Abortion is Morally Justified

He mixes up the words "life" and "person" so much that it seems he does not know the philosophical definition of a person. Until he can even approach cleaning up his mess (and then refuting my arguments), the vote goes to PRO. >>>life was the category of this debate round the second the fetus was destroyed in an abortion. <<< I never used life as a measurement for justification in this debate. I used PERSONHOOD. To be a person is to be self-aware, thus implying one has a fully functioning brain. This is much more distinct that simply being alive. >>>and are you going to compare human life to a plant? if you were to do that you could say it is alright to kill any man just as it is to kill a plant. plants are not human. we shall not compare them to humans. <<< EXACTLY. But that's what YOU DID. You said a fetus is life, abortion is killing life, so therefore abortion is wrong. Basically, you have stated that killing life is wrong. But life is a broad category. Life INCLUDES animals and plants. Unless you give a non-arbitrary reason for why humans, a form of life, should have "higher" or "more" rights than an animal or plant, your argument is fallacious. >>>again were talking about human embryo's. you can take it however you like, but remember this is a debate on human abortion. <<< *Sigh* you are refuting your own argument. I said "is a dog a human being" to show how fallacious it was of you to say that killing life is bad, thus abortion is bad. You're justification is too broad, and includes non-human animals and plants. Unless you justify against eating veggies, you're argument is arbitrary. >>>the point of this statement was to show that a fetus and embryo ARE alive. but thoughts don't always make somebody alive. <<< I NEVER USED LIVING AS A JUSTIFICATION. I USED PERSONHOOD. >>>should we go kill every stillborn out there because they simply have no thought reaction? <<< . .. haha. A stillborn is a dead fetus via miscarriage or upon birth. You can't kill something that's dead. ===== The two part response ===== >>>1. exactly your proving my point. it is a contradiction. one that should not be made, and me putting a gun to your head would be no different from an abortion. thankyou for expanding the true intent of my words. and again, life and quality of life became the issue the second the fetuses life became endagered by an abortion. <<< If you agree that it's a contradiction, then it's YOUR statement that is contradiction. You can't threaten to kill something that is dead. Can you threaten a rock with it's life? Of course not, that's ridiculous. >>>2. you didn't use the quality of life arg. i did. good analogy. <<< No, it's a sh*tty analogy because I never used "quality of life" as an argument, and your original response was an attempted REBUTTAL of mine. Therefore, you have committed a strawman. >>>first of all you have one argument, that we have been debating this whole round. 'is the fetus a person? ' second of all i have given plenty good reasons to show a fetus is living. <<< *facesmash*. Just because something is living DOES NOT MEAN it's necessarily a person. Your failure to see this difference is so naive and trivial that I can't believe it's been like this the entire the debate. >>>sorry sir but it became relevant the second you used the resolution "abortion is morally justified, meaning you must prove it is justified in all cases. me seeing that you dropped this argument tells me that you agree with it, and that should be held on note for the voters. and i used it as part of MY arguement, so there should be some kind of obligation to refute it as i have refute any point you have made. but any ways one arguments dropped for me :)<<< You say that rape and incest account for only 1% of abortions. You then go on to say what is the "driving motivation behind promoting them", or whatever. Obviously, this would be relevant IF I WAS JUSTIFYING ABORTION because of rape and incest cases. You can't construct a rebuttal of an argument I never use. ===== My opponent's conclusion ===== I will go through little snippets of my opponent's argument to demonstrate the incredible "logic" he displays: >>>we are not comparing plants to human life, because you wouldn't kill a man just because it is alright to kill a plant. .. plant life is not relevant to abortion. however do keep in mind that however irrelevant it seems to me, i still argued it. <<< What is it, does life matter or not? Because you seem to say both sides. >>>MY opponent has not given me any info as to when a fetus can be concieved as actually living. <<< LIVING DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN BEING A PERSON. >>>me telling you your life is not important because you are not a live would be a contradiction just as my opponent pointed so gratefully for me. <<< Yes, a contradiction on YOUR PART. Those who are sensible, just read that closely. Telling someone their life is not important because they AREN'T ALIVE? Their life wouldn't be important because THEY DON'T HAVE ONE. Similarly so, I NEVER USE the life reason. ===== Conclusion ===== I'm sorry to say, but my opponent's argument is completely illogical and filled with strawmans. He hasn't even come to the understanding that living isn't necessarily make you a person - which I have you used as a measurement of justification for abortion. My opponent seriously needs to pay attention next time.