azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

I find your inability to answer the question quite telling.I have answered the question. Several times now. The answer is no. You're attempting to demonstrate a double standard or inconsistency with my position; however, this is not the case- rather, it is the same standard being applied to two different scenarios. Your argument is equivalent to offering the pay difference between a female waitress and a male engineer as evidence of a pay gap between the genders.A dog that bites fingers and breaks the skin etc, but does not have the ability to rip fingers fully off - can a person reasonably (and/or legally) choose to get rid of?A dog that is able to break the skin but not rip the finger off of an adult is perfectly capable of fatally injuring a small child. As such, said dog is exhibiting habitual behaviour that can certainly be fatal.If you're referring to a dog that is unable to do more than barely break the skin on a baby, that doesn't meet the qualifier of 'severe damage' that you used for this example.After being pregnant more than 12 weeks, a woman finds out about a complication of her pregnancy that will very likely result in loss of her ovaries - can she reasonably (and/or legally) choose to get rid of?A shitty situation, certainly, but I suppose it's always a shitty situation when we're talking about this kind of rights. It's very tough, but ultimately my vote would be a no here, although I'm certain others might disagree or even consider me a horrible person for that. But ultimately, I believe that an animals right to life trumps a humans right to an organ that isn't necessary for survival. I'm sure I'll catch flak, but I'm sticking to that- the life of the mother outweighs the life of a 12 week+ fetus, but the non-fatal injury of the mother does not out weigh that life.If there is never enough similarity for comparison, then it is possible that claiming fetal rights should equate to animal rights is not an apt analogy.Pardon my french, but bullshit. If that were the case, talking about animal rights at all would be a non starter, given that many animals could not possibly be involved in equivalents to every situation where rights might come into question. Is there a comparable situation to the dog attacks you noted for every other animal you can think of? A goldfish, maybe? What could a goldfish do that would be comparable to a dog attack, where the same ruling on rights applies? If animal rights can apply to both a goldfish and a dog, then they can certainly also apply to a fetus.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

A shitty situation, certainly, but I suppose it's always a shitty situation when we're talking about this kind of rights. It's very tough, but ultimately my vote would be a no here, although I'm certain others might disagree or even consider me a horrible person for that. But ultimately, I believe that an animals right to life trumps a humans right to an organ that isn't necessary for survival. I'm sure I'll catch flak, but I'm sticking to that- the life of the mother outweighs the life of a 12 week+ fetus, but the non-fatal injury of the mother does not out weigh that life. I am prolife, but I disagree. I feel that abortion should be allowed for the life of the mother or if the baby will die anyway, but otherwise no.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

You know, you really should read the post you're replying to- and quoting- before you respond to it.I just said, specifically, that I feel that the life of the mother outweighs the life of a 12 week+ fetus, but a non-fatal injury does not. I was stating that I do not feel it is ok to abort because of a significant risk of non-fatal damage to the ovaries. You say you disagree, and then proceed to state a position that is almost identical to my own.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Okay thank you. I misunderstood what you said. I agree with you.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

I misunderstood what you said. I read the whole thing now. I agree.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

A dog that is able to break the skin but not rip the finger off of an adult is perfectly capable of fatally injuring a small child.A small dog with the ability to break skin on an adult is not necessarily able to kill children. If the dog were only able to break skin on babies and small children and not fatally wound them, would one then not be able to morally get rid of the dog in your view? Should there be a law against getting rid of the dog for the same?If you're referring to a dog that is unable to do more than barely break the skin on a baby, that doesn't meet the qualifier of 'severe damage' that you used for this example.Right, a dog that does not pose the same risk of 'severe damage' as a child - and yet the dog so far is able to be got rid of and the baby not.I'm sure I'll catch flakNot from me, I am just trying to flush out your opinion (and perhaps "attempting to demonstrate a double standard or inconsistency with [your] position".)talking about animal rights at all would be a non starterWhether legally or morally, animal rights are certainly not a settled matter.Is there a comparable situation to the dog attacks you noted for every other animal you can think of?Maybe not every animal for every situation, but certainly some animals in some situations. Take the case where an owner has not only a goldfish, but also a cat and the cat, being intrigued by the fish, jumps on things and poses a danger to itself or others - can an owner morally and/or legally get rid of the goldfish rather than the cat?
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

A small dog with the ability to break skin on an adult is not necessarily able to kill children. If the dog were only able to break skin on babies and small children and not fatally wound them, would one then not be able to morally get rid of the dog in your view? Should there be a law against getting rid of the dog for the same?With those qualifiers on the situation, sure. I would be opposed to putting the dog down under those circumstances. I should note that such a dog represents a tiny minority of the dog population, though- the overwhelming majority of dogs are strong enough to potentially kill a small child.Right, a dog that does not pose the same risk of 'severe damage' as a child - and yet the dog so far is able to be got rid of and the baby not.So far nothing- when I noted that it was based on the potential for future danger, it should have been understood that cases where the danger is negligible don't qualify for the response in question. Such a dog should not be a candidate for euthenasia, in my opinion.Not from me, I am just trying to flush out your opinion (and perhaps "attempting to demonstrate a double standard or inconsistency with [your] position".)Fair enough.Whether legally or morally, animal rights are certainly not a settled matter.This is very true- but there is certainly some law and some majority consensus on the moral side re: animal rights.Maybe not every animal for every situation, but certainly some animals in some situations. Take the case where an owner has not only a goldfish, but also a cat and the cat, being intrigued by the fish, jumps on things and poses a danger to itself or others - can an owner morally and/or legally get rid of the goldfish rather than the cat?That is a very interesting question- although I would again question the necessity of removal of either, as simply keeping them apart from one another would suffice. Exploring the question isn't really relevant to the topic at hand and is certainly far off-topic for the debate- it would be an interesting subject for discussion in an animal rights debate- if I see it in one of those I'd love to explore it, just not here.Thank you, at least, for your concession that not all situations need have equivalents to still fall under animal rights.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

I would be opposed to putting the dog downShould there be a law against the same?the overwhelming majority of dogsI assume the morality of the situation would have little, if anything, to do with how often it occurs, no?although I would again question the necessity of removal of either, as simply keeping them apart from one another would suffice.as we discussed before, options are available with animals that aren't available with pregnancy. It might be useful at some point to excogitate upon how any of the above scenarios would differ if getting rid of the animal was the only option.certainly far off-topic for the debateperhaps not as far afield as it might seem at first glance. It involves even less chance of human harm and yet it is still "a very interesting question" at the very least.I think we have largely flushed out your thoughts on the matter and people can decide to what extent they agree. I thank you for your time. I do think it possible and worthwhile to devise a scenario where the danger can be more comparative - the solution might be using wild animals rather than pets to mitigate the risk to other humans. For instance, a person walking in the wild stumbles upon an animal that can brutally maim but is unlikely to kill them, perhaps a badger or something - would a person be (morally/legally) justified in killing the animal?
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

I'll tentatively say that I'd support such a law, but it would need to be a very lengthy, detailed bill, given how many permutations of the situation there are.If that is the case for even a dog that can't kill children, then at least the same would apply to abortion law, correct?type of threat a fetus could posea fetus can pose the full range of damage - from nearly every pregnancy affecting a woman mentally, physically, emotionally, hormonally, etc. to complications which prevent women from having future children, having permanent organ damage, pregnancy induced diabetes which can turn into type 2, etc all the way up to and including death.the rights of one animal vs the rights of anotherand the rights of the pets' owner, right?which in theory should generally be held to be equal.depending - the owner could certainly value more the animal with the most brain, or longevity, or the better companion, etc.bear attack exampleright, but with a higher degree of mortality which pushed it over the threshold. if there was a right animal which has a high degree of likelihood of maiming, but low degree of mortality, and was attacking - could a person shoot that animal in your view?allergySure, let's work with that. Say a person has a severe allergy, but combine this with limiting the options to keeping or putting down.Would you think it could justifiably be put down?
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

If that is the case for even a dog that can't kill children, then at least the same would apply to abortion law, correct?Yes, which is what I've been saying from the get go- although not the same complexity as dealing with a dog because (as noted) the fetus cannot engage in habitual behavior, nor can it endanger anyone but the mother, making it much easier to call in most cases.a fetus can pose the full range of damage - from nearly every pregnancy affecting a woman mentally, physically, emotionally, hormonally, etc. to complications which prevent women from having future children, having permanent organ damage, pregnancy induced diabetes which can turn into type 2, etc all the way up to and including death.I didn't say 'type of damage.' I said 'type of threat.' There is more to it than that, as I've already explored.and the rights of the pets' owner, right?Your situation that has us picking which animal to get rid of has already answered the question re: the pet owners rights.depending - the owner could certainly value more the animal with the most brain, or longevity, or the better companion, etc.I'm not suggesting they wouldn't; a call has to be made here one way or the other, and either decision is entirely legal- I'm just noting that from a 'rights' perspective, they're in theory equal.right, but with a higher degree of mortality which pushed it over the threshold. if there was a right animal which has a high degree of likelihood of maiming, but low degree of mortality, and was attacking - could a person shoot that animal in your view?As I've already stated, yes. A wild animal attack always represents mortal danger. Animals that aren't capable of causing fatal damage to humans typically don't attack except when significantly provoked, or when carrying a disease like rabies. If the animal is a mammal, simply getting checked out for rabies will involve putting the animal down anyway, regardless of whether or not you actually have it. I would apply the same logic to an uncollared stray dog for that matter, given that one can't safely assume an uncollared stray is vaccinated.Sure, let's work with that. Say a person has a severe allergy, but combine this with limiting the options to keeping or putting down.Would you think it could justifiably be put down?It would depend on the severity of the allergy. If by 'severe' you mean 'life threatening' then sure. If you simply mean 'severe discomfort' then no.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

not the same complexityAt the end of the day I assume there would probably be more complexity. Instead of habits, you would have to address all of the complications. And multiples (twins, triplets, etc) certainly would have to take into account those besides the mother. Can someone abort one child to preserve the life of its twin? What about just to give it a much better chance? There are also complications that could affect both the mother and the child - what balance should be drawn there, etc?RE: cat v goldfish & "either decision is entirely legal"isn't the danger posed far less than the life of the owner, yet getting rid of either is (and should be??) entirely legal?I'm just noting that from a 'rights' perspective, they're in theory equal.It depends on whose "theory" you are using. The same theory that assigns humans more "rights" than "animals" could likely be used in this case too.Re: wild animals:It looks like your using a lot more effort to avoid the scenario than to address it. Take the rabies case, it is not fatal in the US if treated. So, if a wild animal off the beaten path appears to have rabies and is beginning to attack, but is not likely to kill you, can you shoot it?RE: allergyThanks for answering.It does provide an opening to ask a question I have been meaning to get your opinion on: "life threatening" - approximately what degree of certainty of death do you feel is required to consider something "life threatening", >0% chance, >50% chance, > 80% chance, absolute certainty...?
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

At the end of the day I assume there would probably be more complexity. Instead of habits, you would have to address all of the complications. And multiples (twins, triplets, etc) certainly would have to take into account those besides the mother. Can someone abort one child to preserve the life of its twin? What about just to give it a much better chance? There are also complications that could affect both the mother and the child - what balance should be drawn there, etc?Of course there will be some complexity; just less than in the previous example. Every issue you've noted here has an equivalent that could be explored with other animals. So, I stand by my prior statement, that the level of complexity involved is lesser when dealing with fetuses than it is when dealing with animals.isn't the danger posed far less than the life of the owner, yet getting rid of either is (and should be??) entirely legal?The scenario you presented was the owner choosing which one to get rid of, and it would be entirely legal to get rid of either; I answered under that premise. I don't believe it would be moral to put either down in that situation, but the scenario didn't have that angle open. My answer regarding the legality was a factual response regarding the current state of affairs, not what I would prefer; I believe I've communicated my preference quite thoroughly at this point.It depends on whose "theory" you are using. The same theory that assigns humans more "rights" than "animals" could likely be used in this case too.I'm not looking at anyone's specific theory here. I'm looking at the term 'animal rights' here, which is referring to all non-human animals. Perhaps some differentiation is merited, but that is again outside of the scope of this debate.The second half of your statement seems to be going the 'but humans ARE animals' route, unless I'm misreading you. This is incorrect; the term 'animal' specifically refers to non-humans, even if we can be biologically classified into the same groups as numerous animals. It is similar to the terms 'natural' vs' artificial' referring to produced by natural processes vs created by man. Some argue that 'nature' includes man, and therefore 'artificial' doesn't exist. They're wrong; just because they don't agree with where the line is drawn, the terms are used specifically because of where others have drawn that line.It looks like your using a lot more effort to avoid the scenario than to address it. Take the rabies case, it is not fatal in the US if treated. So, if a wild animal off the beaten path appears to have rabies and is beginning to attack, but is not likely to kill you, can you shoot it?I HAVE addressed it, you just seem to be uncomfortable with the idea that situations are complex. I refuse to accept oversimplification. It doesn't matter that rabies isn't fatal with treatment; part of the process of identifying rabies quickly enough for treatment to be effective is killing the offending animal and dissecting its brain. If there is a chance that the animal is carrying rabies, and it attacks you, it's dead anyway.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

The scenario you presented was the owner choosing which one to get rid ofYou certainly could still have said that neither was moral.I believe I've communicated my preference quite thoroughly at this point.Except what you think should be legal in such a case.My answer regarding the legality was a factual response regarding the current state of affairs, not what I would preferThat is what I thought, so I wanted to give you the opportunity to clarify. As an aside, I am not really interested in asking what the current law is, I can easily find that myself - my main concern is what people think the law should be and only tangentially what they think is moral.I'm not looking at anyone's specific theory here.Are you claiming an objective morality?outside of the scope of this debateyour assertion that fetal rights should be analogous to animal rights is what brings them within the scope.the term 'animal' specifically refers to non-humansHumans are definitively animals. There are usages of the word animals which are intended to refer to non-humans and I read your statement to mean that, but it is certainly based on a given perspective.If humans have preference because of additional brain function, can a cat be preferred over a goldfish for the same reason?If there is a chance that the animal is carrying rabies, and it attacks you, it's dead anyway.Unless it gets away - then you wouldn't perform the test. Or, maybe a person would consider it more moral to undergo the pain and treatment for rabies than to kill the animal to test it to see if they can forego that (less-than-lethal) cost.Also, do you care to address the other questions that arose:Can someone abort one child to preserve the life of its twin?What about just to give it a much better chance?There are also complications that could affect both the mother and the child - what balance should be drawn there?What statistical probability is required to be considered life-threatening?
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

I would support legislation under these conditions.Is it your belief that legislation which sufficiently addresses these conditions is possible?my call would be to get rid of the cat.but do you believe it should be legal for a person to get rid of either one?[t]here are laws against humans eating human flesh, wish fetuses would fall under, so it wouldn't be acceptableagain this is current law - not your position on whether it should be law, or whether it is moral.self defensedoes self-defense include not just where you think you will likely die, but also where you think you will be (severely?) injured?No law in this case. & Legally, sure.Sweet - we have some answers!!Ok - so, less than lethal threat, very unlikely to endanger others and we are legally allowed to kill it. If a mother takes some steps (vitamins, exercise, etc.) that would equate to the rock throwing - how is aborting the less-than-lethal child now different? I would need more info as to why they believe it to have rabies to make the call.Seemingly excessive saliva, absence of skittishness in a normally passive animal, etc.fetus' have equal rightsequal rights is not dispositive of fetus v fetus rights.I'd support abortion in most cases under this categoryDo you think legal language is possible which addresses all of your concerns?legislating the methodology involved is a mistake, as it ultimately amounts to voters and politicians telling doctors how to do their jobIf voters and politicians don't specify, then it will be left up to the courts to interpret how the law applies rather than the doctor.50/50 chance of surviving50/50 chance of live birth at any stage after viability through vaginal or c-section.Chance of dying during the abortion, let's say 1 (more than the average of 0.6) in 100,000.Complication found during the routine mid-term ultrasound done between 18 and 20 weeks - let's say 19 weeks.PS: Thanks for your continued time.PPS: I keep hitting Dispute rather than Clarify only because Clarify doesn't let you control which side your argument is tagged with.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

That is not why people believe that it is wrong, it is the "potential" of what the baby 'might' be able to do(e.g. live, grow, have their own babies etc..) that is causing a dispute amongst people because of things such as abortion.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

Duh. What's your point?
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

I'm giving generalized perspective on why it WOULD have rights. That's the point I was getting across.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

Your is reason is flawed....There's no way to guess a probable outcome of the fetus's future capabilities...
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

You misunderstood. People are disputing because the baby CAN grow into somebody that is significant. Keyword is CAN, it dose not mean it will, and that is why you might come across someone opposed to abortion say "give life a chance" or something along those lines.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

I've already addressed that. I will not repeat myself.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

So if a born person cannot do anything, they should be killed?
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

So if a born person cannot do anything, they should be killed?Short answer? Yes. A person who truly cannot do anything is brain dead, and we already pull the plug on these.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

I think with "anything" he is implying things such as cognate ability level(critical thinking and reasoning skills.)
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

You are being narrow-minded there. What if it means incapable of doing something because of his/her own capabilities can't be met. the statement was broad, it didn't indicate what kind of inability to do anything. what if the person cant do anything since he's paralyzed (im talking bout the physical aspect), dont you know that even a paralyzed person still has a chance to walk or move that part of his/her body, because our brain is plastic. that means that our brain can be trained to become or do things which we thought are impossible. that's the power of our brain.