azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

In my opinion? Yes, depending on the stage of development.There are no rights prior to the development of a functional nervous system; before this the fetus is unable to perceive anything whatsoever; 'violating' any 'rights' that a 1st trimester fetus might be said to have is akin to flashing a blind person.Early to midway through the second trimester, the nervous system develops sufficiently for nerves to begin firing, allowing for the most rudimentary forms of perception to take place; while nothing we could call thought is possible at this stage, it is theoretically possible for the fetus to experience such things as pain and fear (at a very basic level) at this stage. It's really only at this stage that any meaningful discussion regarding right can begin to take place; from this stage onward, I personally see them has having rights on par with animals.As far as full human rights? My stance here is pretty controversial; I wouldn't consider a baby to have the same rights as an adult or anywhere even remotely close until at the very least personality and self awareness develop; these typically arise during the second year of life, hence the reason for the controversy- my 'system' wouldn't differentiate between a 3rd trimester fetus and a one month old baby in terms of their rights, which I would assign at the 'animal' level. I don't believe it is acceptable to kill an animal because it is an inconvenience, but when the animal represents a threat to somebody's life it becomes acceptable to do so. How does this translate into the abortion dialogue? From fertilization through the end of the first trimester, acceptable under any circumstances. From second trimester through birth, acceptable when there is a serious threat to the mothers life that can best be removed via abortion. This model might also appear to support early infanticide, but remember the qualifiers; I'm not aware of many situations where a baby under the age of 2 can represent a threat to someones life.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

When do you believe that life begins? .
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Life begins at fertilization, biologically speaking. It's true that the gametes themselves are alive, but they're part of the parents tissues; at fertilization a biologically alive, distinct life form exists.I simply don't believe that 'life' alone implies rights, as I've detailed.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Fair enough. I am prolife, but I respect your belief. .
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

Life begins in your testicles, so if he is implying that 'rights begin at life' the sperm cells in your testicles have rights. But that's only if he is giving the 'rights begin at life' notion.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

When you develop sperm in your testicles at whatever age puberty kicks in
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

I believe a fetus should have rights, but they should not outweigh the health of the mother's rights. Also, the father should have rights...but they should not outweigh the mother's rights. I think the fetus should be protected to some degree and the father should be protected to some degree. I am not sure what the "degree" should be.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

Thank you for answering. I oppose abortion unless the mother's life is in danger or the baby will die anyway because abortion is really violent. The baby has his or her body torn to pieces in the surgical abortion. This dispute is done with respect, so please do not get mad.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Depends.... was it conceived yesterday? Yeah? then no.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Fair enough. When does it have rights? .
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

I don't know the answer to that. Somewhere in the middle.... I'm not smart enough to know exactly when and I don't think anyone is so if you want an abortion, it should be done ASAP.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Fair enough. I agree that late term abortion is not the answer because it can survive, but I am prolife. I guess it depends on how you look at it.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Jesus Christ! Okay... so now you're pro-life.... What about the Morning After Pill? Is that okay?
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

I have no problem with the morning after pill. It prevents a pregnancy. :)
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Yes. They are babies that haven't been born yet. What if your parents aborted you instead of loving, nurturing, and caring for you. The baby feels pain at 8 weeks. What kind of sick, demented people are abortionists that vacuum arms and legs off the human body, or inject a saline solution into the mother, and the baby comes out burnt and black? This is barbaric and nothing short of the work of the devil.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

If everyone thinks that they have freedom, freedom is not free. There are consequences for all behavior. The consequences of abortion are 1/7th of our population dead, and many people going to Hell for killing individuals that feel, have heartbeats, and move. People that can kill have no conscience-- the same as a murderer.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

What does a fetus eventually become? A baby, right? A human being. because of the selfishness of our society, there are many unwanted pregnancies. Better solution: either wrap it up or abstain. don't kill a baby over your bad decision.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Yes because that's how we all were before we even become what we would call "babies". If all fetuses were killed because we found them worthless and not really of any worth, we all wouldn't exist. So if we are over here fighting for our rights as human individuals, I think it should be the same way for fetuses because that's what we all started as.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Yes. It is a baby and their nude and indecent photos should not be allowed to be used for your arguments.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

It is not a baby it is a fetus. It does have legal rights. The parents should have say in what they want to do with the fetus because it has the inability to think and reason, and its functions while in the womb are instinct-like biological mechanisms.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Yes it is a baby. The baby is the same before birth as it is after.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

It is a fetus(no AKAs.) Notice people say "aww you are HAVING a baby!" not "you have a baby!" because it is not yet a baby.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Yes the fetus is a baby. We are the same before birth as after birth. It is wrong to deny the right of the unborn child to live. Abortion kills babies. FACT.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

So why call it a fetus? Your opinion is also subjective because that human baby is going to be the reason for destruction of more nature(FACT), which is wrong. Plus I wish my mom had an abortion if I could have chose that I would have but I was a FETUS and did not have any awareness of my situation.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

It is a fact that the baby is the same before birth as it is after birth. The fetus is a baby.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

It can't be the same before birth as it is after birth. Birth is a life changing event. What does your response even mean?
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

The baby has the same dna before birth as it does after birth.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

Wouldn't that make you a baby? You have the same DNA from when you were a baby.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

What it means is that my life began at fertilization. .
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

The legal definition of a person is a human being. It does not say it must be human, as in the adjective. It must be a human being. Saying that a fetus is a human being is like saying that a price of hair about to be cloned is a human being. They are both human, both of them are from a human, produced by a human, made of human cells and DNA. The only difference is a fetus has blood. A fetus is not a human. It is human, but in the early stages, it is not a human being. Would you call a piece of flesh cut from someone's body-- no brain, maybe some rudimentary muscles pumping blood, no active nervous system-- a human being? No. A fetus is not a human being, unless the definition were changed to include "anything that will become a human", in which case sperm and eggs would be humans. Hopefully you all now see the gaping logical holes in anti choice arguments.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

I believe you are actually asking should it, since the answer to this question can be looked up in a law book, or simply googled.The short answer is no.The slightly longer answer is, they are not considered persons, thus are not subject to the rights of people.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

No, I am asking if the fetus does have rights. I feel that the fetus is a person.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Well like I said in the beginning, if you want an actual answer to this question, then the answer can be googled, and the answer is no it does not have rights. That's like asking is the sky blue.I'll repeat since I don't think you quite got it, this questions seems like you're asking should the sky be blue hence you want to debater something, and want to see other view points on this idea, as opposed to a solid undebateable answer.Overall, it does not matter what you feel, if the question is "does the fetus have rights" the answer is no, simple and clean.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

I believe that the fetus has rights. It is troubling when one person dehumanizes another person. The fetus is a human being, and I believe that abortion kills that human being. Most abortions take place 56 or more days after fertilization when the baby has a heartbeat and brainwaves.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Then I take you back to the first statement I made, because you said should, this debate needs to be retitled, should instead of does.I also asked the question for that very reason, and you disputed me andtold me no, but then went on to prove how this is in fact a should debate, instead of a does question, by using should answers.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

There is nothing wrong with the way I phrased this debate. I stand by my decision to phrase it this way because the fetus does have rights in my personal belief. Do not tell me what to do. I do not take orders from anyone.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Absolutely. The question is phrased very well, and I answered it in tow. It's just not a debate, sorry to break it to you.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Can ye tell me why ye are prochoice or whatever label ye prefer?
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

I will not tell you that here, because this 'debate' is asking a yes or no question with an objective, researchable answer, that can be and was answered entirely without emotional appeal or opinions.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

So you are unwilling to debate? This debate is about whether the fetus has rights and you are refusing to debate.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Not unwilling...unable, since as I've explained (i believe) four times before, this is not a debate, this is a question. The question to which of course the answer is an irrefutable no. As for the question you asked me specifically, that I did in fact take note of, that was not directly related to the question in the title, and was thus a red herring, and worthy of being disregarded.You don't want to play the logic game with me, you've proven countless times that your logic is faulty, if that even.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

This is a debate site and you are choosing not to debate? Stop wasting my time. If you do not want to debate, you should not be on a debate site.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

do you even bother to read his posts?
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

Why would it? It can't even do anything.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

That statement is utterly false. A fetus can grow, make waste, sap food from the mother, etc. The fetus can do something.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

It is not doing any of those things, those processes are just naturally occurring.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

The fetus doesn't grow? I'm quite positive that the fetus is constantly creating cells so that it develops to fit its genetic code. The fetus doesn't sap nutrients from the mother? I could have sworn that the fetus is connected to the mother by a cord so whatever nutriets she puts in her blood the baby will absorb. Almost every process in the universe qualifies as naturally occuring. That argument is weak. Saying the fetus does none of that because the processes occur naturally seem quite contradictory. If the fetus does absolutely nothing then no natural processes can occur. If the fetus does something then natural processes do occur. It's a natural process for the fetus to grow, sap nutriets, and discard of waste. If you are attempting to relate this to consciousness then sure, but then you still have to admit that the fetus is still doing something. You might as well say chicken embryos do nothing, yet that statement is false since that would mean that chickens couldn't be born. Chicken embryos grow and develops. The cells multiply and are given certain jobs and the chick will continue to develop based off of its genetic code. In conclusion, a fetus is in fact doing something and its processes occur naturally, but it's illogical to say that a fetus isn't doing any of the things I listed simply because its processes occur naturally.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

By that logic, a dead body does things too- It decays, it bloats, and it smells terrible. Sometimes nit-picks are reasonable and make a big difference in a persons point, but this is not such a case. Arguing that it's technically doing something does not refute the actual argument regarding rights, unless you're asserting dead bodies should have rights as well. It is also quite evident from context that he is referring to a certain level of agency in the actions noted. This nit-pick therefore changes nothing doesn't constitute as a dispute to his point for this reason alone.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Well said my good fellow! I was almost about to counter his asinine 'attempt to outsmart' tactic. Which proved to be nothing more than an attempt.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

Then you completely misunderstood the basis of my argument. I wasn't discussing rights in any sense and my argument never glossed over rights. This argument was simply to demonstrate that the fetus does something. My argument stands valid if he said a dead human body does nothing. I'm not sure if you fully understood what I was putting out. Noting self agency is within the scope of my argument, however it is not what the target is.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Ah, so you were just completely off-topic then. Fair enough, carry on. The fact remains that your being technically correct in this case is completely irrelevant to the overall debate, you'll have to forgive me for having mistakenly given you the benefit of the doubt.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

Completely off topic? No. If you wish to categorize my argument, which was addressing my previous rebuttal that the fetus does something, as "off topic" be my guest. I have already presented my case. I did sway from the oroginal topic. I will admit that primarily because I didn't agree with a portion of a post.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Yes, completely off-topic. The debate here is 'Does the fetus have rights?' The post you responded to asserted that the fetus doesn't have rights because 'it doesn't do anything.' You pointed out that it does 'do something' as a dispute to this argument; this is more than just saying he is wrong, this amounts to disputing his position on whether or not fetus' have rights because they do in fact do something, according to you. Your dispute doesn't hold water on those grounds though, because we certainly aren't granting rights to dead bodies and compost heaps, which both also do things.Your argument constitutes a nit-pick of the posters statement, but does not constitute a dispute to his position at all, and is completely off-topic.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

You pointed out that it does 'do something' as a dispute to this argument; this is more than just saying he is wrong, this amounts to disputing his position on whether or not fetus' have rights because they do in fact do something, according to you.No, and it seems you are trying to force a category upon my stance. I merely disagreed with a portion of the argument he presented since he said the fetus does nothing. All I needed to prove was that the fetus does something. Completely off topic would be me talking about how trains work or how crane operates. I was talking about fetuses. This whole debate is about fetus. i took no stance on the rights of the fetus because that's not what I disagreed with and had no intention to even participate in that portion of the debate. Your argument constitutes a nit-pick of the posters statement, but does not constitute a dispute to his position at all, and is completely off-topic.Key word "Nit-pick". I have already stated this and yet you still seem to fail at realizing the purpose of my response. Then you have the audacity to even claim that my response is "completely" off topic. It's not within the scope of right, but most certain on topic of fetuses. I didn't assert anything about rights nor do i wish to do so since I don't want to participate in this debate. i merely disagreed with a portion of an argument and apparently that's a crime. Either that or you have debate OCD. I'm done posting on this debate.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

It is not doing any of those things, those processes are just naturally occurring. Wrong. Scientifically speaking, the fetus is alive and growing from the moment of fertilization.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

In addition, they cannot make decisions. They do it for natural biological development purposes.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

So if a born person cannot make decisions, it is okay to kill them?
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

If you mean a person with a non-functional mental disability(I mean IQ of 0) it would not hurt to kill them because they were mentally lost in the first place. At no point in there life will they ever even recognize that they have rights. What would a non-functional retarded person contribute to the world? Name one that has(were talking IQ = 0.) The fetus strictly relies on its mother for survival (exclude the final stage.) It is incomplete without the source. And the way you use "kill" is as if the fetus is aware of its own life(early stages.) Its brain is not even developed to think at those stages.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

If you means a person with a non-functional mental disability (I mean an IQ of 0), it would not hurt to kill them. How very Hitleresque of you. Hitler went after the disabled before he killed the Jews. Mentally disabled people have the same right to live as normal people. It is awefully ableist to say that disabled people should be killed. One does not have to be abled to have rights.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

Point of fact: He is not referring to 'disabled' people. IQ 0 is not a disability, it is literally a lack of activity and potential whatsoever. IQ 0 is not severely mentally handicapped; it is being a vegetable, or brain dead. We already pull the plug on cases like these.If you're going to go Godwin's Law, at least make it applicable- your usage here isn't merely twisting his words, it's discarding them and substituting your own.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Godwin's Law is not a fallacy. It is not a fallacy to point out the cultural paralells of abortion to Nazi Germany. Just as Hitler did not think that the Jews were human, proaborts do not think that unborn children are human. I am not twisting his words, but pointing out what I believe to be the implications of his statements.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

I never said it was a fallacy- I merely pointed out that it was a completely inappropriate comparison.The Nazis put mentally retarded individuals to death. This is considered heinous by modern standards.'IQ-0' and 'no mental function' do not describe the mentally retarded. They describe the brain-dead. They describe the vegetables. Pulling the plug on these is not considered a crime by modern standards, but is in fact rather commonplace.You're not twisting his words at all, that much is true- you're ignoring his words and substituting your own. He writes 'IQ 0' (brain dead) and you substitute 'IQ 50' (mentally handicapped). He writes 'no mental function' and you substitute 'reduced mental function.'Your comparison to the practices of Nazi Germany is entirely unfounded in this case. There is really no reasonable way I'm aware of to interpret his statements so as to make the comparison valid; he's pretty much spelled out exactly what he's referring to. I'm not sure why you're not getting it.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Fair enough on the 0 thing, but I still think it is wrong to kill babies.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Oh, we're in agreement there. I also think it's wrong to kill babies. I also think it's wrong to kill fetuses once they're past 12 weeks gestation or so, excepting cases where the mothers life is in jeopardy, it's her best bet, and better options are off the table. I'm pretty sure you're in agreement with me there, and that we'd both prefer the fetus' life be saved if possible. I think it's really just those first 12 weeks where we disagree.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Fair enough. Why 12 weeks? .
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

12 weeks marks the earliest observed point where a fetus has had sufficient development of the central and peripheral nervous systems to have the theoretical capacity to experience any kind of sensation whatsoever- although no actual response to stimulus has been recorded quite this early yet, I'm aware that the cases we've observed are a very small sample, and prefer to err on the side of caution so to speak; theoretical capacity is a better cutoff in my mind than demonstrated capacity. I touched on it in another debate, but while a 2nd trimester fetus certainly doesn't have any of the qualities that make up a person, it still has something akin to the basic low-level brain function that very simple animals have at this stage- I consider it to have the same rights as an animal at this point, and as such am opposed to killing it for convenience. Life and death is another matter entirely, and a scenario where I don't balk at putting animals down either.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

I thought it was 8 weeks. I learn something new every day.