not for a second stand there and say that killing people is unfair or wrong. Are you a vegetarian? Really? Then maybe I'd respect this stance you take. I don't understand mercy, I was barely ever shown it in life and the times where I was shown it, it was rubbed completely in my face.
Life is a competition. You may not 'win' but you can try your best to 'not lose with as many style points as we can get'. Just stop sitting there sulking about what's arbitrary, what's definite and what's good. Good people die first in any desert island scenario. Yes, you are right, the aggressive maniac killing them will be the next to die. Meanwhile the calculating norm who are neither naive nor completely unfit for society are going to gang together, grab pigs by their feet and there sure isn't time or resources to electrocute its brain to ease the pain of the neck slitting and bleeding out in the Lord of the Flies scenario.
Good guys never ever win in life. The first to hurt them also never wins. Just because you kill a fetus doesn't mean you go around being a threat to fully formed human beings, no one wants that and they will be just as merciless to you as you were to those beings.
It's not about justice, it's about negotiation. The fetus has nothing to negotiate with, it's not a threat and no one feels themselves to be fetus-like. That's why we eat meat so happily and even make anyone who'd dare bring up how merciless the entire thing is at Christmas dinner a nuisance. Yes, I know the type as part of my family is like this. They'd sooner kick me in the shin under the table and say 'shut up you annoying bast**d!' than to listen and care about the suffering the turkeys and other birds go through on such occasions (duck and goose are more common Christmas meals in EU nations rather than turkey).
Don't cry because the world is cruel, smile because you can become just as cruel.
  Considerate: 30%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 34%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
I agree with you that in an ideal society moral codes shouldn't be needed.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
You have a lot to learn about the world if you think Churchill just wanted Britain left alone. His predecessor wanted Britain left alone, Churchill wanted blood and blood he got.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 33%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 45%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
But hey, if you're going to make actual responses, let's get to them.
"Human life begins when human DNA has formed."
Human DNA is never "formed." It replicates, it recombines with other DNA, but it does not "form." That's important because it tells you that the fundamental composition of DNA in an infant is derived directly from that child's parents. So that DNA is not unique, though it may be a unique recombination of DNA from each parent. However, if DNA is what makes us human, what part of that DNA causes our inherent humanness? We share 98.5% of our DNA with chimpanzees. Is it the 1.5% that makes us human? How much of that can we lose and still be human? And how much of us has to have that DNA in order to be human? Why isn't a pig that has grown an organ specifically for use in xenotransplantation (making the organ effectively human, since it has human DNA) also human?
"Don't pretend that life is supposed to be nice and do not for a second stand there and say that killing people is unfair or wrong."
Did I take that stance? Where? I said that human beings are entitled to certain rights. They are provided those rights via a basic social contract in which their societies agree to treat them a certain way and ensure that others treat them that way as well. Killing people might be necessary in some circumstances, but we don't make a habit of condoning it in societies because it tends to make the whole social structure break down.
"Are you a vegetarian?"
Not sure what this has to do with anything. If you want me to justify eating meat, I'd be more than happy to provide that argument, but it's entirely besides the point. I'm not stating anything about mercy. I'm talking about how society should structure its laws in a pragmatic and meaningful way instead of relying on arbitrary distinctions.
"Just stop sitting there sulking about what's arbitrary, what's definite and what's good. Good people die first in any desert island scenario."
It's not sulking to engage in reasonable argumentation on an issue like this. The fact that I'm interested in discussing the issue of how we decide whether or not abortion should be legal and on what basis is not what I would call sulking. I'm establishing an inherent flaw in the logic of a commonly made argument. I'm not trying to be "good" either, whatever that means. But if your overall point is that I'll die on a desert island with some maniacs around, then you're probably right. I have no clue what that has to do with any of this discussion, and it sounds like you're going off on a tangent chiefly because you have a lot of personal issues you're working through. But whatever you're dealing with, it has no place in this debate.
"It's not about justice, it's about negotiation. The fetus has nothing to negotiate with, it's not a threat and no one feels themselves to be fetus-like. That's why we eat meat so happily and even make anyone who'd dare bring up how merciless the entire thing is at Christmas dinner a nuisance."
Again, sounding like you've got a lot of personal baggage you're dragging into this. If the idea is that a fetus fundamentally has no rights because it cannot negotiate for them, then you're also treating an awful lot of human beings the same, including those in a coma and those without the ability to comprehensibly defend themselves. You might feel that these people aren't inherently human, but you're going to get a lot of push-back on that view. I'd say it functions against the basic social contract by treating the loss (temporary or permanent) of certain brain functions as effectively turning a human being into nothing more than a pile of meat.
"Don't cry because the world is cruel, smile because you can become just as cruel."
Gee, what a swell message. Other people are monsters? Become one. Great. Loving it.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Is this a philosophical debate or a biology lesson?
I am merely presenting an alternative point of view.
Abortion debate does not exclusively, have to be discussed in the socio-conceptual arena.
Especially a debate, categorized as philosophy.
The socio-conceptual box is quite limiting.
You should occasionally try and think outside the box.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.4  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 29%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 59%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 30%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
I agree with you for the most part.
I would just want to touch upon this "Ultimately, when aborted, yes, the baby will feel pain. Maybe lots of it ...". This is not true for the overwhelming majority of abortions. For most pregnancies, the fetus cannot feel pain until week 30 (give or take a few weeks depending on development). Yes, the nerves that sense pain are developed before week 30. However, "the nerves' existence isn't enough to produce the experience of pain, the authors wrote in their review. Rather, "These anatomical structures must also be functional," the authors wrote. It's not until around 30 weeks that there is evidence of brain activity that suggests the fetus is "awake.""
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.04  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
But let's get into what you did say.
You seem to be misunderstanding my argument. What I said is that you're effectively victim shaming by treating the victim as a responsible for not getting a rape kit in time. You're effectively stating that they have two choices: come forward to someone who can get them a rape kit about the circumstances they faced within the first 3 days after the rape, or accept the pregnancy and all that comes with it. So, you're requiring that a heavily traumatized woman who may be extremely damaged by her experience is either required to confide in someone else about that horrific experience within 3 days. Considering these women didn't willingly accept what happened, if they were just too traumatized to seek help in those first few days, they are effectively shouldered with the burden of carrying that child to term. No recourse. In doing so, the state is actively adding to her trauma by either forcing her to come forward in her heavily traumatized state or requiring her to bear that child for 9 months. I don't see how that's not victim shaming and, what's more, victim punishing. A lot of your argument comes down to "don't punish the child for the wrongdoing of the father," but I'd view requiring a 9 month sentence with a continuous reminder of past trauma for the mother as pretty damn punishing. If your only response is that they should just seek mental assistance, then you're fundamentally limiting their options and forcing them to suffer. Mental assistance can only do so much, and pretending that it's sufficient for every woman is just plain wrong. As for the effects of harming the baby being on her, when you leave her literally no other option, a woman who has suffered great trauma is likelier to take these actions. You can blame these woman all you want (though, again, that seems to ignore the effects of their trauma), but that doesn't minimize the reality that you're increasing the propensity of those harms occurring.
You say that it's fallacious to argue that many women might harm themselves. It's not fallacious to argue reality: women would still seek abortions regardless of legality, and the illegality of abortions would lead to them pursuing significantly more dangerous means. What part of that argument is fallacious? Even if the family of the woman can help her (and that's assuming she'd come to them with a desire to do this now illegal activity), no medical hospital would be able to perform the procedure, meaning all of the risks go up.
Your nominalism argument doesn't make much sense. I'm not arguing that certain traits are necessary to make a human beyond viability outside the womb, so my argument cannot be used to kill random people because they lack certain traits. I don't see what "the point of names" argument has to do with this at all because we can still arbitrarily designate people as being Marc or Andrew or Denise or Jessica without treating that characteristic as the basis for their humanity. It seems like you're trying to obfuscate my point, which actually has nothing to do with nominalism. I didn't say that universals or general ideas don't exist. I said that there is no clear start point to when an individual becomes human. To be absolutely clear: human beings do exist, but we can't know what imbues them with humanity. I would argue that, since we cannot define that starting point, that we should not base our decision regarding whether or not abortion is moral on that starting point. So you're missing my point. You do point out later that everyone has different points of establishing when a human life starts, and I agree there is broad disagreement within the Pro-Choice group (and I said as much in my initial post). I don't see how that makes it more faulty than the Pro-Life movement, nor do I see it as a reason to dismiss the Pro-Choice arguments.
Lastly, you talk about DNA. So let's talk DNA. It seems like your argument is that the uniqueness of that DNA is what makes it life. So, tell me, is a clone life? A clone, by definition, has identical DNA to another individual. Is that not life? Is an identical twin, which carries the exact same DNA as another individual, also not life? It's new, but it's certainly not unique. So, then, maybe your basis is that it's new life - that we've generated a separate being carrying certain traits from other humans. What are those traits that make up a human? How much of those genes could I strip away and still have a human being? If it is new life, then why isn't a genetically engineered organism growing a human organ considered human? If I splice human DNA in my lab, I will have unique and new DNA. Are the contents of the tube in which I made it now human? I'd like to get your views on these questions.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.9  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
Just Skip to Second Paragraph
I meant to get to the point where the mother hurting herself because no one will help her and the baby being defective because of that isn't fully the mother's fault. The other point meant to be you need to assume if the teenage girl is raped, she still probably lives with her parents and because of that, the mother won't have to raise the child alone if the father abandons her. The nominalism wasn't meaning the traits, or even your specific argument. I meant people who argue at what point is it a human life, and even then why should we call it a baby if it isn't born yet. They were arguing it isn't a living baby since it just has the makeup of a baby it could end up different (defective) and at that point is it still human. I was saying just because a baby has issues it is still a human life, and should be treated like a normal baby. I mean you shouldn't kill the baby solely because it is defective, then have another kid. The baby isn't like a prize wheel you can put another dollar in and get a better prize. Again, the nominalism was not attacking your argument, I think it was 234's.
In your final paragraph or point you were talking about the dna splicing and I would like to point out one thing. There is a thing called Xenotransplantation and is the transplantation of living cells, tissues or organs from one species to another. If a baby is to be born lacking an organ, you can insert the dna into the baby, and it will grow the part, (risky but possible) (look it up.)
Last thing, we can obviously find a human from an animal, and a black from a white man. The cloning may not be fully ethical (I don't know why It is just on the news every time an animal is cloned about how unethical it would be to clone a human.) We can also tell a horse from a bull, you get the point? If we have human dna spliced into an animal or backwards, we need to stop and think about it. Is it still mostly a human, but say now it had a pigs stomach,it is till mostly human. Now if we have a pig with a human stomach, it is till mostly pig. I think as long as you don't take away what makes that person human, the evolved brain and ability to understand free will (major components in what makes us human.) If you are religious you will get this point (A beast (any animal) can reproduce, but cannot love, an angel can love, but not reproduce. Now a human is like both, part human and part divine, as they can both love and reproduce(key idea in Christianity.) The point is, if a human has the mind, or i don't know how to put it (thought process maybe?) however the brain is, if that part and how it works is retained, it is a person. If the person is a human mind and head on a pig body, it should still probably be called a human, because it is a human mind and the half person/animal behaves as such. We could make our own argument about this (do you want to?) and we could waste hours on it. It seems though who or whatever controls the mind, it is that. What do you think?
  Considerate: 67%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 44%  
  Learn More About Debra
As for the rest of your argument regarding what makes a person human, you really seem to just be moving further away from the questions I've presented. A zygote doesn't have an evolved brain, nor does a blasocyst, an embryo, or a fetus, and even an infant born into this world cannot immediately comprehend the concept of free will. I am religious-ish (I'm a reform Jew), but it seems like the ability to love and reproduce also have nothing to do with any stage in the developmental process. So, I guess all of this has to do with the questions about what you could take away from someone and still call them human, but my point really links back to this question of development. What is it about a zygote that fundamentally designates it as human? The reason I asked about the stripped down part is that, effectively, a zygote is an incredibly stripped down human - down to a single cell with its own DNA. I haven't really seen reasoning in your argument for why you'd call that human while a sperm and ovum are not, and even the argument I gave above about the potential to become human falls into the same trap. If DNA doesn't designate a zygote as a new human being, what does?
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 76%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 72%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra